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

Spin it how you like, but objectively UK health services offer exceptional value for money when compared with almost all other national healthcare services.

We get better access to healthcare here in France. But as a country, we pay about 30% more for it. We pay around 10% of salary for healthcare alone.

If you want decent services you have to pay for them. If you don't want to pay, you have to accept poorer services. It really is that simple.

Mad I can't contribute financial to society since I became disabled several years ago. I used to work my dh currently works.
Being disabled is very expensive I feel no guilt in claiming dla that is subsidised by tax payers

My taxes are already contributing to these projects. Get rid of them and then we'll decide whether you actually need more tax from me:

HS2 £43 billion (Govt figure) or £80 billon (other economists figure)

Foreign Aid £1.6 billion, most of which never reached those in real need

UK payments to the EU each year. £10.4 billion

So there's £55 billion for you. How much more would you like?

Lanark, i take your point, however,there are plenty of individuals who are able bodied who could easily make a contribution to society in return for their benefits.

Well, because they know Tory voters are selfish assholes, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else" types, as evidenced by the responses on this thread. Awful people.

static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/20/1395326815809/Budget-2013-the-governmen-010.jpg

Barmaid only a very small minority of people choose not to work.

Andnow, not talking about the disabled, in fact think it is a disgrace that the cuts have been made to them, when then are plenty of people not working that could help society and make it a better place, why not!

Barmaid, I'd be interested in seeing figures to back up your claim that the economy is being drained by people having benefits handed to them on a plate.

And on how much health tourism costs the UK.

These threads do get awfully personal very quickly, don't they?

Mistigri nailed it for me - I would rather pay more and have a a better NHS - for everyone .

All this fucking consumerism that we all want to indulge in (holidays ! Waitrose! New sofa ! flatscreen TV!) all damages the environment and creates another pile of shit - but that's more for our lucky lucky grandchildren

I clearly need to move to an off grid yurt don't I

I don't think paying more would guarantee a 'better' NHS.

Agreed there are some pretty fundamental issues that could be done better !

But many people suffer needlessly and die earlier than needed because there is NOT enough money

Who can't get a GP appt for love nor money ? As a classic example

That's due to the population and infrastructure of the country, not just money.

There is going to be some quality virtue signalling on this thread.

When you increase tax for people in the top brackets (IE £50k+) they tend to avoid that tax as they are more likely to have the disposable income and social connections necessary to access the relevant info & best accountants. Chasing unpaid tax costs the government LOADS (sometimes more than they're able to recover) and if you raise tax too much, people don't just avoid some of it, the richest will just leave the country and take ALL the tax they pay with them.

The result of raising taxes for high earners too much is that, in practice, we see less tax, even when being tough on tax evasion / avoidance.

There already is

The problem is that the tax system has evolved over many years, and successive governments have added to it, changed bits, reformed bits, tried to sort out problems as they have come up etc etc - and what we have now is a complete mishmash of a system, where the 'fix' for one problem has caused another one, and the fix for that has caused yet more problems.

What we need is a new system, a properly progressive taxation system, which works fairly for everyone.

For example - I know someone who earns £100k a year, but has a higher marginal tax rate than people who earn £150K a year - so on some portions of their income, they pay more tax than someone earning £50K a year more than them.

No-one is disputing that people should pay tax, and that higher earners should pay more tax than lower earners, but the current system is not fit for purpose.

Unfortunately, I doubt any government would want to take on the huge task of reforming the tax system - it would take years of planning and research, and would be well-nigh impossible to get right first time - so the government who implemented it would end up getting blamed for all the problems the new system threw up.

Easier and safer to carry on trying to patch up the old system, and blame any problems on previous administrations.

I wouldn't mind paying more tax if it went to improve the NHS and make sure the most vulnerable ( the severley disabledand the elderly) are well provided for. Personally I would object to increased taxes paying to top up those who won't work, wish to work minimal hours for no good reason, or choose to have loads of kids they can't afford to pay for.

Love the fact that the subsidisation of others etc has already been used as an argument. Well effectively it's true, but the poor and lower middle effectively subsidise the wealthier. The top level of tax is too low , as is corporation tax. Historically the higher rate of income tax was much higher.

You have a whole school of economists arguing the fact that the friedman/hayek school of thought us incorrect and trickle down economics doesn't work. Therefore cutting the top rate of tax is a subsidy to the wealth attached he expense of service was that the majority of society rely on.

Your "I earned it" argument is erroneous because you earned it because of the society you exist in, so you should contribute your fair share. It's been proved that more equal societies benefit at all levels of society, but the tories and their voters can't see beyond their dreams of avarice..

I'm with you Op.

It's a myth that 'there's not enough money'. The current government cuts are ideological.
The Tories have just announced that they will give £1000 per year to people who save £4000/year link

Who has £4000/year disposable income that they can save? Not low-earners, that's for sure. The Tories are effectively offering 25% bonus for the better off. And then saying they have no make cuts because there's 'not enough money'.

I don't think it is as straightforward as many suggest to identify who could easily afford to pay more. I think it is being largely overlooked that over the last 5 years there has been a tax take transfer in favour of those without dependants - raising personal allowance, decreasing tax credits, limiting child benefit, disability benefit and social care cuts.

Therefore my primary target would not be "families".

Well, because they know Tory voters are selfish assholes, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else" types, as evidenced by the responses on this thread. Awful people.

You clearly look up to them then from your position as a lefty.

Oh to answer some questions above, health tourism at its largest is thought to cost about 100 mil a year. Not great but there are far bigger figures.. for example the charitablend status of private schools is 200 mil per year. Neither of which in fiscal terms is large or really an issue.