AIBU to question people claiming they would happily pay more tax?

[Towerinthegarden]

Yet another thread about should there be tax rises or spending cuts, and invariably you get a host of people coming out saying they are happy to pay more. Well you can https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government

I’m pretty sure what they actually mean is I am happy to pay a tiny amount more on the understanding others will pay a lot more and then I’ll see the benefit. If that assumption is wrong why aren’t all these people saying they’re happy to pay more doing it?

The Netherlands has them. What I means is not shit build quality and poor design. One of my work colleagues is complaining about housing being built near her because it’ll all 4 bed villas and not what the local area needs. The housing will attract people from out of the area and the places those people come from might benefit as their old properties become available but if the new people to the area are commuters who mainly spend elsewhere and more school places aren’t made available then it’s crap for the locals and they will NIMBY their head off.

how so?

I always thought people meant it in the sense of not minding if the government raised taxes and everyone paid more, not in the sense of individuals paying a bit more off their own bat - otherwise it would just a drip in the ocean unless you are a lottery winner/movie star etc!

If I had a bit of spare money I wanted to do some good with, I would donate it to something local where it would be enough for their needs.

Have just been cycling through a part of my town where brownfield sites have finally been redeveloped. There’s patch of land near me that had a petrol station on it, has been just a cleared site of years but I assume the land is heavily polluted and it may also still have fuel storage space underground. Only very expensive (or very large) developments would tip that one into the black bur not everywhere is like that.

Because doing it on a voluntary basis won't work. So few people will do it that the ones that make significant personal sacrifices will see no benefit

I'd happily pay more tax for better services, if everyone else did the same. I've seen first hand how much better public services are in countries with high tax

I would agree with this ^ 100%.
No way on God's green earth would I want to pay any more tax. I am up to Pussy's Bow seeing how my money is squandered.
We need to cut Foreign Aid to the bone. At present we give to Ukraine, Afghanistan, Ethiopea, Syria & Somalia.I don't have a problem with Ukraine - we need to support them as, unfortunately, they are a buffer between us and Russia.
Ethiopia was never colonised by Britain. Syria gained independence in 1945, Somalia in 1960. We should never have got involved with Afghanistan and certainly shouldn't be paying for it now.
Benefits need to be cut, (I don't class Pensions as a "benefit" btw as most of those folks will have made some contribution in their lifetime.)
Those young able-bodied NEWTs (not in education, work or training) need to have all benefits cut so they are forced to get off their scrawny a*s and get a job. NI contributions for employers need to be cut to encourage more job creation.
Please don't tell me there are no jobs because where I am there are lots of jobs in the hospitality sector, cleaners, sales persons, hotel staff, bingo callers, pub work - all jobs that don't require any qualifications.
Migrants need to be put in basic accommodation, warehouses on camp beds, no free mobile phones, no free dentistry, prison-style food, do their own laundry. that should stop the pull factors.
Well, that's made a start - are you listening Andy?

I’m interested in the people who don’t click the link to pay more but when there’s a discussion about cuts simply say they are happy to pay more. Not the people who say “I think we should all pay more” or the people who say I think the rich should pay more. The people who say I am happy to pay more but don’t.

They seem to think them saying they are happy to pay gives weight to their argument, but they simply aren’t doing it.

Firstly, most people don't know that that option exists. I had never seen or heard of that page until today.

Secondly, governments plan in advance how to allocate their budget. A tiny drop in the ocean into the voluntary tax bucket will not make the government change their spending decisions because they can't plan around sporadic voluntary donations. The only way to force the government to increase spending is for them to know the amount coming in, which means an increase in tax for everybody (or, preferably, higher earners who are currently under taxed compared to their wealth).

I pay more by donating to charities through monthly subscriptions, but I don't think those charities should have to exist. I think all or most of us should be paying more tax and the government should start fulfilling its responsibility towards its people by covering the services that are currently, shamefully, filled by charities surviving off the goodness of people's hearts.

Theirs is a difference between wanting to pay more ( who does ? ) and believing that paying more is essential if we want the kind of country , health service and education , that people also want.

