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?

I think if you're successful, work very hard and/or are incredibly clever or talented and invent something brilliant, you should be able to enjoy the rewards of that...

...up to about £10m.

No-one needs more than that. No-one needs a yacht in the Med. You can be rich, sure, be not obscenely so. How this could be organised fiscally I have no idea. But I just wish society would start to judge and disapprove of extreme wealth. I differentiate between that and people who have made sacrifices to be high earners and deserve a comfortable, even luxurious lifestyle...within sane limits.

I think many decent wealthy people want to be rich in a rich country, not rich in a poor country.

If so many people really want to voluntarily pay more tax, then lots of things they can do...

1. Stop paying tradesmen in cash,
2. Stop investing in ISAs,
3. Stop buying duty free cigarettes, alcohol and perfurmes, etc,
4. Stop cutting hours etc to stay under the cliff edge tax thresholds,
5. etc etc

In reality, the vast majority of people are now conditioned to pay less tax and they actively take steps to do so.

I think it's incredibly naive to think that millions of people would voluntarily pay more tax!

Just following her mandate for everyone being equal. She want fairness but it's very lopsided!

What about all the unemployment caused if yachts, private jets/helicopters, multiple holiday home ownership etc was banned worldwide?? They're huge wealth generating activities for the countries involved. How would you even make it happen?

I think it is more to do with many feeling their tax is wasted one way or another. If people could elect where this additional tax went perhaps even more would do so.

I want more spent on education personally.

These people literally state 'I would be happy to pay more tax'. I suspect they do mean that this would form part of a high taxation society but surely if all those that really believed in this put their money where their mouth is then we would end up with at least some of the benefits this would bring? Unless of course they actually mean that they want other people to pay a lot more tax and only then would they consider paying a bit more tax. This doesn't feel very community minded though does it?

It's also not how charity works. People donate irrespective of what other people are donating. They do so because they believe in the cause. Do people not genuinely believe in eradicating the two child CB cap or maintaining disability benefits at current levels? Do they think these causes aren't as important as charitable causes?

Yes, that's why I thought of the individual targets with specific deliverables associated with them. So education would absolutely be one of them and it would be clear where this money would be spent and what cuts would no longer be made if enough money was raised.

Oh I agree, but I wonder if she made an official appeal and rewarded people that donated with certificates that this would encourage donations from a whole load of people that are probably avoiding tax elsewhere. It would swell the coffers even if people weren't actually doing all they can.

I think it's amazing what peer pressure and the desire to look like a good person and not be exposed as a hypocrite will do. Do you remember us all stood on a doorstep clapping for the NHS?

I did say I had no idea of fiscal policy or how it's implemented.

I'm frankly not concerned about unemployment in the Mediterranean due to a few super-yachts being let go.

I'm interested in the state of the UK.

I think they mean “I would happily pay more tax so I would support tax levels being raised by the government”. I really think you are misunderstanding this form of expression.

No I think the idea is that not only do you get prestige from the amount you GIVE but the amount you EARN/ OWN in the first place. So the gold/ platinum levels etc would just be about your tax level as a percentage not as an amount. Who cares if you paid £100 in tax if you're worth 20 mil? You can feel superior if you're a platinum level tax payer though.

You could certainly do 'Just Giving' style tax adverts but like with charity donations you wouldn't get to decide how the money is actually spent as that's just costly admin. Like if you donate to Battersea Dog's home you don't decide if they spend your money on nice dog toys or retarmacking the staff carpark.

I think some people would be happy to pay more tax if they could see a direct benefit from it for their local community. At the moment there is a feeling that it is just going into a massive government black hole.

Many already do this - voluntary contributions to schools for example are an attempt at filling the gap between what the tax payer provides and what is actually needed. We went to look at a state secondary school recently, where the suggested 'voluntary donation' was £500 per term! And looking at their facilities compared to another secondary on the same road, they clearly got this and more!

Children's hospices are another example of what should be government funded but is actually propped up by donations.

Donations which fulfill what should be a statutory service are already a form of voluntary taxation.

Where is the incentive to innovate, grow and take risks if everyone is capped at £10 million? When I get my £10 million I might as well just wind down my business and fire everyone. I might as well stop innovating as there is no reward. I might as well stop working. I might as well stop.

