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.

In the US 50% of people pay no tax at all

That is grossly untrue & Mick Romney got fried when he claimed as much, too. An awful lot of people who pay no FEDERAL income tax are pensioners and children. I'm out of this thread.

Nor do we have one of the higher income tax rates. Our top tax rate in 2012 was 50%, and that was only for the higher rate earners.

As I said before, the average earnings are ~£26,000 so anyone on that will be paying 20%. That is not high by EU standards - somewhere towards the middle or lower end.

This country's biggest problem, rather than asset, appears to be its gross over-reliance on gambling money - sorry, I mean profits from the City. I do not want to be beholden to organisations with so little sense of morality that they would rather protect their bonuses and risky transactions than show any interest in the effect of their operations on the countries within which they operate and the rest of the world. The world may be a big place, but it's not that big, and if banks and global corporations are even p*ssing off the Swiss, then they must be behaving really badly.

LaVolcan

You keep going on about how we don't pay enough taxes... and compare us to the rest of Europe. And yet, you don't seem to realize why that works in those few countries in Europe, but not here! When will you realize that in most EU countries, the cost of living is less??? If housing in the UK costs half as much as it costs now, and other things, too, I'd gladly pay more tax.

Germany charges a LOT of tax - one of the highest in the world. They don't have anything like the NHS either, so by law, you have to pay for health insurance (there are varying degrees of these - some much more expensive than others - which determines what hospital / what doctor you can expect to be treated by). However, they think we are insane for paying what we do on housing. Basically, we pay landlords / developers the money that Germans may be paying on taxes. Most of my school friends over there are SAHMs, have nice, big houses and have a lot left over to pay for very nice holidays AND still manage to save... a rather lot of money (Germans are big net savers... not much personal debt). Here in the Southeast, you'd be lucky to find a family home in a nice area for under 350k. I can get a villa for that sort of money over there. Again, if I can have what they have, I'd be happy paying more tax.

How do you think the Germans would react if their housing costs doubled by tomorrow??? Believe me, they'd kick up a fuss. You can't tax people a high rate like that, without giving them the exact same conditions to live on (first and foremost: halve the cost of property / rent).

One of the biggest problems I see in this country (and the US) is that people tend to be polarized. It's either this OR that. Either Tory or Labour. Either Democrat or Republican. German policies are more pragmatic than partisan. Politicians tend to admit that more often than not, you have to have a little bit of this AND that (not or). Politicians have been forming coalitions for decades, so I was very shocked at the UK's reaction to the Tories/Lib Dem forming one. What makes Britain so special that it apparently cannot work under a coalition, like the Germans can?

I can see that same attitude across the board here, with people wanting only comps existing... No private schools, no selection. A good system is where you have a little bit of everything, so that you actually have a choice. Having only one model means that you are forfeiting all the advantages another can offer.

You keep going on about how we don't pay enough taxes... and compare us to the rest of Europe.

Oh no I don't, do trouble to read what I say. I take issue with Xenia who declares that taxes are high and then says that they are some of the highest in Europe. I defy anyone to call 20% income tax high, and we seem to be pretty average both as far as the EU is concerned and western Europe generally.

And yet, you don't seem to realize why that works in those few countries in Europe, but not here! When will you realize that in most EU countries, the cost of living is less???

Thanks for the patronage. Obviously I was born yesterday.

If housing in the UK costs half as much as it costs now, and other things, too, I'd gladly pay more tax. Housing is less expensive, but housing costs aren't high because of the tax paid on them.

We don't have 20% income tax, we have 32% income tax.

There is a scale of income tax, from 20%-40%.

There is no 32% band.

The 12% isn't income tax, it's tax on earnings - a very important difference to old age pensioners, and those drawing medical pensions (eg disability early retirement)

The 12% isn't income tax, it's tax on earnings - a very important difference to old age pensioners, and those drawing medical pensions (eg disability early retirement)

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean here: pensions are taxable, including the state pension.

Maybe I should clarify what I meant by 20%. That's the lowest rate band after your personal allowances. Yes, if you pay national insurance then it comes to roughly 33% deduction for someone on average earnings. In theory though, national insurance isn't a tax because it entitles you to some benefits, but admittedly, I think you could argue about this.

But Tasmania, we have a little bit of everything in education far more in the UK than in other EU countries - I thought we'd established that? And it doesn't actually seem to work very well to have grammar schools, faith schools, secondary modern/high schools, comprehensive schools, private selective schools, private all-comer schools, very expensive public schools... and real free choice is a myth - your choice is generally limited to what is close enough to home and has enough space. And as for high tax versus high house prices, I'm not sure many people would vote for high house prices, they just don't want negative equity, so are trapped into expecting high prices for the property that they own, even if they recognise how unwholesome this is. And City bonuses didn't help the situation in the South East, as people started paying silly prices for investment purposes, because their huge bonuses allowed them to, so pricing more ordinarily paid people out of the market and encouraging foreign investors to do the same.

