To think Reeves is missing a trick here?

[Marshmallow4545]

Every single thread on taxation has numerous posters gleefully asserting that they would be delighted to pay more tax. Why on earth doesn't Rachael Reeves publicise the fact that anyone can volunteer to pay more tax if they are that way inclined and that there are already mechanisms to do this? You could even give everyone that donates additional tax a little sticker or certificate so that they can prove they're morally superior to the rest of us and just how much of a better citizen they are.

I would expect to raise at least a few billion from this if everyone put their money where their mouth is and the donors would be in a far better position to preach about the virtues of high taxation if they could prove that they were actually walking the walk.

AIBU?

The issue is that we know that the people who will pay more are the people who can least afford it and even some who can't afford it. The people who can afford it and should pay in line with their wealth will not. Therefore, the amount made will be negligible. It will be the people with pennies, giving some of their pennies while the people with pounds keep their pounds.

How do you know this? This certainly isn't my experience where I have been told by several wealthy people that they would happily pay more tax. Also organisations like this exist that suggest the absolute opposite:
https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/millionaires-urge-mps-tax-us-the-super-rich-to-avoid-cuts-and-invest-in-britain

Because we already know the wealthiest people use loopholes to avoid paying tax. There was this interesting experiment I watched where a man "dropped" $20 in front of various people in two different areas, one affluent, one not. What he found is that people in the poorer areas were more likely to let him know and give it back. Homeless people would nearly every time. Probably because this set of people understand what it could be like to lose $20 whereas the others couldn't imagine it changing their day all that much.

They might even blame you for dropping it if you need it so much.

Many of the poorest in society evade tax. There is a huge black market that is populated by some the least well off people. Studies are mixed on whether rich people are more or less generous than the general population.

I do find it strange though that you want to adopt such a paternalistic approach to this potential policy. You think we shouldn't be asking people to volunteer to pay more tax incase the poor give too much of their money away? I think that has all sorts of questionable connotations about what you think of poorer people's capacity to make informed, sensible decisions

I am probably one of those people. I run my own business. I had a call from a company offering me all sorts of tax efficient schemes. I said no. When he launched into his script about ‘we all want to pay less tax’ I told him I didn’t and actually wanted hospitals and schools. Many people do the same.

It’s not being morally superior.

But your suggestion is like trashing the place just because there will be other people volunteering to clean it up because they don’t like living in shit.

We could do that as well as taxing the wealthiest. It would put pennies on top of the pounds.

I'm one of the people who could and should pay more tax. but I would much rather pay more if I also know that other rich people are paying too and are not freeloading off me. My contribution alone is just a drop in the ocean, but my contribution combined with all the other rich people (who aren't volunteering to pay) will make a big difference.

for example, imagine there are 3 siblings who inherit £3million each at the age of 25 following the death of a rich grandparent. If there was a bit more tax on that kind of inheritance, it would make a decent contribution to the budget. But if one sibling volunteers to pay and the others don't, that starts to feel unfair.

if I'm going to give away money voluntarily, I'm more likely to give to a charity for a specific cause, than to the government in general.

so increasing taxes on all multimillionaires is a fairer and more sensible way to organise things than a voluntary tax.

I think you are being rather snide and unpleasant in your post. "Morally superior" is not actually an insult? Wanting to do the right thing is not a character flaw. However, I'll engage with you. I prefer to live in a society in which money and services are distributed in a formal and organised way. Otherwise known as a civilisation. That way people contribute and receive on a way that feels fairer and better calculated. If you have problems with the details of that you can vote for whichever self-interested capitalist comes next but you better hope their interests align with your own.

The problem is that inflation is "set" at 2%.

So each and every year, there needs to be a minimum increase in tax of 2% just to keep services at the same level. It doesn't really matter wether the tax is raised directly through increases (which they don't admit to) or by fiscal drag. We, the tax payers, end up footing the bill.

With a stagnant economy and high inflation, we are quite literally getting poorer each and every year. This is why our public services are in a mess and we all struggle so much. The government is now absolutely stuck. There is no growth in the economy. Inflation is high and dragging down spending power. If they choose to raise income tax next month, that will take even more money out of the economy and reduce the overall tax revenue from VAT. So essentially a zero sum game. If they don't raise taxes, then they can't afford to mantain the current level of public services.

They also can't borrow more without crashing their rating on the international markets.

We have reached a point where our economic model no longer works. There actually isn't any answer to this. An IMF bailout would be catastrophic.

