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 didn’t say it is a well known expression. I said it was an expression. Usually delivered within a wider conversation or context.

No. The example I gave was of the expression being in a more specific context. The specific nature being that of a discussion about public services in this case. Equally it could be about, say, the NHS in particular. What I am saying is the the expression you say you’re hearing and reading so much is unlikely to be said in isolation of a wider discussion.

How much is 1% if your wealth roughly? The average person is worth £300K in the UK. 1% would be £3k. If 10% of the population paid 1% of their wealth (assuming a mean average wealth of £300k) then this would raise the £20 billion Reeves needs. This is almost identical to what a 1% wealth tax applied to those with assets over £10 million would raise. Wealth taxes have been proven not to work when applied to the super wealthy. Other countries have tried and failed. However 10% of the population willingly giving 1% would certainly work and absolutely wouldn't be a drop in the ocean.

I think actually this might be the case. We know men are the higher earners as a group and they are the ones who give to charity the least. Women are the lower earners and volunteer time and money more frequently.

I'm not sure it is:
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2025/wealth-is-strong-predictor-of-prosocial-behaviour-around-the-world-study-suggests

This. If we want to take children out of poverty then we could start with making sure fathers pay 50% of the cost of raising all their kids - including childcare. Obviously this would take hard work and political balls but once society accepts that’s the case then hopefully fathers just start contributing properly rather than finding ways round it - there should be no ways round it.

I don't see how any individuals personal wealth is relevant to the discussion.

Some people who are enormously wealthy are also extremely greedy and miserly and will always refuse to pay their share, even though they benefit the most from society.

They will always find some way to justify to themselves why they shouldn't pay.

And thus we would get back to where we are now, with the poor volunteers paying while rich people avoid paying.

Actually clearing up the problems with tax fraud would be a lot more sensible way to raise taxes than voluntary contributions. Joined up IT systems will eventually stop this, but for now the government loses large amounts of money because some people are greedy and will not pay their fair share. They should accelerate the process of hunting these people down and making them pay. And employ more people as well to do it.

Yes, I agree although gender specific, so women give more frequently but less than men, presumably because men earn more so when they do donate they donate bigger sums
www.statista.com/statistics/292929/giving-to-charity-in-england-by-gender/?srsltid=AfmBOoorbDb51IZpwymzQC0EhAf6E6Th6NsRskfC-ols36rOGpMP7NbB

It was more of rhetorical question than one I expected you to answer regarding personal wealth. My point was it's most often volume of contributions and not the size of contributions that makes the biggest difference with taxation.

I also don't know why you assumed only the poor would volunteer to pay tax and the rich wouldn't. People that want to find loopholes or want to avoid tax altogether will do this in all levels of society. The tradesman accepting cash only, cleaners not declaring earnings whilst rich people use offshore accounts. Human nature is human nature. Rich people aren't intrinsically evil and poor people aren't intrinsically good.

Tax fraud could be tackled alongside a voluntary scheme. It's not an either/or scenario.

To be honest I do find your stance hypocritical. I think you know that the very rich could never truly be compelled to pay a lot of tax. No country in the world has really cracked this and certainly no country like the UK. You can therefore make sweeping statements about paying more tax in the full knowledge that the conditions you demand to do this will never be met.

Being so poor that you can't afford to pay full price for items and are forced to buy them on the black market in not the same as a millionaire not paying their fair share of tax .HTH

You are very naive if you think that it's just the poorest taking part in the black market that genuinely can't afford an alternative. So no, that doesn't help! In fact it's quite the opposite. It's a feeble attempt to excuse tax evasion

I agree. 100% naiveity to think only "the poor" indulge in the black economy through necessity. It costs the UK tens of billions per year. The people involved (both as service users and sellers) are your friends, neighbours, relatives, etc. It's certainly not just restricted to those due to necessity, in the same way that shoplifting isn't the sole preserve of the poor/needy either. Lots of people are greedy, including those on average incomes.

"It was more of rhetorical question than one I expected you to answer regarding personal wealth."

