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

eyebrowse people get paid what their skills are worth, supply and demand and all that. To say they only get to 45% tax rate earnings becuase other people allow them to seems just a bit simplistic. Though I suppose your argument is kind of true in relation to celebs - if everyone goes off e.g. Adele her earnings will drop substantially.

100% agree Barmaid101, perhaps add another way to fund the NHS; LEAVE THE EU

Difficult one.

Morally, YANBU. Those of us with enough should help those without enough as much as is needed. I suppose the Christian/ethical amount would be until everyone had an equal amount. If we lived in a paradicic utopia that might work.

But we don't. We are human and humans are essentially selfish. I am a higher rate tax payer (only just but I am) and I could afford to pay more tax. There's nothing to stop me donating that extra money directly to those I'd like it to benefit. But I don't. I like luxuries and I like travelling. I don't really make any apologies for that, I think most people are the same.

I think it would be a good thing if I was forced to pay more tax. But I would hate to do so and wouldn't do it voluntarily.

They are taxing people more. We are about to pay more (much more) on BTL property we own as a result of recent tax chsnges .

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

So instead punish disabled people for not being able bodied?

Some Conservative politician (possibly Michael Howard) during the Labour Government:

"It's been run like Old MacDonald's farm, with a tax tax here, and a a tax tax there! Income tax, stealth tax, not forgetting council tax..."

The reason I wouldn't want to pay more tax is because the Government often uses it so irresponsibly: war in Iraq, MP's second homes (give them one hall of residence!), HS2, etc.

So that's the answer is it? Tax those that have a job and career more and more and more. How about cracking down on people who are self employed and don't declare their rightful earnings? Or how about benefits are cut?

I think that the problem is how the taxes are used. Those who pay the higher tax rate are not necessarily well off ie one tax payer in the family over the threshold, or a family living in an expensive area of the country. When those people see their taxes being used for benefits for some which makes them better off than many who work ( and who pay lower rate tax) you can understand why there is an objection to pay additional tax. There is one thing supporting the vulnerable, but when the benefits go to people who then have a standard of living which approaches those in work without working then it does not seem right

Mumsywumsywoo, which benefits specifically would you cut?

twelly, if I understand correctly you're fine with supporting the vulnerable, as long as their standard of living stays well below that of lower rate taxpayers? God, I hope I never lose my health or ability to work in this country...

Thing is, you may think oh, my taxes are going on benefits but the truth is that the recipients of social security unemployment benefits have, with a rate that may as well be without exception, worked and paid into a collective National Insurance scheme that guarantees them a very low income (£74 a week) if they need it.

I do think taxes should be higher and that it was stupid to take so many people out of paying tax at all. Mind you, I suppose it helps back up the government's claims that richer people are paying the highest share of tax ever - of course they are when you've dramatically shrunk the potential tax paying pool and you can even slash their taxes too and still say they pay more. Original tax income £100 with £45 coming from richest, new tax income £50 with £30 paid by richest etc. *not actual figures :)

the problem is, the perception is that "our taxes go to benefits claimants".

I believe something like 10% of our taxes actually goes towards benefits (for people in age of working), and that would include the disabled and unemployed people who've paid into the system for years.

But reading posts on these thread, you'd think the number was much, much higher. That 10% is all people focus on.

Until recently I was a high rate tax payer as is my dh. I don't think people should be paying more tax. There is currently so much inefficiency in the system which costs us all so much money and too many loopholes for large corporations to avoid paying their share legally. These things need to be tackled first and foremost. It's wrong that we are continually paying for wastage in the system and being asked to pay more and more whilst the NHS and our school etc are run in such an inefficient and wasteful ways. Privately owned companies would never be able to run the way that publicly funded organisations do, because they would go out of business. Obviously you can't expect something like the NHS to be profitable but to be constantly running at a deficit, whilst there is ridiculous waste is wrong. You can't plug those gaps solely by taxing us more.

I also firmly believe it's not right for someone to lose half of what they earn. That's not a system which is right or fair.

I can hear the inefficiencies argument, and I'm sure there's some truth to it in some cases.

But it's an argument that's also abused. For example, the government asked local councils to make millions in savings by reorganising and becoming more efficient, without cutting frontline services. I live in Oxfordshire which is conservative, and the council tried and tried, but there were no more "efficiency" savings to be made, and what do you know, we're losing all our children's centres as well as a bunch of other services protecting vulnerable people. In this case, the "inefficiencies" argument was just an ideological myth. As pointed out by our conservative councillors, who are spitting mad at Cameron for this.

The Tories have taxed us to the hilt. To steal about half of what we earn, to charge us 12 - 15% stamp duty when we move, to confiscated 40% of our assets at death - never mind all the other indirect taxes !! We are a very very high tax nation now and the Tories are doing just about nothing to stop it. It's appalling.

The irony is if they actually cut taxes for the better off they would raise more revenue and the less fortunate would have more money.

I pay far far far too much tax. No one ever thanks you for it either. I am into my second hour of work on a Saturday. As the state steals at least half and then a huge lot more in indirect taxes you wonder why you should bother as a single mother. Perhaps I should just go on benefits.