It makes far more sense for us as a society to put a huge emphasis on those that have extreme wealth to be seen to be contributors. To publicly reward them giving more tax and to give it a status in itself. In the Victoria age it was a status symbol for the very rich to build opulent public buildings as a legacy to themselves. This is why we have so many beautiful buildings in cities. What if we encouraged this spirit again and encouraged the super rich to build schools, hospitals and other publicly useful buildings in their name?

But you get to decide what policy area it is spent on. That way people will be more incentivised to give. So if you donate to education, you can't dictate that your money is used to fund text books are teachers. However you know it won't be spent on housing for example or other policy areas that you maybe don't want to actively support.

Evidence??

This makes absolutely no sense. Tax levels aren't just raised in a blanket manner and they don't impact everyone equally. There is a chance that the next budget will raise lots of tax but some people will be almost completely insulated from these rises.

If you state you are happy to pay more tax then you are happy to pay more tax. You may wish it was part of some wider tax rises but nobody gets design this. Why not just contribute your bit voluntarily in a movement where other like minded people do the same?

OP is deliberately twisting what people have said about paying higher taxes. She doing it to sneer and be sarky - pathetic.

Offensive!

How have I twisted what they have said when they've literally said 'I am happy to pay more tax'? Go on any taxation thread on MN and you still see examples of this. If they meant they would only do this if other specific taxation policies were put in place then they certainly haven't made this clear.

People give to charity all the time voluntarily. Why do you assume nobody would pay tax voluntarily when it finances some of our most essential services and looks after our most vulnerable people?

Also so what if I'm wrong and nobody actually means what they say when they said they want to pay tax? What do we actually lose? Why are you so adamant this isn't worth a try?

I think that would mean that essential but really boring stuff would be massively underfunded. That's why you get the tax badge so the government has enough money -- and vote for the government with a similar set of values to you.

Remember this would be tax that is raised over and above current general taxation. No department would have less money than they currently get.

@ CoffeeCantata-
“I'm frankly not concerned about unemployment in the Mediterranean due to a few super-yachts being let go.”

You would be if it were your livelihood at stake. You are talking shipyards, specialist ship-fitters, painters, massive amounts of tax to buy the thing, docking fees, to say nothing of the crew and staff. I know someone who captains such yachts - these days, there aren’t that many jobs going in the navy as we only have about two and a half ships. The point is that everything is connected to everything else - and some of those yachts will be sailing under a British flag and paying tax to our exchequer.

As for paying more tax than I need to, I think I can spend my own money infinitely more efficiently than the government, thank you. As Boris said, there is much spaffing of taxpayers’ money up the wall.

Let me help you make sense of what I’m saying then.

It is an expression. A general sentiment. Likely in the context of a conversation about something more specific. For example. A conversation about the state of our public services. Or whatever you like that is funded from taxation. The person (and this will not be exclusive to higher tax payers already) might say “Yes, I agree that our public services need more money spent on them, I would happily pay more tax if that would help improve this”.

You are referring to broad, sweeping, non-specific, standalone declarations from an individual, with no context. That is what I think is an unlikely scenario.

Not the current taxation. I think we agreed taxes need to rise further up the thread. But you're right, I had forgotten it was an extra. Still, I think as a concept it could work for mandatory taxes too to make rich people feel better about paying them. You could have it as an additional title, eg 'platinum taxee Sir James Dyson'

It's not a well known expression at all. It is quite a specific statement.

Yes, I agree that our public services need more money spent on them, I would happily pay more tax if that would help improve this

So you think the above is so broad sweeping and non specific that it is in effect meaningless. So why are people saying it, especially in the context of other people complaining about tax rises that will impact them? The only answer is that it is to give the writer a sense of unearned moral superiority. It is hypocrisy in its highest form because in reality you are not happy to pay more tax at all.

I am happy to pay more tax, on the basis that I know people who are wealthy will be paying much more.

If they aren't paying much more, I don't see that my drop in the ocean will make much difference, so I don't see why I should pay it.

A 1% wealth tax on me personally wouldn't raise much money for the country or make a significant difference. A 1% wealth tax on everyone would, and I'd be happy to pay my 1% if everyone else was paying theirs.