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.

I enjoy my work way too much to ever give it up - and DH is very, very happy about that, as there is no pressure for him to be THE breadwinner. We have a healthy competition with regards to work and pay... though recently, he has outdone me by quite a bit, so am now working hard to get a promotion by next year.

I don't think I want to ever lose my independence. It's bl**dy hard to get a well-paid job if you've been out of the market for long due to being a SAHP. Of course, some people's salary are less than the cost of childcare... with the chance of it increasing much often close to nil. In that case, it may be understandable.

What do you really mean by independence? You are dependent on your employer, surely? And on anyone who provides you with childcare services (no going into work if they let you down)? And on your dh's salary in addition to yours in order to sustain your lifestyle? To name but a few.

I used to be dependent on my employer's goodwill to let me have time off when I needed it, dependent on their goodwill when I had to be at home in the morning to get my washing machine fixed, etc, etc. I felt totally the opposite of independent. I feel an awful lot more independent, now.

Surely the expression "wage slave" didn't come about for nothing?

And someone running their own business is a profit slave, I guess? We all rely on an awful lot and all choose to take different risks in our efforts to feel as free as possible.

No because it would never get there, that is to say it would be diverted/consumed for other means by a struggling exchequer

rabbitstew

Nurseries are not like child minders who could possibly let you down. Unless everyone working there came down with a virus - by which point I'd have gotten it myself, too. Yes, we'd like to sustain our lifestyle (which isn't that glamorous). So what? Don't you? Most of it goes on fairly normal bills anyway, like the ones you pay.

Of course, there's a thing called employer's goodwill - but I am allowed to work from home if I need to. Yes, even when the washing machine breaks. No difference really as modern technology enables me to access my work computer from home. I even have a study at home set up.

Independence - think about it. Insurance policy. The future is not always set.

Plenty of women own, rather than are wage slaves. Also some of us have chidlren who don't need childcare any more. Finally why say if the woman is not working she is dependent on finding someone to mind the child? That is very very sexist. Men all over the country have that responsibility as well as women. If earn 10x what your children's father does as I did and a good few women do all these things become very different. If you earn pin money and the man big bucks it can be a vey different more difficult and sexist story for women.

Housewives who pay no tax may be more than happy that others (the 25% of people in the UK who are net givers compared to the 75% who are net takers from the system) pay more but the problem is the more you tax we 25% the less work we do and the less is available for the net takers. Eventually the rich just leave and the poor may well no longer be jealous but their money will run out.

"75% are net takers"
This figure seems rather high! I be tried to search it but am unable to confirm or contradict it where did you get it from?

I cannot remember where I read it now. I think it included people who get tax credits - I've never had one, obviously any family with housing benefit but who is in work and those with periods over their lives unemployed or on other state benefits and the huge raft of those living solely on the state pension.

In the US a politician was criticised for referring to just over 50% of US people who do not pay tax which was a similarconcept - his points were not wrong but he was annoying half the electorate which did not do him much good politically. In addition in the UK 1% of us pay 30% of all tax gathered too.

So 1% of us including me will be lumbered with very much more extra tax if this thread say went ahead and 99% who not feel it so disproportionately.

"I cannot remember where I read it now"

But obviously it's true.............

Seeker
Xenua it's widely accepted that poverty is the single biggest factor affecting a child on a day to day basis and their future outcomes. Only 2% of the UK population are lucky enough to have organised their lives so efficiently that they can earn £100 000+ a year. I am all in favour of providing financial support to those with low/no incomes so that children can be lifted out of poverty. In a developed country like ours we have a moral obligation to do this no child in the UK should live in poverty.

I don't get any tax credits or child benefit either, Xenia.

Tasmania - nurseries are not for school age children. Nor are any I have seen places I would have happily left my babies and small children all day (and when I worked in the City, I would be out of the house from 7am until 8pm on average). And they wouldn't accept my children in the nursery if the children had heavy colds, either. Also, why are you "so what"ing? You were the one delighting in your "independence," I was merely pointing out that you are not independent in your lifestyle - you rely on your dh's salary as much as he relies on yours, because you happen to be a family unit, not an entirely separate individual who pays no heed to what anyone else in the family thinks. And yes, the future is not always set (nor should our present be entirely governed by our fears of the unforeseeable future). We all take different risks in our efforts to feel as free as possible, to support our families and ensure that we get some pleasure and sense of fulfilment out of the lives we lead. You don't know what my dh's job is, or how our lives are set up, what our savings are, or what other family support exists, but I have looked into all eventualities and am not afraid. And I am not a great risk taker... and my backup plan is NOT relying on state benefits. You could say people spending all their money on private school fees are taking a huge risk if this means they aren't saving up for their unforeseeable futures, but you don't disapprove of that particular risk, do you?

Its always interesting and informative when adults get together to debate issues, especially on MN, but always shocked at the gross disrespect, arrogance and foolish pride shown by some in an attempt to dominate/ridicule others. What they really achieve in the end is to show an all encompassing foolishness that leaves all their other accolades on the floor.

I've enjoyed team Tasmania's arguments about education wether its private/selectuve etc a lot, likewise team Rabbitstew's. However the debate descended from its royal throne to the floor as soon as Rabbitstew was basically told to shut up as she doesn't earn! I think one of the most ridiculous comments was one stating how she doesn't get people who do voluntary work but cannot do paid work. Do you really think someone who does work 'voluntarily' is then incapable of 'paid work' ? I know plenty people doing 'paid' who would never volunteer an hour of voluntary work.

Volunteers in this country are some of the most driven people you will ever hope to meet, they are the silent unsung heroes of this great nation, thank God for the spirit of volunteers who carry the weak and 'cast offs' of this society. To look down your nose at someone does volunteer especially fulltime shows a deep lack of understanding about humanity.

