How should covid be paid for?

[KenDodd]

I think there should be a small wealth tax (up to 1%) and before anyone starts saying I'm just jealous or whatever, I would be in for thousands of pounds that I don't have and would have to owe. I feel really strongly that we can't just load yet more debt onto the young, they have it much worse than my generation did already (I'm 51).

Yabu - No to wealth tax
Yanbu - Yes to wealth tax

If you vote No, please suggest an alternative that you think would be fairer.

@VinylDetective

I say that as a 40+ year net contributor by the mean-spirited and nasty measurements suggested on here - I really don't mind paying for oth people's pensions and at a decent level

I paid NI for 46 years for my state pension. It’s incredibly depressing to see people wanting to see pensions reduced - it’s £175.20 a week, which doesn’t feel excessive to me. And I too am happy to contribute towards other people’s. I’m a lot happier than I would be to subsidise someone earning six figures via child benefit.

It seems like a huge amount to me. Your costs fall significantly once you retire, get free bus pass, eat less, concessions for the cost of all your hobbies. A job seeker is expected to live on half amount and pay for travel to interviews etc.

My mum really doesn't eat less compared to the 5 years before her retirement.

A job seeker is expected to live on half amount and pay for travel to interviews etc.
JSA is scandalously low but that's not a reason to make pensions shit. At least a Job Seeker should stand a chance of working - many pensioners can't.

It seems like a huge amount to me. Your costs fall significantly once you retire, get free bus pass, eat less, concessions for the cost of all your hobbies

It’s not a huge amount. Your costs stay the same or go up. Your heating bills go up for a start because you’re at home all day, your council tax and water rates stay the same. You certainly don’t eat less nor do you get concessions on most things.

@TazMac

i don't want us to go back there just because rich people don't want to pay for anyone else.

This is the issue though. One section of society are paying in but getting very little back therefore don’t feel part of the welfare state. The architects of the post war welfare state understood that in order for there to be buy in ie the higher earners agreeing to pay in, then everyone had to get something back. This is also how the Scandinavian countries and Germany’s systems work, and also why their citizens are happy to pay higher taxes to fund more state provision.

In the U.K. we lost this connection when we moved to a needs based system in the 1980s. This is why it’s now impossible to raise taxes because the 51 % of the population who are net contributors know that they get very little in return for those contributions and are therefore not going to vote for higher taxes.

That is nonsense - the "51%" get loads back as Vinyl Detective pointed out. Income taxes for higher earners have been much higher in the past. Thatcher and to an extent Major, shifted the burden of taxation away from income taxes for higher paid workers and on to consumption which was highly regressive for lower earners - VAT on heating (which Major famously lied about) etc. It's a good story for higher earners to tell themselves but it's not based on facts - everyone has to pay VAT - a poor person will be paying the same VAT on tampons, older kids clothing and heating as everyone else.

@VinylDetective

It seems like a huge amount to me. Your costs fall significantly once you retire, get free bus pass, eat less, concessions for the cost of all your hobbies

It’s not a huge amount. Your costs stay the same or go up. Your heating bills go up for a start because you’re at home all day, your council tax and water rates stay the same. You certainly don’t eat less nor do you get concessions on most things.

And pensioners are still subject to income tax.

That is nonsense

It isn’t nonsense at all. Have a look at the public support for higher taxes and wider state support in Scandinavia and Germany.

I fear that we are heading more and more towards a US system. Due to the unsustainable system we have now - unfortunately people who support the “well the higher earners will just have to cough up and pay because that’s the right thing to do” line are playing into right wing hands.

@VinylDetective

It seems like a huge amount to me. Your costs fall significantly once you retire, get free bus pass, eat less, concessions for the cost of all your hobbies

It’s not a huge amount. Your costs stay the same or go up. Your heating bills go up for a start because you’re at home all day, your council tax and water rates stay the same. You certainly don’t eat less nor do you get concessions on most things.

Pensioners on low incomes get discount on water bills in my area. Many restaurants such as Hungry Horse etc do pensioner specials which are smaller portions at half the price. There are huge discounts for pensioners for example some football teams a £50 ticket becomes £20 or less.

So there are concessions on luxuries like eating out and football tickets? And one water company means tests a pensioner reduction? You’re not making a compelling argument @bp300.

£175 a week is OK if you have other income streams. I don’t know many people who’d want to try and live on it.

@DynamoKev

But that's not true in Britain where you can actually not pay a penny in NIC for your entire working life, yet still qualify for the same state pension as someone who's paid thousands every year. Theoretically possible - how much does it actually happen?

