to think that we should pay more in tax?!

[MenMust]

I am wondering whether tax rates should go up rather than public services being cut. When I first started working tax rates were around 33% and now they are down to 20% and services are being cut. More tax should be raised from large companies and from the rich but I also think that if we want to keep our services including the NHS then we all maybe need to pay more in tax. any views on this?

Dolly
I agree with your point about low paying companies. Why should I pay more taxes so Sports Direct, care agencies and others can pay their staff the lowest possible wages that then have to be topped up by benefits so people can afford to live.
My taxes are helping fund Mike Ashley's lifestyle... Perhaps he could be made to pay his staff more and that would free up some cash from the benefits bill to be used in the NHS.

Yes a little, but not for the amount of tax we pay. I'm saying we all pay enough at around 40% that should fully be covering all the above and more, so no I don't think tax should be higher.

My employees all pay higher tax also, majority have no children or pay private school also. We include private healthcare for all employees. So the average employee is paying around £35,000 per year in tax. I think that fully covers what infrastructure, etc that they use and benefit from. I don't think they should have to pay higher.
Dh and I pay an incredible amount of tax, again I think that full covers any gain we have received and fully covers gain for many around us

People don't need tax increased, they need to have those not paying any start paying, and those who use resources not waste them. We have people using the NHS for a cold, people who use schools but can't be bothered to help children with learning at home etc. That is a waste of money and resources. Councils who paint the same white lines 100x but take 5 years to fill a pot hole

I think DH and I pay more than enough tax for the pretty shoddy services we actually use. I don't want to pay more and I favour low tax/small state parties.

There is nothing to stop the OP from paying more tax if she wishes. HMRC won't mind - fill your boots OP.

For every £10k invoice I submit, the govt gets £4738, so effectively over 47% tax (£2k VAT, £2,300 tax, £437 NI) assuming I work all year, so 12 invoices, no holiday pay, no sick pay, and no pension contributions.
That is a positive contribution - I haven't been to a GP in 5 or more years, my children are in fee-paying schools. That is earned by myself, no staff.

The problem is that when high earners receive nothing back from the system (I get no child benefit, for example) they cease to worry about the people that are gaining from the system (those that get back more than they put in). They certainly don't think they should be paying more in.

I am someone who cares about society, I believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. However, I feel that far too many are no longer interested in the first part of that maxim, whilst perfectly happy to go along with the second.

But you don't pay tax just for the services you use.

Agree with any - it's all well and good to talk about society as a whole benefitting, but when you can't get a GP appointment and the local NHS hospital doesn't give a damn about your pregnancy complications because "we're too busy" and so you have to go private anyway, it's quite difficult to think that the solution is ever more tax. Same with council tax - it goes up by an eye-watering amount every year but services are cut. (Don't get me started on my relative with Alzheimers dicharged without a care package as a "bed blocker" despite not knowing her name, address or what day of the week it was.)

Any tax increase should be accompanied by serious reform. There is so much poor management and waste, and the pension system is unsustainable.

No, that's right, I don't.
But I am getting fed-up of paying tax to subsidise businesses to pay their staff below subsistence levels, knowing it will be topped up from the benefits system, to 'employ' people without set hours, so they cannot guarantee paying their rent or bills without state assistance, to use people that are out of work as free labour (and thus undercutting those people that are in zero hour jobs). We are funding business to exploit people. My labour and my contribution is being used in that way. It is wrong, and I don't see why I should give a greater percentage to fund that.

We would happily pay a bit more. We are in the 40% bracket.

Exactly. Why should we pay more tax when what is in use is being used unfairly

I would rather ( and do), just make a contribution directly to a few individual charitys or people that I know don't receive it. For example a friend needed respite care and help at home for her disabled child. Like hell did anyone help them, after 3 years we offered to assist with the private cost of providing this. The government woudnt give them any help from the taxes everyone pays.
In comparison the man down the road pretends he has a back problem so can't work, gets loads of benefits, and spends his free time horse riding, climbing onto his roof to add Xmas decorations etc. He shouldn't be receiving a penny but he does

Oh I knew this would descend into benefits, bashing and anecdote.

Go read some serious economics folks, wealth doesn't trickle down, it trickles up.

Celtic - there is nothing stopping you! Have you ever done it?

It's not benefit bashing. It's saying people would be willing to increase taxes if they felt they were actually being used properly. Those who need benefits are often those who actually don't receive them as not 'eligible'. That is wrong, those who need them should get them, those who need healthcare should get it. The issue is they can't as many exploits the system. Until the system is fixed increasing taxes doesn't help

No.

My effective tax rate is high enough has it is.

Need to clamp down on those that don't actually pay what they are meant to i.e. large companies, individuals using aggressive tax planning, small business where all personal expenditure goes through the business...

smallfox
How is it benefit bashing to say that companies should pay their staff more so the state doesn't need to top up their income to the same extent. How is it benefits bashing to say that people who receive benefits when they are not entitled are taking money away from people who genuinely need it. Just the same as people who fiddle taxes aren't getting one over on "The Man" they are failing to fund their share of schools and the NHS.

Quote: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

High earners are not mugs who exist to pay ever higher taxes, progressive or otherwise.

Ant and Chaz, Its not benefits bashing to say about companies paying tax properly, or paying properly.

But I knew that someone would arrive with a story about XYZ gets benefits and they are cheating, when benefit fraud is a tiny fraction of expenditure even at the highest estimates.

BTW if we calculate the net rate of taxation including indirect taxes, the poorest pay a higher % of their income than the richest.

Just a thought.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"

Higher rate tax payers rely on the society they live in in order to be able to earn, they should contribute accordingly.

Also the problem with quoting Thatcher is that you have to remember that taxes were higher during her reign than they are now.

The irony.

I think I already pay enough. I'll pay more when big businesses do and those aristocrats with family trusts that avoid death duties.

Smallfox, I am not just quoting Thatcher, as you put it.

It is the truth, however unpalatable it is to you.

You used quotation marks and it was Thatcher who said it, therefore quoting.

I'm not advocating socialism, I'm advocating a mixed economy.

The most successful societies, and economies are those in which inequality is low. It is the truth, however unpalatable it is to you.

An economist once said that there are four kinds of money:

Your money you spend on yourself;
Your money you spend on other people;
Other people's money you spend on yourself;
Other people's money spent on other people.

And the use of that money gets less and less efficient as you go down the list.

So no thank you.

smallfox: "The most successful societies, and economies are those in which inequality is low"

Where we disagree is how to achieve this. Your "solution" merely incentivises high earners to reduce their efforts or leave the country or do more tax planning. The rich are mobile, the poor much less so.

In a sense, you are right - it is an equal society if there is less wealth all round, which seems to be what you will end up with but hey ho.

"Your "solution" merely incentivises high earners to reduce their efforts or leave the country or do more tax planning. The rich are mobile, the poor much less so."

Take away the ability to avoid tax, I advocate that too.

Investment in health, education and infrastructure benefits everyone, and the size of the pie gets bigger. At the moment we just have the richest claiming a larger and larger slice of the pie, far more than deserved, to the detriment of everyone else and themselves in the long run.

Ooooh...
I think that the "personal allowance" is set far too high.
Too many people pay nothing, and therefore have no clue about what it is like to pay tax!
If a person is on say minimum wage, then offered some extra work - this might push them over the threshold, suddenly they have to pay tax on the additional income, possibly pay for childcare too and it's really not worth it...
Probably it should be zero... but allow "tax credits" maybe to low earners, so the net effect on VERY low incomes may be zero. Yes you suddenly pay tax on earnings, but get tax credits. At least you appreciate the system.