Partly though, the inefficiencies are so ingrained it's almost impossible to stop them. For example, the NHS still looks at things from a departmental budget saving point of view. Which then causes issues of a product x costs the department more but saves the hospital vast amounts will struggle to be authorised. There is also a large view of cheapest = savings. That's not always the case. If current product costs £25, new product £20 but you need 2 of new to do old's job the new has actually just cost you an extra £15.

Reducing wastage doesn't have to mean cutting services but I do think we all have to take responsibility for reducing wastage too. Like the not turning up to doctors appointments, not getting prescriptions you don't actually need. Using these resources wisely and as if it was your own money you were spending (which you are!) then the system would work more efficiently and more cost effectively.

I work hard to provide a good standard of living for my children. I want them to have opportunities and life choices, to be able to go to University if they want. I get up at silly o'clock & hit the commuting trail so they can enjoy the nice things in life.

So, I accept paying tax as part of the social contract, but I am not keen to pay more, as it means less for me and my children. I don't understand people who have large families (3+ children) then put their hand out to the taxpayer. I only had 2 children so I could invest in giving them a good lifestyle. I feel I play plenty of tax on my earnings and it is not unreasonable that I should want a family holiday to recover from working. I seems like the OP thinks workers should be happy to forgo every luxury to support strangers, but that is both unfair and unrealistic. I increased my hours to full time to benefit my family, not other peoples.

Also, it's worth remembering that we need people to have plenty if cash left after tax to spend.

Without that spending the private sector cannot grow and a healthy economy has to balance private and public industries.

The mention if meals out as a negative ignores the fact that restaurants create jobs and wealth. And happiness and fun and culture (all worth something ). Money spent in restaurants is not tax money wasted!

By that virtue, you could say none of us should spend money on anything but absolute essentials and the rest go to the state.

I am very left-wing. However, the 'lazy benefit claimant' thing is not 100% a myth. I am from an area where generations of families have been on the dole, where young girls get pregnant as a career-option, and where you have whole estates of people not working. I am not saying we should stop their benefits, but they do exist! It is not just tabloid hysteria!

Jeremy the " generations of families on the dole" has been shown to be a myth.

By who the left wing press. Many things are apparently a myth yet people know, have seen or experienced working with these myths

Work in certain areas you will see this. It's depressing that people have such low expectations and I do not think it leads to a fulfilling life it's becomes the norm and then accepted that's life it's a sad situation and to deny it is to ignore these people how does that help them

This thread has convinced me that whatever legislation this government bring in they're almost certain to be reelected

How depressing.

Because we pay enough as it is!! Child benefit taken away, paltry 1% public sector "payrises" for the past 6 years, hammering our pensions and conditions, cost of living increasing and NO help with anything. School is a prime example. Some families quite rightly get free travel, school meals and don't have to pay for trips etc but we are shelling out top up fees for the "free" 15 hours childcare for our DS at nursery, upwards of £300 per term for the school bus for 1 DD, more for school trips to subsidise everyone else etc etc. Our council tax has gone up 13% this year and is now over £200 per month, as well as stupidly high mortgage to live in a crap area in the South East. The amount we pay in income tax is huge and we have nothing left at the end of the month. That's why!

However, the 'lazy benefit claimant' thing is not 100% a myth. I am from an area where generations of families have been on the dole, where young girls get pregnant as a career-option, and where you have whole estates of people not working

I am willing to believe that this happens - not in the numbers the press would have us believe - but that it happens. But I don't believe that it happens quite so much in areas where jobs are plentiful and young people are able to see a way forward for their futures. Taking money away from people who don't have much anyway is hardly incentive to work, in my opinion. But it is a way of ensuring that petty crime rates increase in already crappy areas where jobs are hard to come by and a higher than average number of people rely on benefits in some form or another.

There is a desperate need to ensure that all young people are able to see a future in work - that they have the qualifications necessary to achieve even the most simple of dreams but most importantly, it is essential that 40 hours a week of hard work in any job is rewarded with the ability to pay for the basics in life and support a family. Currently, it doesn't , does it? And currently, children growing up in areas where local industries have disappeared, where row after row of housing is empty or derelict and who know that they don't have what it takes to go to university are just left with, well, not much at all.

I teach at a good school in a very deprived area. We have a highly academic 6th form with a good record of students getting into university. I find the attitudes of our 6th formers appalling - the way they look down on those who left to do an apprenticeship or who went to do something more vocational at college is truly upsetting. We can't all be rocket scientists - we need a mix of people in society to take on a mix of jobs and do them well. We shouldn't be ashamed of not being academic or professional or high earning. Take the school as an example - we couldn't function without high quality cleaning services or kitchen staff or efficient, well -organised administrative staff. None of those jobs need degrees or pay very much - but they are absolutely an essential part of what we do to support our young people.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December 2013 testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

Coincidentally these 15000 families all live on the same estate next to hardworking mumsnetting taxpayers.