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.

Its also about hi tech manufacturing using technology. As well as specialist manufacturing. We have various highly specialist manufacturing firms that were gravely affected by Brexit. The government did not give a shit.
And with agriculture, Brexit destroyed overnight the successful seed potato industry that exported worldwide.
We need a government that understands and cares about the economy, not simply lining their mates pockets.

I actually agree with some of your post - however the highest earners I know are entrepreneurs who remortgaged their homes and worked all the hours god sent to get their businesses off the ground, and invested in new technology as part of that. No doubt they will also be investing in sector-related AI as it becomes usable. There are some on this thread that think their reward for this should be a system that taxes them through the nose, for daring to become wealthy, while other healthy folk sit back doing 16 hours a week to maximise what they receive.

You are being unreasonable to state every civilised society should be looking to redistribute money. If you truly believe that you might be happier living in a communist country.

@LardyCakeAgain I don't think higher tax is the issue, although I think we should equally tax all sources of income. But there is a severe lack of investment from established firms. Just look at the dire state of our car industry and investment. And there have been too many asset stripper take overs. I would majorly disincentivise the ability for this to happen if I was Chancellor. Even in retail some chain shops have gone to the wall because of asset stripping.

@caringcarer every society redistributes money. Every single one.

This is true. If people have money they usually want to share it with their loved ones not pass it as long to the government who gives it to random strangers a few of whom are too ill to work but know many more can't be bothered to work themselves when they could because they'd rather just be given money for doing nothing.

I will be honest, I rarely post on threads like this because I just find the economic illiteracy painful.

But in example given 99 percent were contributing nothing at all.

Yep. It's amazing how people's views change about wealth distribution when they get an unexpected windfall. Like (as far as I know) gambling payouts aren't taxed, such as lottery winnings.

Sometimes their views change, sometimes not. But decisions should be made based on what is best for the economy. All income should be taxed equally. At the moment low earners usually pay a much higher proportion of their income in tax than those on a higher income.

A socialist one would do me. I’d be pretty happy in most Scandinavian countries, they’ve got it right.

Scandinavian countries have far less people who just live on benefits.

And? Maybe that’s because they have more equitable pay structures, subsidised childcare and make work accessible to people with disabilities.

They’re not socialist, they’re more centrist. It’s a combination of capitalism and socialism.

We have subsided child care too for all 3 year olds and from April 2 year olds too and the government are currently being criticised for trying to get more disabled people to be able to access work.

@caringcarer The government want disabled people off benefits, that is a very different goal. If they were serious about getting disabled people into work they would have very different policies. For example, making it mandatory that is possible disabled people working for the government could work from home if it enabled them to work. Instead they forced people back into offices because their mates own office buildings that are rented out.

I don't agree because whether a disabled person works or not they can still claim PIP. I know of 2 disabled people who work from home. One works for local council and the other in telesales.

Exactly that. What about equitable pay structures?

The expectation is that everyone works. Both sexes as standard with subsidised childcare to make that possible.

i think many women get trapped by maternity leave leading to time off long term due to childcare costs. Then getting these woman back to well paying employment is so much harder (I talk from experience here).

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.

But that is a really shit example. Who can live on £1K (or £2K)? My DH earns around £100 000 (way more than me) and the tax and NI that he pays would probably fund one family for benefits + education + health. That's ONE high earner (top ? % of income) funding ONE family. So your £200 K earner can possibly at a push support 2 or 3 people/families. And that's without paying for public services. And how many people are there in a country of nearly 70 million earning £200 K?

I think you’re the perfect example of how someone who does a lot for society is considered to ‘cost’ the government.

It also sounds like you cost less than the average person- but that’s an average. If you have a complicated illness, possibly medivaced to hospital, have to spend time in intensive care, then you could easily ‘cost’ the government millions of pounds in healthcare costs. An amount you’d never pay back in your lifetime.

The big costs for government are the NHS and Defence. You may only bother the Doctor with a cough, but you could easily get seriously ill at any given time. The gvt has to plan for X amount of people needing treatment.

The 41k is the amount being quoted in media. ( probably ONS figure, but can’t remember)

There’s also the huge cost of the armed forces who are there to defend the country- could you imagine if we had to pay for that directly?

@LardyCakeAgain you might want to think again about that statement if you end up with a complicated and severe injury/illness that requires long term medical treatment. Your bill would be milllions of pounds…but fair’s fair right?

And do you want to live in a society where people who aren’t millionaires are left to die when they could be helped back to full fitness?

@Zimunya you may be a net contributor. But our costs still include things like defence, running government, etc.
A lot of people with children underestimate the cost of birth. And if a child needs special care in an incubator for example, it quickly gest expensive.
By the way everyone can register with a GP. If you cant find anywhere there is a central place to contact and they will make a GP take you on.

We are individualist here, Denmark and the other progressive countries have much more cohesive norms, hence higher racism, and are when in Rome not multicultural. So I don't think we do want to be more like Denmark. Also authoritarianism comes very easily to the left. Centre right pragmatism is the way.

Also I think there is an ideological divide about redistribution of wealth. To what extent? Because I don't believe everyone should have equal pay, I do value surgeons higher than cleaners and I think highly skilled jobs should be paid more. BUT I mean actual skills not skills for capitalism. So marketing, low ish pay, probably less than a care worker. Teachers and nurses higher paid than both.

Denmark is something else. I keep wondering what the legal basis is of what they do.