And some people even recognise that they are at the upper income end and so the burden should fairly fall on them even if they can think of better ways to spend their money

but the basic trouble with this country is too many people beleive that tax money is wasted in vast amounts , and too many people get the £££ eyes when money comes their way

the whole “tax money is wasted “ goes back to dear old Maggie who convinced everyone that private industry was way more efficient that government and public and so gave away water and gas and trains and all these things that we now can see are not better run in private hands - big do tend to cost a lot more. The idea of a wasteful government has stuck however

I'm happy to pay more as part of a society where all those who can are also paying more so that a significant amount is raised that can make a difference. The only way of achieving this is compulsory tax.
I'm not going to make a voluntary contribution that would be as good as useless if there was only a handful of us doing it, as I feel in this case, my money is better spent donating to charities.

when I say I am happy to pay more what I mean is that I would prefer to pay higher taxes than for services to be cut.

my local hospital already has a vast network of fundraisers and runs many, many charity events, I’ve donated to it many times.

my local primary school also does have a pta (like pretty much every primary school in the country) who run events and fundraise for the school.

i do tend to make my donations now to my local food bank as I am very aware of how many are struggling in my village. (It’s not a wealthy village).

by saying I am happy to pay more I am indicating that I don’t want the NHS in particular to go further down the route of lack of services than it already is. Ideally I’d prefer a European style system but I think the chances of that happening are nil and I’d prefer the nhs over the American style system we seem to be sliding into.

police as far as I am aware are paid for by the police precept on council tax.

So why don't you?

I'd be happy to pay a bit more if I thought it would make a difference to the causes I care about. I pay it to charities instead.

@5128gap "I feel in this case, my money is better spent donating to charities."

I refuse point blank to contribute to big charities as their CEO's get salaries averaging £130-150 while they run their shops with volunteers.
The CEO of the RNLI gets a whopping £175,000 for running a "migrant taxi service" across the channel bringing in more mouths to feed.
Age UK CEO gets £192,000
The CEO of the British Heart Foundation gets £268,000+ again shops are run by volunteers.

I'd sooner help out at the local soup kitchen so I can see where the money goes.

Those people who are barely making ends meet now wouldn't pay more tax in my budget, in fact personal allowance would increase but the many loop holes would be closed and pensioners, myself included, would pay NI.

Of course they didn’t because the media would be back to the old tax and spend slogan that shuts off reasoned debate

But if people are keen as pp said it wouldn’t have been an issue.

Do you want £ per month or percentages or are you just sneering to suggest that I’m not in good faith? As others have tried to explain, no one ever wants to pay more. I don’t have the expertise to suggest how much more I should pay but yes, I’m willing.

I coped when in Thatcher’s time, we had a basic rate of 25%, compared with the 20% we have now, a lower personal allowance and much higher mortgage rates.

People are allowed to have a different opinion to you, you do realise that right?

I wouldn't say I'm 'happy' to pay more tax, like it's a sort of joyous hobby.

But I would agree to/ not complain about a tax rise if it meant not cutting some services, or improving others, or delivering new ones- depending what those services were.

In the same way that I'm not 'happy' to do the washing up but I find it preferable to eating off dirty crockery.

That is as valid a view as any other in a democracy.

No, but I’m happy for other people to do so if they want to.

I actually think being able to pay more tax to a particular department or program would be a really good idea.

I think it would be because there is no space to discuss it. Taxation is presented as almost theft.

The question leading this thread is, as I understand it, not suggesting that everyone is willing to pay more but that, of those who express willingness, none does so in good faith.

No chance. We pay too much tax and it's wasted on illegal migrants, welfare and government machinery.

That's the beauty of charity, isn't it? We get to choose our priorities. I support women's charities and food banks.

I'd vote for a party that didn't rule out tax hikes if doing that improved things. Whether I'd be happy to pay it is another matter, but needs must.

Where people get annoyed (IMO) is paying more but not seeing any benefit, which is what happens so often. Those who do see the benefits of taxes are generally the ones who are shouting long and loud about not getting enough.

I'm not sure your point makes sense OP.

Imagine you lived in a shared house and had a kitty for food. Towards the end of each week you're running low on food. So someone suggests paying in a bit more each week. You say Yes I'd be willing to pay a bit more. Then everyone else says actually I'm not going to pay more, but Tower can pay more as she's said she'd be happy to, then we'll all carry on splitting the food equally.

I guess you wouldn't be happy with this? That's why I've not clicked on the link.