It didn't seem like it.

"I also don't know why you assumed only the poor would volunteer to pay tax and the rich wouldn't."

Probably because I've met a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people. The difference is poor people generally have nothing to give. Whereas rich people choose not to give it.

"The tradesman accepting cash only."

If you think tradesmen generally are poor then try hiring a few.

"Tax fraud could be tackled alongside a voluntary scheme. It's not an either/or scenario."

The difference is tackling tax fraud actually takes some government - organisation and effort.

"To be honest I do find your stance hypocritical. I think you know that the very rich could never truly be compelled to pay a lot of tax. No country in the world has really cracked this and certainly no country like the UK. You can therefore make sweeping statements about paying more tax in the full knowledge that the conditions you demand to do this will never be met."

I agree. Very rich people can't be compelled to pay lots of tax. The tax raising always comes from the middle class. The working class have no money. For the very rich it makes sense to pay people to come up with schemes to avoid paying it. The middle class are the only segment of society where significant amount of tax can be raised and the government goes after them every time because there is nowhere else to get it from. End of story. The flip side of this is that the middle class and rich people have often largely accumulated their wealth because the country did not charge them enough tax and decided to run up debt instead. This situation is now changing. There is no more putting it on the tab. So we are going to have to pay.

@GasPanic
Probably because I've met a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people. The difference is poor people generally have nothing to give. Whereas rich people choose not to give it
Studies have provided mixed results about whether rich or poor people are more moral, generous of socially minded. The best conclusion is therefore that rich and poor are all human and that they aren't part of some homogeneous group that behave the same just because they have roughly the same level of wealth. Of course poor people won't give something they don't have but that doesn't mean they would give it if they could.

I don't think tradespeople are generally poor. They are usually not super wealthy though and some can be poor if they do relatively low skilled work in an ad-hoc fashion.

The flip side of this is that the middle class and rich people have often largely accumulated their wealth because the country did not charge them enough tax and decided to run up debt instead
That's one explanation. The other is that the welfare bill has rocketed and public spending has been out of control over the past few decades. We have pretended we can be a low tax country with good public services and a bloated welfare system. Now it's obvious we can't do this (no country can) so we have to make tough choices. This doesn't necessarily mean we have to become a high tax country though ..

I think you are wrong about people wanting to pay more tax.
I think you need to challenge individuals on threads who say they are happy to pay more tax to see if they mean just them or everyone. You might find they mean everyone.

Your use of the word gleeful in your OP suggest that you are not that respectful of people who say they want to pay more tax.
If I have taken you up wrong, and you do actually mean this as a genuine policy, then I think you need to do some more checking of the happy to pay more tax people before taking it further.

I don't doubt that they would prefer it if everyone paid more tax or most commonly, that richer people than them paid more tax. They should state that more clearly though and make it clear how they see their contributions changing versus other people's. For example I have seen people that are paying virtually no tax claim that they would pay more tax safe in the knowledge that any tax rises would barely impact them. They will be net beneficiaries for probably their whole lives so tax increases can only be a good thing for them .

I also don't see what harm introducing this policy would do even if hardly anyone came forward to donate? What is the worst that could happen?

I think we need some kind od wealth barometer on here, all this wealth hate, what kind of levels are we talking about?

I would never pay more tax than I need to because it would just go into the big melting pot and could be used for things that I don't agree with like free childcare. I do, however, support charities as I feel that money is useful.

If they introduce an additional property tax we will be hit quite badly. Our 4 bed 2 bath house in the South is worth 1.8M, joint income around £125 - 150K. In order to pay this wealth tax we would either have to cut costs to do so or try for a higher income which would also be taxed at high rates so will cost huge amounts more.

I think that the whole system needs an overhaul. Maybe we should be given tax points based on what we pay. We could then use these points to opt in for services that we want like childcare. If we use private education and private healthcare we get more points. This would then reduce the tax due.

I admit that this needs thinking about a lot more but to mean it seems a lot fairer.

