To think the 'Net Contributors' argument is just wrong?

[Yetmorebeanstocount]

Just been reading about "Net Contributors" of tax and how it supposedly is a bad thing that we don't have enough in this country.
i.e. - that most people receive more, in cash benefits, social care, NHS, police, education, roads, bin collections etc. etc. than they will ever pay for via their taxes, so they are 'net recipients' of the system rather than 'net contributors'.

My reaction is - well yes of course. That is how it should be!

Take a very-over-simplified example to illustrate the maths:

Say there are 100 people who earn £1k, and one person who earns £200k. Say the 100 pay no taxes, and the one person pays tax at 50% of £100k.

That tax gets re-distributed to the 100 people in the form of services and benefits and pensions, so that the 100 now have the equivalent of £2k each and the one person still has £100k.
What is supposed to be wrong with this? It is just basic re-distribution of income, which is something that every civilised society should do.

Of course in real life people earn all sorts of amounts and receive different things, so it is not so simple, but the principle is the same - a few at the top are 'net contributors' and the rest are 'net recipients'.

And of course, those at the top still get something back as they drive on roads and have their bins collected, and have the benefit of living in a civilised society which is policed and (mostly) does not have people dying on the streets.

The principle still stands: it is perfectly normal for a society to have far fewer net contributors than net receivers.

No, I disagree. I've given you a real life example. I think my DH is in the top 5% of earners in the UK and his tax can support 1 family and if for e.g. any of us, his family need major medical attention, you could argue that he wouldn't even be supporting one family. Life in the UK is expensive and economically we need more people paying tax to support those who are physically unable to.

I don't know what the answer is really. Maybe people really really need to think before they have children. Not just can they afford to have them now, but could they afford to support them if their life went tits up (hence I only have one child). I think employers should be made to pay proper wages rather than be subsidised by taxpayers. I like the sound of what a pp said about health appointments in France, I'm fine with paying £15 for a doctor's appointment if it meant not waiting 3 weeks for one and the money went into the NHS. I think more and more higher taxpayers on PAYE are getting pissed off with paying large amounts of tax and still having shite services.

Exactly, hence the "Sweetheart" deals that were struck under Labour in the noughties and the sweetheart deals with Olympic athletes for the London Olympics. All on the grounds that something is better than nothing and that the "bigger picture" was more important than following the laws when it came to tax. I.e. some top Olympic athletes were given tax exemptions so that they would avoid paying tax in the UK whilst they were here for the Olympics after they threatened to boycott the games!!

Plenty of tax is collected in this country. Its just wasted.

You are being ridiculous in trying to relate lots of unrelated things.

Not-one suggests that large corporations shouldn't borrow for investment.

Comparing the education budget with interest payments Is pointless and banal.

If you take these ridiculously banal assertions seriously you are just falling for Tory propaganda in support of their ideological war against anything being provided for the overall benefit of society rather than to make rich people richer.

Just to take one small point - the government doesn't have a fixed term mortgage on anything and they aren't reliant on getting a new mortgage from Santander etc - a lot of the time they are effectively borrowing from themselves, and like with large corporations if they manage things properly, they will generate more from that borrowing than the costs of servicing it, certainly over the long term.

Sorry - I was working - paying tax.

I don’t vote Tory.

The tax thresholds and cliff edges have been proven by multiple fiscal agencies to reduce potential tax take. Tax take is increasing because ordinary workers are paying even more by freezes. You understand the difference I presume? Maybe not.

No other developed nation has such a huge state dependency.

So tax take is increasing but you claim the ONS says it isn’t because reasons….OK then.

Then you just reassert the claim about dependency - that’s all fine if you just expect me to take your word for everything as some kind of random oracle, but I don’t.

I did think of posting that your claims were just bollocks but it wasn’t immediately clear, however it is now.

A Land Tax might help.

Of course it is. If that makes you feel better. Unfortunately I work so I don’t have time to be getting angry and demanding more taxpayers money all day on the internet. The statistics and reports are actually out there. I presume you can use Google?

Bollocks indeed.

Indeed I can use Google although I didn’t need that to know its bollocks to claim the tax take is falling. It’s pretty hilarious that working is supposed to be an excuse for telling lies about what the ONS says.

The tax exemption wasn’t some deal cooked up by Labour. It’s a standard IOC requirement and applies wherever the games are held.

Reading comprehension is appalling; answered the question in my my prior post though. Good old MN 🤣

Stop posting lies and bollocks and you won’t be challenged on them, there’s nothing wrong with my comprehension - you’re just upset you got called out on a simple falsehood.

If that’s what makes you feel better. Maybe if you were less angry on the internet you may feel life was fairer. You have a wonderful evening in that world of yours.

The ONS has already stated that tax system in this country is reducing tax take
Demonstrably untrue.

As the cliche has it - you are entitled to your own opinions but not to make up your own facts.

Threads like this, about really important subjects, always end up in fights. I/We at 67 are in the process of deciding where we'd like to live in retirement (it definitely won't be where we live now, simply because we are so far from our widely distributed group of friends, who are mainly at least three hours away by road). We have a zone, but we also like the idea of living somewhere sunnier. In another language, albeit in a country where English is well taught as a second language. It's in Europe, but we can meet the income requirements, property costs less and we don't want anything huge or swanky. My sister thinks its a bad idea; DH loves the idea of something new and sunny.

No idea what the ONS is saying but the OBR says the tax take is rising as a result of fiscal drag.

https://obr.uk/box/the-impact-of-frozen-or-reduced-personal-tax-thresholds/

I see both sets of compromises, and I don't like either. Frankly.

Left to me, I'd be trying to choose between the Welsh marches and the Dordogne. My french is pretty good. Healthcare: France ticks the box -- Welsh healthcare is very threadbare, I am told by friends who live in Wales. So a tick for France. But being a 60 minute drive from my sister and ageing mum, both of whom I adore, needs taking into consideration too. I care a great deal about this choice and I want to get it right for the long term.

And, face it, property prices are a factor. I have seen a house I like, in the Dorgogne, for 330,000 euros. Anything similar in the UK is about £700K. I can chat away in (bad) french about most things.

It is.

During the pandemic the U.K. government paid over the odds for PPE from 3 week old companies, paid over the odds to store it when most of it was found to be substandard and unusable, and then paid to burn it.

It's a similar story with the Nightingales, with Test and Trace, with the asylum system...

I'd wave them bye bye and hire someone else.

If you can afford to give birth privately, vaccinate and educate your children privately, see a private GP, have your own private police force, army, fire brigade, emergency department, and and ambulance on standby and travel everywhere by helicopter not using the national infrastructure of road and rail then surely you can afford property?

It proves the point about "movable" rich people. Tax them too much and they'll just stay in their tax havens!

So you're happy for "rich" athletes (and pop stars, movie stars etc who are mobile) to avoid paying tax, but want to hit "rich" landowners, entreprenneurs, etc who can't as easily relocate?

I didn’t say I was happy with anything - I was just responding to a post that was incorrectly trying to frame the tax concessions given to Olympic athletes as some concoction of a Labour government when it wasn’t.

Of course some rich people like J K Rowling are decent so they don’t just fuck off to wherever is cheapest like cunts.