to wonder where this idea has come from, that no one pays enuogh tax to cover the services they use?

[StealthPolarBear]

Where do these people think the money actually comes from?

there was an interesting article in the Economist a few months back that looked at what middle and high income people in the UK get from their taxes. IIRC, it argued that 'poor' people get money (or equivalent, in the form of benefits) while 'rich' people get invisible goods and services, in the form of (I think, getting a little hazy here) railways, academic research Inc in healthcare, possibly motorways, etc. Thus the monetary value that poor people get is much clearer than that of rich people.

I was probably a net contributor pre DC until the point that I was hospitalised on high dependency for three weeks with a fractured spine (stupid horse). I think that probably cost a fair bit more than I had contributed in tax up until that point (was only 25 when it happened). Then I was on ML and am again.

Now on balance we are probably net contributors as we don't receive tax credits and DS goes to private school. But we probably have a much higher standard of living that most net beneficiaries so I'd rather be me than them tbh.

...neither of them want nuclear weapons or to fund racist nutjobs (most people in the army)...

Seriously? Most people in the army are 'racist nutjobs' ?

That's a fucking horrible thing to say.

There is a lot of ignorance coming out here. I am shocked at the comment about "most people" in the army being racist nutjobs. What the hell is that about? Have you ever met a British soldier? Have you ever seen first hand what they and their families go through when they are posted to a war zone?

And WibbyBibble (great name in light of your post) I acknowledged that I am lucky to have a well-paid job but luck (being in the right place at the right time) is only part of it. I worked in a physical unglamorous job to support myself through five years of higher education and still had only a few pounds a week to live on once my bills were paid, despite my efforts. And since entering the world of work I have worked long days (often 12+ hours), usually 6 or 7 days a week. I could have chosen an easier job with 9 to 5 hours and a lower salary but I chose the route I have. Luck is only part of how I ended up where I have. I have made sacrifices to give myself a nice life and earn a good wage. The side effect of that is that I am a substantial net contributor to the pot. I benefit from my hard work but so does the tax pot. Never being able to plan anything in advance is tough. Getting up at 4am to get flight to god knows where when you've worked till midnight the night before is tough. Letting down loved ones who plan to see you at the weekend because you need to work is tough. Cancelling a holiday when you badly need a rest because you have worked 7 days a week or the last month and are communicating with your husband by post it note because you never see him awake is tough. But I acknowledge how lucky I am overall. I come from a working class background and was the first in my family to go to university. I am proud of what I have achieved.

I am not sure what your point is about cleaners, etc. I am sure they do work hard. I have never suggested otherwise. I certainly worked my arse off when I did some cleaning back in my student days. You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I'd work on that, if I were you.

WibbyBibble

The odd thing is that you are picking on the one item of spending that individual people can't complain about spending taxes on: defence

Whether the money is spent efficiently, what are defence priorities should be, and how much we spend is debatable. Nonetheless, citizens paying tax for collective defence has to be the least questionable of all government spending.

Individuals may or may not like paying so much tax for the NHS or state education since they could argue they can replace much of it privately. But you can only do defence at a collective level since buying your own Eurofighter at a $100mm might be a slight stretch for most people!

I've been ranted at on here that as NHS is free I must never complain and be grateful when I receive very shoddy treatment etc. So who pays for that then?

Some people have the arsiest of attitudes!!!!!

Grendel. I think the equation is the poor people get more benefits, and the rich benefit from not having all their expensive stuff nicked to feed the poor (as surely without a welfare state more people wld be forced into crime just to feed/clothe themselves and their families). We all benefit as a society from ensuring our neighbours aren't in too desperate a state.

neither of them want nuclear weapons or to fund racist nutjobs (most people in the army), so actually no other taxpayer would be paying for me if on benefits, and they're happy to do so

Apart from these very questionable views on soldiers, the sad truth is the defence budget is tiny so even if the UK was to cancel all it's defence, the savings are not huge vs cost cutting in social security, health and education

Going back to that kitty thing, it is indeed like having a drinks kitty and everyone taking out more than their fair share because public borrowing is increasing year on year so between the lot of us, we are not paying enough taxes to cover the services we need. The next generation will be paying for it: predictions are that they will indeed pay more in tax than they ever get back (unlike us who are taking out, on average, more than we put in).

hipHopoPotamous (great name, not sure I spelt it right) - that definitely wasnt the point this particular article was making. They were looking at costing up the things that are paid for from the public purse that are disproportionately used by the wealthy, and the one I definitely remember was railways.
I can see your point, but that wasn't what I had in mind.