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?

Not raise taxes, that has already happened despite this.

“Our manifesto is fully costed and fully funded and requires no further tax increases.”

And then £70bn in borrowing and tax hikes. Now softening people up for more tax hikes despite saying it was a one off.

I think if you applied a precious metal metaphor to the badge it would help the more -ahem- prestige-conscious among those who could afford it. So instead of a 'higher rate' tax payer you could become a 'gold member' tax payer or platinum, diamond etc to infinity. You could have little badges for your rolls royce window so it doesn't look like you think you're morally superior, just superior.

In fact you could do this even while the taxes are mandatory! I think you would find that rich people actually do have money to spare to fund tax rises as long as they get a Gold/platinum in front of their name so everyone knows how special they are. They could also enjoy public services too so it's a win-win.

Do you have a feeling that there are enough people who want to pay more tax, i.e. most of the country, or are you just going by a few posters on mumsnet?

If it became a voluntary thing, then I'd like my extra taxes to go on things I cared about, probably things local to me. My local hospital, for example, rather than defence.

I'd be ok without a sticker in that case.

To add, @Marshmallow4545' s suggestion that people should be acknowledged for paying extra tax or get to be smug about it would make me NOT want to pay extra. While some charity donations are done to get social approval (think of the number of buildings named after big donors), there are also people who want to give anonymously and not get told they are "morally superior".

And those of us who do give extra, tend to give to charity because it is the governments job to fund the governments work through general taxation which is fair and equal across everyone.

So I support taxing the rich and taxing them all.

That's because they lose money trying to hoard more.

I think there are enough that it could make a difference. Would it close the deficit? No, but none of the individual policies Reeves is looking at will do this anyway. She is fiddling around the edges with taxation anyway.

That absolutely isn't why they lose money. You need to look into the research into this area.

So you would actively deter people from voluntarily contributing additional tax? I'm sorry but that seems crazy considering the financial mess we are currently in.

OMG yes! I always tell people this when they bang on about being willing to pay more tax. Go on then, nobody is stopping you! But in my experience as soon as you point out that’s is possible to do so they usually say something like “ but only if I could be sure it would go to xxx” . So they didn’t mean it really.

I think the vast majority of very wealthy people self-reporting giving to charity is very like our planned tax-badge scheme. Needs a snappier name though and actual figures rather than 'gave to'. And no decisions about who counts as the deserving poor! Much better.

Lovely idea.
I'd like her to sort out fathers who stop paying full tax in order to stop paying child maintenance first though. We know most men have the powerful jobs and wages yet CMS seems to have the opinion more men who have children on the breadline than HMRC are aware of - the math aint mathing. If they start there and go after the cash in hand crew I think the people on PIP might be safe.

Great idea!

Your certificate or badge can say exactly how much you paid. That way people are incentivised to give more to look like you're not being stingy. People like Gary Neville will have to volunteer quite a lot to not look like a hypocrite.

Where did I say I hope Reeves targets someone else?
I said I am willing to pay more tax as part of society. As part of a societal contract that impacts those who have more, not those who don’t.
The conversations I have with certain higher earners are not really that they want to pay more tax, more that they would understand and accept it, if their tax was increased.

Do you advertise the fact every time you do a good deed?

I'm curious if you do, and if you feel better for it.

Also just to add to the idea. We could have 'Just Giving' style target for specific spending that the government wants to do e.g. abolish the CB two child cap and people can direct their donation to that specific policy. We could have similar targets to maintain spend other areas such as education of disability benefits so people can donate to avoid cuts.

Isn’t it more like publicising a litter-picking volunteering opportunity?

At the moment 60% of the litter-picking is done by the same 10% of people. 30% is done by the same 1%.

They are the people best-suited to litter-picking, certainly, but we might still feel a society where people volunteer to pick litter is better than one where people volunteer extra shifts for the ones already doing most of it.

What would that achieve apart from a massive class action lawsuit and an uptick in the benefits bill? More people would be entitled to Council Tax benefit and Pension Credit, especially in cases of pensioners with disabilities etc. Also female ex civil servants who are more likely to have worked part-time and not be entitled to a full state pension.

You could bring back the thermometer style boards at local churches, for local charities, then whole villages could have a Golden Bush or something awarded from the gov...

I don't personally but I am only human and do like to acknowledge good deeds done by myself or others. Why not?

Also it is a form of accountability. Using the Gary Neville example, if he had a certificate then he could prove that he isn't a complete hypocrite and give him more credibility. He is actively walking the walk.

Nobody would be forced to publicise their donation. It wouldn't be mandatory

Ha it sounds ridiculous but I do wonder if there is something in this. People donate huge amounts to charitable causes they feel passionately about. The government funds some of our most vital services. If we literally spelled out the gap and asked those that could afford to donate to do so then would this really make no difference at all?

I think it would. There are some supremely rich villages who spend a long time trying to plant their way to victory, so having another target to get them through St Peter's gates would be a winner, I think!

Just to add some statistics. If a quarter of the population volunteered £1000 a year then this would give Reeves £17.5 billion. You would still get almost £2billion if a quarter of the population donated £100 on average

I agree. I say this to tradesmen who come out with the old line 'We don't want the taxman to get it now, do we?' when demanding to be paid in cash. I avoid these people if at all possible.

I've always had to pay my tax! PAYE etc. And I want hospitals, roads, schools, police etc etc.

Don't they?

OP I think you are taking the sentiment you hear expressed too literally and simplistically. Clearly those who say this are talking about a higher tax policy that they would be ok with. HTH.