Quite a lot of better off people would be happy to pay more tax?

[Echobelly]

Provided it was channeled towards things like NHS, social care, education.

It seems weirdly outdated to me that mainstream political parties find raising taxes on the wealthy anathema. We've been living in such a low-tax society for so long, but households like mine (I'd say it's a 6-figure annual income between us) could easily afford to pay more in tax and still enjoy our lives.

But instead parties are obsessed with recouping money by removing benefits for the poorest people, which is stupid as the difficulties resulting from plunging people into greater poverty, as well as being cruel, will ultimately cost more money than it saves.

Take that money off people like me in taxes! We won't become homeless or sick or suffer mental distress for the sake of a bit more tax. Year after year I see budgets that will apparently save people like me £500 a year, as if this is supposed to be an incentive to vote for the Tories but tbh, I won't even notice being better off by £500 a year. Give that saving to someone for whom it'll make an impact!

@Alexandra2001

"We have some of the lowest taxes for the wealthy in Europe"

++++

You may feel this way except the hard evidence shows it's not true.

You don't need many of these people to either leave the country or find a way to "reduce " their tax liability before you have a real problem on tax revenue for the country.

As I said, you’re earning 300k doing a job in the U.K. You are going to uproot your entire family form schools, jobs, friends, family in order to save a few hundred quid a month?

@dafey

Serious accident I won't as we live close enough to private urgent care facilities.

That's unusual though isnt? private urgent care for a critical issue.

Not sure why it matters if it is

I was responding to someone claiming I'd be relying on the NHS in an emergency

Which isn't true

Not sure why it matters if it is

Because it's unusual, the vast majority with private care would use the NHS in an emergency.

So if you were in a car accident & needed an ambulance & a passerby called 999 would you refuse it?

@FridaRose

No we already pay 49%, when does it end?

Also we are not driven by taxes going on nhs, as we have private healthcare.

You say it now you'd be happy to pay for tax if you were a high earner, but a lot of high earners are in highly stressful jobs so you do feel like a high salary comes at a price. so no I don't want to give it away to yet more tax.

And the consequence when you raise taxes further on these often highly stressed workers is that they decide enough is enough and take off somewhere else, either location or job wise or retire early.

Agree with another PP that those that want to can find innumerable local charities that don't waste money on high overheads. Food banks being the most obvious one.
I'd also look at homeless charities as a priority.

@dafey

Not sure why it matters if it is

Because it's unusual, the vast majority with private care would use the NHS in an emergency.

So if you were in a car accident & needed an ambulance & a passerby called 999 would you refuse it?

It doesn't matter as I was responding to someone discussing me

I don't give two shits what other people do

I never claimed it was common

Sheesh, read the context before replying

The point is if it was critical you likely would go to an NHS hospital whatever you may be close to because they wouldn’t wait to check if you had private health insurance while you were unconscious and bleeding to death or whatever. In most cases even with excellent health cover you’d also likely end up treated by an NHS surgeon if you needed specialist care unless someone flew in from elsewhere, you were prepared to be treated by a less qualified and experienced surgeon privately or you happened to need treatment in an area where a specialist did part time private work

@WinnersDinner what has riled you up! 😆

@whatkatydid2013

The point is if it was critical you likely would go to an NHS hospital whatever you may be close to because they wouldn’t wait to check if you had private health insurance while you were unconscious and bleeding to death or whatever. In most cases even with excellent health cover you’d also likely end up treated by an NHS surgeon if you needed specialist care unless someone flew in from elsewhere, you were prepared to be treated by a less qualified and experienced surgeon privately or you happened to need treatment in an area where a specialist did part time private work

That might be your point

But it wasn't the point of the poster I was replying to

Sheesh, read the context before replying

The context was my question that I asked you, not sure why you're confused!

But it wasn't the point of the poster I was replying to

Err....

@dafey

Sheesh, read the context before replying

The context was my question that I asked you, not sure why you're confused!

Because you quoted an answer from me to another poster

That's why

and asked you a question about it... saying that private urgent care was unusual.

I’d be interested to see what the difference in overall taxation would be if you raised the nil band, applied it universally, had a flat rate of 45% tax on all income above it & got rid of separate National Insurance. It would primarily raise taxes for those with unearned income & arguably that wouldn’t be unreasonable

We both earn a bit above UK average salary. I would happy to pay a bit more things need to change so the lower paid are taxed less.

A big increase in the tax free allowance offset by an increase of the basic and higher tax rate would achieve this.

@dafey

and asked you a question about it... saying that private urgent care was unusual.

Which was odd, as I never claimed it was usual.

@RandomMess

We both earn a bit above UK average salary. I would happy to pay a bit more things need to change so the lower paid are taxed less.

A big increase in the tax free allowance offset by an increase of the basic and higher tax rate would achieve this.

Do you consider just above the U.K. average to be 'better off'?

Talking about “rich” people, Labour had to do sweetheart deals with some non resident Olympic athletes as they threatened not to come to the London Olympics if they had to pay UK tax under normal rules.

Once upon a time I would have said this. Not any more. I've paid enough, and am sick to death of watching the very rich pay nothing, and the levels of corruption in government.

You pay 20% tax on a significant proportion of you income. As I said, the 50% is a marginal rate.

Do explain.

I hardly pay 20% on my income. That is a miniscule amount of my income compared to the amounts dh and I pay on the rest of our income. I really do not know what you are talking about. I know what my tax return says. I know what my bank account says.

If I pay 20% on a significant portion of my income as you say I would consider myself to be living in a tax haven.

For anyone who declares that you are happy to pay more tax, there's already a way for you to do it. The published tax rate are minimum tax rates, you can overpay voluntarily, just let the HMRC know that you would like to do so.
Problem solved!

OP if you are so eager to contribute more, there's nothing stopping you from sending an email to the Treasury, asking them for the account details.

@forinborin

For anyone who declares that you are happy to pay more tax, there's already a way for you to do it. The published tax rate are minimum tax rates, you can overpay voluntarily, just let the HMRC know that you would like to do so. Problem solved!

Well I said I would but that's provided that it was linked to good public services. Paying for Dido Harding to get £37 billion for a failed Test and Trace, not so much. If Labour published a manifesto withhighertax rates, it wouldn’t put me off at all.