"That's one explanation. The other is that the welfare bill has rocketed and public spending has been out of control over the past few decades. We have pretended we can be a low tax country with good public services and a bloated welfare system. Now it's obvious we can't do this (no country can) so we have to make tough choices. This doesn't necessarily mean we have to become a high tax country though .."

So a political discussion then. If you are unhappy with the way the government runs then you have the opportunity to vote them out and if enough people agree with you then it might actually happen.

Aside from all of this, I think the idea of a voluntary tax contribution that was in any way significant (large in comparison to the total government budget) would be a complete non starter because it would be even more difficult to predict the revenues (which might vary considerably based on how happy the people were with the government as well as the strength of the economy). Therefore the government could well be faced with even more uncertainty over planning than it does at the moment, in a situation where borrowing money to smooth out budget holes is becoming extremely difficult (hence the rises in taxation).

I don't care so much about how the government runs the country in terms of what taxes are spent on. There are enough people around to argue about that. I do think it should run the country in a fiscally responsible way though because if it doesn't it will ruin us all. I think Reeves rules for sustainable spending/revenue generation are pretty good. I don't have much hope she will stick to them though.

So a political discussion then. If you are unhappy with the way the government runs then you have the opportunity to vote them out and if enough people agree with you then it might actually happen
No not a political discussion, just a response to your post that made it seem like tax rises are and always were inevitable. This completely ignores the other side of the equation which is spending. What you do one side impacts the other.

There is a great deal of uncertainty on lots of revenue streams for the state. Much bigger hitters than this would potentially be. I don't think adding slightly more uncertainty to forecasting is reason enough to not even try to raise additional revenue through this means. People love to virtue signal and show they are kind. This would be the ultimate mechanism.

But of course a huge chunk of society won't be paying any extra, they will be exempt

And as for the assertion that tax rises are inevitable - I bloody hope not. The NI increase last year stalled our economy and potentially lost more than it raised through public services also having to pay the extra for their employees, and the effect of it slowing down the economy. Our growth is either nil or tiny amount forwards or backwards. Which as a poster pointed out upthread, means we are going backwards, as any growth percentage lower than inflation is effectively a recession.

I don't think tax rises in general are inevitable but they are inevitable under this government.

People didn't vote in a Labour government expecting less spending did they after shouting about Tory austerity ?

Labour claimed that they were going to grow the economy and because of that they wouldn't need to raise taxes. But since pretty much the entire developed world is struggling to achieve any sort of growth at the moment that is a tall order.

So the choice is, i) cut spending, ii) borrow more, iii) grow the economy or iv) tax more.

i) is not typical Labour policy and they are having problems within their own party forcing through any cuts to social care budgets which are the large ones that make a difference. ii) is not possible without the markets hiking bond yields significantly. iii) is not happening anywhere in the developed world or in comparable economies to the UK. In fact only Liz Truss had the idea of remodelling the UK economy in order to achieve higher growth rates and look what happened to her.

So iv) looks pretty much inevitable from where I am standing.

Plus Labour have hammered growth through tax rises. It’s incredible they’re not being taken to task for this:

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

Lots of people are willing to pay more tax? Really? This may be the impression that you get on Mumsnet,but from reading various newspapers and listening to LBC,I am definitely of the opinion that very very few people would happily pay more.

I think this is the key for me. People didn't vote for spending cuts, but they sure as hell didn't vote for this level of tax rises. They promised the moon on a stick all funded through mystical growth and adding VAT to school fees. Again, I don't want this to turn into a political debate but there is a lot of anger from people who feel they have been saddled with a high tax and high spending government when this wasn't what was promised. Yet there are loads of people all over social media and on MN who insist we don't need to make welfare cuts so why can't they pay for the high tax and high services model they want through voluntary contributions? The vast majority of the tax would always go to specific groups so it's not as though you would be receiving radically worse services as a general citizen if a minority voluntarily paid higher taxes or everyone did.

They will do what they always do and claim the "environment has changed" and therefore any manifesto promises are no longer valid.

The electorate will get the chance to judge the truth of that at the next election.