Any family that decides that decides for one partner to give up work and live on one salary whilst the other volunteers is to be commended not sneered at.
Last but not the least, marriage should is not a 'competition' between the two adults but a joint venture, one team. Yes each individual earns technically and pays tax, but in a 'good marriage' everything earned/lost belongs to the family unit, that's not too hard to understand, however it is difficult to argue for 'marriage', 'family unit' on an internet forum when some of the individuals being argued with are not in happy marriages or divorced.

From the Centre for Policy Studies

53.4% OF UK HOUSEHOLDS NOW RECEIVE MORE IN BENEFITS THAN THEY PAY IN TAXES

The past 30 years has seen an increasing proportion of the population of total households becoming overall net recipients of the state, writes Ryan Bourne in The progressivity of UK taxes and transfers.

This has been particularly marked in the past ten years:

in 1979, 43.1 per cent of total households received more in benefits (including state spending on benefits in kind, such as the NHS and state education) than they paid in taxes (including direct taxes such as income tax and indirect taxes such as VAT, fuel and alcohol duties)
in 2000/01, this figure was 43.8 per cent
in 2010/11, this figure was 53.4 per cent
Around three million more households were net recipients of the state in 2010/11 than just ten years earlier

Over this period, middle-income households have also moved from being significant net contributors to the state to significant net recipients.

twenty years ago, in 1990, the middle quintile of households faced an effective tax rate of 8.2 per cent. But by 2010/11 this had reversed: their effective tax rate was -20.4 per cent. In other words, the average household in the middle quintile used to pay £1,673 more in tax than it received in benefits and benefits in kind
in 2010/11 received £4,589 more in benefits than it paid in taxation. If the average household in the middle income group faced the same net effective tax rate in 2010/11 as in 1990, then they would be making a net contribution £6,425 higher today.
In 2010/11, households in the highest quintile effectively financed the great majority of net transfer to all other households.

Lowest quintile: received £10,153 more in benefits than paid in taxes
Second quintile: received £9,655 more in benefits than paid in taxes
Middle quintile: received £4,589 more in benefits than paid in taxes
Fourth quintile: paid £4,113 more in taxes than received in benefits
Highest quintile: paid £20,125 more in taxes than received in benefits
At least part of this change in effective tax rates is down to changing demographics, with an increasing proportion of retired households in the middle three quintiles.

But similar trends are also observed when purely examining non-retired households. 39.6 per cent of these households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11 compared to 31.7 per cent in 1979 and 29.0 per cent in 2000/01.

In addition, the ONS produced new data on request from the CPS to show that the proportion of non-retired households receiving a cash benefit other than child benefit rose from 40.3 per cent in 2000/01 to 44.6 per cent in 2010/11 ? an increase of over a million households.

Tim Knox, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, commented:

?These trends are unsustainable ? particularly given the ageing profile of the UK population. Reversing the trend will require implementation of tough policies to get more people into work; to continue the reform of public services; to restrain increases in the cost of benefits payment; and to ensure that enterprise has the freedom to flourish, leading to more growth, more employment and higher wages and salaries.?

Ryan Bourne, Head of Economics at the Centre for Policy Studies, commented:

?These data show that even before the financial crisis, the Labour government was ramping up spending on cash benefits and benefits in kind without corresponding increases in taxation. This was not redistribution from rich to poor, but redistribution from the future to the present. It felt good at the time, but given the government doesn?t have its own money, was unsustainable.?

So grovel from the very interesting data that you have found what are you proposing?
I accept the statement "redistribution from the future to the present" but this is not of any help to a child living today in extreme poverty. We need to financially support this child and his or her family to be the future.

happy, I'm not proposing anything. You (sensibly) questioned the "75% net taker" stat. It prompted me to go Googling. I'm simply sharing the result.

'Benefits' seems to be used as a catch all phrase. Once you start to lump in NHS costs and Education, most of us would not call them benefits, but say that this is what we pay our taxes for.

Ryan Bourne seems to be suggesting that we pay more tax, which is where this debate started.

My family personally haven't had to use the NHS very much, likewise we are now making little use of the education services, but I am still happy to pay for them.

Ah but I forgot - I do pay tax, but my universities aren't Russell Group/Oxbridge, so I am not allowed to express an opinion.

LaVolcan- I don't pay tax but did go to a RG- maybe we could coordinate out response?

What about me? I don't pay tax, I'm a 5-day a week volunteer who must be too useless to do paid work and I read Law at Oxford, so am also far too "other-worldly" anyway.

By the way, thank you, bulletpoint, for your support of voluntary work. I was beginning to feel rather sad that the effort I put in was apparently viewed with so much contempt by so many people.

I do pay tax, do volunteer, went to London Uni and haven't had time to catch up on whole thread - but did cheer out loud at Bulletpoint's last post

53, not 75%, sorry. Thanks for the link.

I think we only got on to tax because it was being suggested if you don't pay tax then may be you should have no say int het ax those of us who work full time often 50 weeks a year should have it spent on. Easy enough to spend the money of others. Then of course is the all important feminism argument, separate taxation of husband and wife, what a husband earns is not what a wife earns and the iniquity of living off male earnings etc etc.

Anyway the bottom line is that the tax payers and sometimes their non working wives at present are a bit fed up that the 53% who are net takers get so much say in how their money is spent, that they fed up that we seem to have almost the biggest state in history and biggest state spending even leaving aside what we have to pay to service our debt which has no hope of ever reducing in the foreseeable future and that the squeezed middle have just got fed up with tax tax tax. They want to see less tax which of course would mean not more spending on state education but cuts.

This rather wet Government has protected far too many areas from cuts, not made any cuts with much impact and the large state remains a very large state indeed with getting on for some of the highest personal tax rates in the EU.