It doesn't, people who have not paid in enough for the basic state pension (35 years) can claim pension credit, PC is not part of the state pension but a separate income based benefit which has to be applied for and there is criteria that has to be met, including age of mixed age couples savings, private pension etc. A couple on PC will only get the couples rates unlike the SP where both have their own pension based on their own contributions/credits

It isn’t nonsense at all
I meant I agreed with Vinyl Detective that "getting nothing back" is nonsense; and it is.

That's a lovely attitude YellowBeryl. My mum stopped working at 79, as a MH carer, and still needs pension credit. How much of my mum's income would you want to claw back?

@YellowBeryl1? An answer, any answer?

Take it back from pensioners? Really...

Get a reality check. My mum has worked since she was 16, to train as an SRCN, then had two children in 56 and 59, and went back to work full time as an SRCN before going into school meals service. A very unfair and unpleasant divorce left her with no pension claim on my father's index-linked public sector entitlement, So she worked until she was 79 years old and no longer able, physically, to man-handle adult immobile bodies. Her patchy NI contribution record means that she needs her pension credit to get her pension level to 175.00 per week, and you want to her to take something from her pension?

The richest have accountants who will minimise it. Unlike 2010 austerity it's a one off, a huge one off, but a one off. We just need to be able to pay more than the interest and take a long old time getting rid of it. The triple lock currently is barking mad.

Another possible consequence of 'taxing the rich' is that if 2% of taxpayers yield 40% of the revenue, they're going to wield a shit load of power.

I wouldn’t mind paying a bit more tax. I remember when Brown reduced income tax from 22-20% and I couldn’t understand why as no one was clamouring for it.

I would actually take all people on minimum wage out of tax though.

At the last two elections both parties found a possible annual capital tax on £2m + houses was very popular with 90% of people (as they would not have to pay for it and never expect to have one). Many people are keen on taxes they won't have to pay.

However things then move downwards.Eg houses in a limited company (enveloped dwellings) are now taxed extra and that started with very expensive houses so no one was too bothered and now that tax known as ATED applies to any house of £500,000 or more which is owned by a limited company. My point is that they start these things higher up and then make the value lower and lower regularly with new taxes.

I don't agree about higher taxes even in the 1970s with 99% tax. My NHS father paid 63% upper rate income tax on his highest (modest doctor) earnings) and an extra 15% on top of that on his savings interest BUT when you allow for all the many allowances they used to have - huge married man's allowance (not today's token married one), right to make a covenant of money to a family member tax free (which could use that person's unused allowance), tax relief on your mortgage interest etc in my view the 63% came down to today's 47% upper rate (45% upper rate tax plus 2% marginal rate NI) particularly as everyone got a single person allowance too in those days and I think before child benefit had a child tax allowance. Now higher earners don't get things like child benefit, a single person's tax allowance and many now have a 9% graduate tax too as they have the newer student loans. In my view the tax ends up being similar now as then for higher earners.

You can’t really tax a person’s primary residence until they die or sell up, whichever happens first.

Effective and far higher inheritance taxes are the way to go.

One section of society are paying in but getting very little back therefore don’t feel part of the welfare state

the 51 % of the population who are net contributors know that they get very little in return for those contributions

Are there really people who think like this? Really?

I earn well, lucky me, and I’m a net contributor. Have been for many years. Why is that? Well, partly because I was educated by the state, because I live in a politically stable country with good law and order and because healthcare in this country is good, and that’s just for starters.

I’m proud to contribute through taxation, and so should others be. I don’t think, boo hoo, it’s not fair that I’m not getting benefits I don’t need because I’ve paid in so it’s not fair.

I’ve already had many benefits, which I’ve listed above, and I’ll undoubtedly have many more as I get older: I might have to use the NHS more, state pension etc. It would be pretty mean spirited of me to demand that I had my jam today, and even worse to suggest that poorer groups should be impoverished to make that happen, which is what some posters have indicated.

I’m proud to contribute through taxation, and so should others be.

Not everyone thinks like you - it’s important that you realise that. As I said, those people who say that higher earners should just cough up and shut up are playing into right wing hands. Ultimately, that will take us towards a US system of lower taxes and more limited state provision, the poor will be worse off under that system.

Interestingly, those that think high earners should just cough up and shut up haven’t mentioned supporting a Scandinavian system of higher taxes but better state provision for everyone.

@Iamthewombat I completely agree. And it’s interesting that 3 out of the 4 on this thread who have admitted to being high earners are all in favour of higher taxation.

I completely agree. And it’s interesting that 3 out of the 4 on this thread who have admitted to being high earners are all in favour of higher taxation.

How representative is mumsnet if the wider population?

Not everyone thinks like you - it’s important that you realise that

You are funny. As if I could fail to realise it, considering the number of whining ‘someone else should pay, not me, I pay too much already, make Amazon Patmore, close the loopholes’ posts I’ve read on here!