Would you be prepared to pay more tax to get better state education for all?

[happygardening]

Any other suggestions welcome to ensure that all where ever they live and whatever their background have access to education of the highest quality.

Fascinating that the majority supporting tax rise don't work. Or claim to pay tax through husband's pay. Wonder what happens in case if divorce? Will you still be a unit?

Fascinating that the majority supporting tax rise don't work - what, here or in the UK? Is that true?

I pay tax FWIW and would pay more if a government I respected had a good rationale for taking it. Well that's daft isn't it - I wouldn't and don't have a choice, but y'know.... in theory!

On MN. I think in rl majority will oppose it as we are already taxed highly if you include ni, vat, council tax,

socareless - of course you aren't still a unit if you divorce. That doesn't mean you should treat yourselves as divorced before the event.

Perhaps we shouldn't give the vote to people unless they pay more than say £5k of tax a year. Those who don't pay in perhaps should not get a right to say how the money is doled out.

A taxpaying couple with three kids and a joint income of £30,000 cost the state more than an unemployed single person on benefits. £26,000 in education, health and child benefit alone.
Since the unemployed person is less of a drain perhaps he/she should have a greater say.

And there you go again, socareless, talking about people who don't work, rather than people who don't do paid work.

I really don't understand this. If the tax rate goes up, it doesn't actually matter whether the money that comes into our family is earned by me, my partner or both of us- there's still less of it!

Socareless- do you place no value at all on unpaid work?

Yes, let's disenfranchise anyone who has to give up paid work to care for their disabled child, because the state provides inadequate support to enable them to keep doing paid work.

There has to be a starting point grovel. Who is paying the single unemployed person £26I? If not the pool of in paid work couple

Tax paying is not the only way to contribute to society - surely that's part of the argument of people who don't want to pay more tax? So why now argue for the disenfranchisement of anyone who doesn't pay tax?

There has to be a starting point grovel. Who is paying the single unemployed person £26I? If not the pool of in paid work couple.

Families which do stick together as a unit and view themselves as such are generally wealthier, tend to be happier, generally have better outcomes for their children and in general need less state support. So why not treat them as the unit you want them to be?

Seeker I have volunteered in the past as a book keeper for a local charity before children whilst also working full time. when DC started arriving I left that to support youth work at local church on sundays. Have left that now until last DC starts school then will resume. So I obviously value unpaid work.
I am just very suspicious of people who do voluntary work but won't do paid work.

I am all for that rabbit. Strong family unit and all. But divorce is sadly part of modern UK society.

"I am just very suspicious of people who do voluntary work but won't do paid work."

Why?

The main reason I prefer voluntary work is that my husband works very unusual hours - around for several days in one week and away for 10 days at a time on other occasions, which makes childcare arrangements either unpredictable or expensive (eg paying for someone to care for my children when dh could do it). Voluntary work is more flexible than paid work - I can do voluntary work close to home during school hours only, so don't need to pay for childcare, plus voluntary work where I have control over evening meeting times, so that these can be arranged for days when my dh can care for the children - in other words, it is far more flexible than paid work would be and still enables me to use my legal training, develop other skills and feel I am being useful, whilst also always being there to pick my children up from school and be very involved in their lives. It also gives me time to do a relevant distance learning course for when I do intend to start earning money again (but not as an employee, but running a business from home). I could, of course, set up my own business sooner rather than later, but I enjoy what I am doing at the moment far more, albeit I don't get paid for it.

It's fine rabbit. This is my personal view. I know more people who do paid work and voluntary work side by side than those who do voluntary work alone.

Still at it??
"Why not pop along to the local hospital and catch the porters/cleaners/nurses/doctors coming off the night shift?"
FWIW I used to come of night shifts having literally saved children's lives and I'm still happy to pay more tax if I thought it would improve the lot of UK PLC"s children.

I know more people who only do voluntary work, but only because they are way past retirement age. People like me, who are of paid-working age are more unusual, but not because there is something wrong with us - if you are too lazy to work for money, you aren't likely to be jumping up and down asking to volunteer, instead. That doesn't mean there is something dodgy about people who volunteer their time for free and don't also do paid work!!!!! It generally means they are just bl**dy lucky to be so well off. Most people don't have any option but to focus on their paid work.

No work or voluntary work for women matters hugely in feminist terms.
Separate taxation of husband and wife was a massive step forward when it came in. Women are separate people who often out earn teir men rather than paid appendages who cook and clean and provide sex in return for bed and board by a man who owes them and all their money. They are not one unit which jointly pays tax. These are absolutely fundamental issues in 2013 about women's power, money earning capacity and role.

I don't care whether the person staying home is the man or the woman, but in practical terms I think it often works better not to pretend there is such a thing as a work-life balance when two parents are working hard in relatively high-paid careers eg involving life and death like medicine - that is, if you are prioritising patients' welfare in the way most sick people would like. So, something has to give from one or the other of you... or, patient care has to become less important to you, which appears to be the way it has gone since more women entered the workforce and the hours doctors actually work have gone down, not up. The same applies to City workers putting in long hours - if both husband and wife do it, neither is spending much time with their kids.

The mistake of the past was for men to earn the money and view it as theirs, not as the family's. In other words, what Xenia describes was not families working as a unit at all, but men being unreasonable gits.

We don't seem to be able to agree on what categories of workers/taxpayers should have a say on tax matters.

As this is an Education thread, can I suggest that only those who went to RG universities are qualified to discuss such complex matters and everyone else should shut up? I'm excluding Oxbridge because Oxbridge graduates are too "other-wordly" for this kind of thing.