To wonder why the conservatives won't just tax people more ??

[stopfuckingshoutingatme]

Am I missing something here ?

Clearly there is a scarcity of money - and certain areas are rightly ring fenced .

But don't tell me that most working families can't afford an average of £50 a month - this would exclude people on low income , and for some families it £10 and for some £200 -

The UK is full of families and individuals with disposable income - a minor tax increase for 40% of the working population could raise £11bn

So why won't they do it ??? Baffles me - I would personally rather pay more tax and know that the vulnerable are cared for

I would personally rather pay more tax and know that the vulnerable are cared for
Well, ditto. It's why I don't vote Conservative, even though there are things I do agree with them about....

The Conservatives pledge tax cuts. Its one of their manifesto promises.

Although people on here will claim otherwise, it isn't unreasonable to not want to pay more tax.

Because we think you shouldn't be punished for having done well in life.

I pay some taxes to subside people. Fine. But why should I pay more and more?

Under the conservatives high taxpayers are paying more than ever before.

Why should I pay more to subsidize others?

I think it is something to do with people being free to spend their disposable income as they see fit, thereby increasing the flow of money into the economy, rather than government taking it and spending it for you.

Its because they and their clasd make money personally from being in power, so their objective is to make the tax take as low as possible for the next government (labour) so that labour are forced to look tax aggressive in order to do the basics.

At this point it's a game to fuck things up for the next guys, ideally with a full term, but if not, before the next election.

Because we pay enough already! And no we can't afford another £50- £200 a month!

I'd introduce a land tax. Kill off the btl people and tax the people with lots of unearned income.

I'd tax people on profits of their main home.

Surely if money is so tight that they considered cutting disabled benefits - that £50 a month for the good of society is not all that bad ?? It's a phone bill !
It will hardly destabilise

Anyway - I got my answers . Thanks

Conservatives believe in less intervention in the economy (society too in theory). People and businesses should be free to make their own choices. Government should only get involved in providing the bare minimum, the services which benefit society but which do not flow from a truly market economy (defence etc.). So taking money away from people and having the govt. choose how it is spent is a distortion of the market economy.

But these people are already paying a lot of tax!

I wouldn't want to pay any more tax.

There is already the money in the system, but they waste a lot on boomers as It wins votes.

All benefits are capped for 4 years, but not the pension with its triple lock.

It's not what you put in (Taxes)

It's what you get out (Quality and availability of effective services)

You can through as much money at a problem as you like but if the organisations are inefficient and wasteful they will just suck up that additional money without improving services and will still require more money.

There are plenty of real efficiencies that could be made without the need to raise taxes. For instance, renegotiate the PFI desks that starves the NHS of cash, start recouping the full cost of care he provide to foreign nationals, end the situation where local authorities find it cheaper to refuse to provide dicing care to someone who cannot leave hospital until they do, end the very expensive system of relying on nursing employment agencies to provide core health professionals, stop over-heating hospitals during warm weather and then leaving the windows open to release the suffocating heat (as I saw at the one I visited yesterday).

Why is it fair that people who work extremely hard be penalised further for it, and fund those who do not contribute to society financially?
To say it would not affect the already stretched middle class, who are those hit hardest by this is a very naive statement.

Why not further tax those who would not Notice if they contributed thousands more in tax, ie the super rich? Why not ask those in long term unemplyment to make a Contribution to society in return for their benefits.?

Oset - my argument comes from affordability - so you can't afford £50 - understand - but would £25 ,£10 hurt ?

I sound incredible naive but this disabled benefits issue truly scared me - feels like we are in a different place now.
anyway I am a labour voter

Put another way - who is going to pay for all the extra policing and security post Brussels ? It won't come cheap

Or is it it more inortant that people go shopping , buy clothes and a fucking Costa coffee to boost the economy ??

Blimey Simple, you're brave!

I agree with Springing

Holdon,
I take it from your comments then you dont own a property!!!

If you going to troll pie face at least make it more suttle.

But who will decide how much a family can afford? Most will only say the minimum if its left to them so that wouldn't be fair

Subtle, stupid phone!

They do it by stealth, indirect taxation like ipt hoping you won't notice! And the extra CHarge On our council tax bill for social care, these rises are regressive and affect lower earners much more.

Why should I pay more when people CHOOSE not to work, they are the ones draining the economy because benefits are handed to them on a plate! Make them get up and go out to work, rather than pay them to sit at home!

What about charging health tourists? That would generate a hell of a lot and would help the NHS immensely.

There are loads of other ways than to tax more.

For those who say stupid things like 'why should I pay more to subsidise others' think of it like this. If you don't help the poorest and vulnerable, they can't stay healthy enough during the down times to work for next to nothing in the upturns. If you don't subsidise housing, for those on wages too low to buy a property, in recessions, homelessness would be in the millions, house prices would have to lower, and businesses would struggle. Crime would rise, so defending against crime would increase, poverty increases costs for the country as a whole. If you have people poor and you don't subsidise education, then you have a potential workforce who is disabled with poor skills and poor transferability.

Now all this works quite well if you don't care if people die, labour needed is unskilled lumpen and disposable, which is the 16th century understanding of Britain that the private schools continue wit.

Think of it like this. You can have a football team with 10 starving underpaid players with poor kit, who can't afford to train and are ill all the time, and one David Beckham if you like, but a sensible team will pay for everyone to eat, have a good background life, cover training and development costs and pay for kit (or enough money to the player to have the kit) and will negotiate collective sponsorship etc.

The teams with one David Beckham and everyone else incapable won't do very well against teams where collective aspects are taken care of.

With a pyramid, you stand as tall as the group can make you, if you stepon people's faces you only stand a few inches taller.