The only really viable answer is a dramatic reduction in the size of the state and the provision of public services. I'm not sure what that would look like in reality. But at a minimum it would mean no council services, we would clean our own streets, each cleaning the bit directly outside thier own house. No park maintenance, local volunteers would do this. No hedge cutting or verge maintenance, local land owners would volunteers to do this.

No proactive policing, and response only for serious crime. We would have to revert to being "real" community's again and using the "village" to raise our children and keep law and order.

No NHS. Yes, this means people dying earlier, no ongoing care for chronic conditions, no provision for care for the elderly. You would have to make your own arrangements to care for your parents.

Very limited armed forces. A coastal defence, not a Royal Navy. No RAF. A Massive push for a well trained TA, but very few regulars and this would only be a limited army, no longer capable of overseas deployment. Just purely a domestic force, similar to the Irish Army and their Civil Defence force. We should try to keep Trident.

None of this is what people want. But the reality is that there simply isn't any money to continue paying for these things. Something has to change.

Of course there's an answer to this. Just not one the rich want. If we owned water, electricity, gas etc again we would make all people richer as they wouldn't be paying to make rich (often foreign) shareholders richer and us poorer. If we built more council housing we would create more skilled jobs and halve the amount people now pay in rent so they would be richer overnight. Etc etc. The problem is the super rich who are exploiting us all and own most of the newspapers to tell us lies about blaming the poor, the foreigners, the asylum seekers etc - anyone other than the true culprits, themselves.

Sorry, I genuinely thought you meant Reeves our local (West) bakers which does a roaring trade in very nice pasties, sausage rolls etc., but have few veggie options and no vegan bakes, so definitely missing a trick. Would have been of quite limited interest, I suppose…

I agree that the richest in society should be ‘encouraged’ to pay more tax by whichever means available, including appealing to their better nature!

I disagree.

I'm not suggesting that anybody pays less tax or stops contributing altogether. Surely though it makes sense for those that are able and willing to fill the current financial gap between taxation and expenditure to volunteer first? This would decrease resentment and enable those that agree with high taxation and high spending to move closer to this model whilst those that don't won't feel compelled to fund things they don't agree with.

I also think anyone who subscribes to open borders should pay more tax , the rest of us can have our taxes go where needed . Let’s see then how their liberal attitudes have the courage of conviction directly to the wallet .

I completely agree. I think being morally superior is a good thing, that's why I think they should be able to receive formal acknowledgement for doing the right thing. This would also play to people's vanity which always helps.

It's hard to argue that volunteering to pay more tax will ever be a bad thing. I do though think that it is hypocritical and wrong though to insist that you would love to pay more tax and then not actually do it.

The fact that rich people are loath to open their wallets isn't about political ties. It's about the type of attitude you need to have generally to hoard money.

Yes, you could do both if you were sure you wouldn't fall victim to the Laffer curve effect. A big positive of the voluntary approach is that this wouldn't necessarily impact behaviours in adverse ways which is what we risk with most tax rises

Ok great, we're agreed. Raise taxes in a formal way because we need it and allow people to pay more tax if they can and want to as a kind of 'elite points' system. Perfect.

She wants fairness and flat line so why isn't she stopping civil service pensions with immediate effect?

The statistics just don't support your statements. The vast majority of wealthy families lose their wealth over three generations. They don't do a great job of hoarding their wealth in the long term. The vast majority of very wealthy people (98%) donate to charity.

I don’t think anyone is saying they would love to pay more tax.
People are saying that they recognise that a fully funded society needs a high level of taxation.
I obviously don’t want to make myself worse off but if as a society, there is a need for greater taxation, I would accept my part in it.

Because it's a load of crap. All virtue signallers saying they'd pay more tax, but when the day dawns, they won't. They want someone else to pay more tax, not themselves, but claim they would to make themselves look good.

Yanbu there’s plenty of takers on here going by posts.

Run the voluntary system initially and see what the uptake is. The champagne socialists will be called out If they aren't seen to be volunteering enough cash whilst posting left wing sentiments on social media etc. The pressure will be on for people to put their money where their mouth is.

Then work out the gap and raise taxes and cut spending accordingly.

I agree with @parietal and @Poppingby

I want to see a plan for using taxes well. In the meantime I prefer to contribute directly to charities and let HMG help via Gift Aid. Sorry, @hattie43 , but some of those gifts support refugees.

I also agree with @ElizaMulvil that utilities should be renationalised. Let HMG find the balance between fiscal responsibility - which private providers have failed to do - and making a reasonable profit for the nation.

But you know already there is a greater need for taxation or a requirement to cut spending. This is why there is a deficit. You could proactively volunteer to contribute what you can sensibly rather than hope Reeves targets someone else.