LaVolcan: it's an important difference. Pensions are taxable, but not subject to NI (which is paid only on earnings, not other income streams).

Yes, I know about NI.

I think it's quite a common misconception that people have that the state pension isn't taxable.

And of course you don't pay NI on earnings once you reach pensionable age.

Housing is less expensive, but housing costs aren't high because of the tax paid on them.

Not true. In Germany, approx. 80% of the population rent - they don't own homes. Because of this, there's a generally big interest in keeping rental prices steady... because 80% is one hell of a majority vote, and legislation is designed to benefit tenants, with all laws heavily falling in their favour. In addition, rental cost must adhere to the Mietspiegel - and index that tracks the rental cost in any city or state. People either rent from big consortiums or private landlords. There's healthy competition. Because many people prefer to rent, rather than buy, property prices don't go up in the same manner as here in the UK. Landlords generally buy property for the income it produces, not the growth of the property value - which is what it should be.

Also, one major thing in keeping house prices low is very prudent bank lending. LTV ratios barely ever go beyond 80%. In fact, a 20% deposit is often seen as no enough, when here in the UK, it is seen as "too much for us to save".

If you look at UK house prices, they have only really started growing exponentially when in the 70s, the law was changed, allowing high street banks to offer mortgages, and not just building societies. Competitions amongst these financial institutions increased, resulting in mortgages being made available to a wider population. Within that decade alone, house prices increased tenfold, because prudent lending went out of the window...

House prices really don't have much to do with tax, but rather supply and demand. Suppy is limited because the UK is a very small country, that does not really "build into the sky". Demand depends on how many people manage to get hold of the money...

rabbitstew

I don't work in banking - but a related industry, but I agree with you on the City people pricing ordinary people out of the market. I'd much rather like less volatile earnings, but steady and affordable homes.

Re schooling - personally, I am not sure I will ever get all I want from education through the state sector, so I would rather like to have the private option available.

Quite so, house prices don't have much to do with tax. Your argument is that we shouldn't pay more tax because the cost of living is high, which is a perfectly valid arguement, but not something I was taking issue with.

I was querying Xenia's argument which seemed to boil down to we shouldn't pay more tax because we are already among the highest taxed in Europe. She has yet to convince me that this is so for a majority of people.

That's too Tasmania BTW.

LaVolcan - we might not be taxed as high as other countries, but it feels as though we are because our wages don't stretch as far as on the continent. When the Pound was stronger, it looked like we were earning more, but not so new. I know a girl whose net earnings as an engineer in Paris is EUR90k a year. You'd probably get half of that gross per year here... doing exactly the same thing.

The basic rate of tax and NI is 32% (20% tax and 12% NI). It is pointless saying it is 20% when you have to pay 32%.

The current 2013 upper rate of tax and NI is 52% (which is more like a marginal upper rate of 66% when you take into account that single person allowance is lost at higher income levels).

Also we have fewer deductions against tax whereas in the past when we used to have rates as high as this we used to have them for mortgage interest, child tax allowances etc (eg childcare can be £25k for many UK full time working parents and can be as low as £1500 in some states). Also we have very high petrol and other indirect taxes adn VAT ant 20% plus council tax (I pay about £3k or more of council tax). It all adds up to being taxed high at every turn.

I get the impression, from reading the allocation threads, that the bad schools are bad because of teachers/HM and/or disruptive kids. Lack of funds is never mentioned.

Money isn't the root of the (main) problem so no to the tax question.

I wouldnt pay more, no.

That is true about deductions. In the US they can deduct lots of things:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323852904578128950616756728.html

in particular mortgages, but also moving expenses when going to a new job, medical premiums, and many others. The US system of taxation is a factor in why they give so much more to charity.

You can't compare headline tax rates necessarily.

I didn't stop to buy the paper but headlines read 'Billions spent on NHS fails to halt decline".

Throwing lots of money at schools will result in same headlines.

That aside, what would you spend the money on? It's just that the discussion seems to stop at getting more money as if that is it.

what would you spend the money on?

Training, recruitment and retention of excellent teachers and headteachers.

A few years ago I read an article in the Sunday Times and pay came low down in the list of reasons why teachers left the profession.

Disruptive pupils, aggressive parents, unsupportive HM and/or LA were all more prominent reasons. One teacher friend left after the school gave a teenager who was abusive towards her yet another chance. She is now working in HR and has no regrets.