Forum menu
Except if you are Scottish,
Sshh, grumpy!
You are correct about the man in the street though and the lack of understanding over where money is spent - hence the fact that Brexshiteers can scaremonger over benefits etc
I don't think people would actually support increased taxes for the NHS, or any other bit of public spending. Sure if you ask people "should there be tax increases to pay for NHS" a lot of people will say yes. Change the question though to something like "what tax increases are you prepared to pay to increase NHS funding" and I think you'd get a different answer. People support tax increases on other people, not themselves just like people want benefit cuts so long as they aren't affected. Two sides of the same coin.
As for the Norway example, their society is very different so what works there probably is wouldn't work here.
As for the Norway example, their society is very different so what works there probably is wouldn't work here.
large are country, huge natural resources including oil wealth, small population. Get really bored of people thinking that with the odd tweek we could be like them
When you suggest putting up taxes, people say 'ah, they should just stop wasting it' with no oversight as to how much wastage there is or how one might achieve this goal; or they say 'why do we give money to X thing I don't like or understand when we should give it to Y thing I do like?'
The problem with hypothecated tax is that individual taxpayers will naturally favour whatever benefits them, either from reduced financial outlay or increased spending on schemes that bring them benefits.
e.g.; Cyclists will be more inclined to pay for improved cycling infrastructure than non-cyclists. Would be viewed as a waste of cash by many others. Daily Mail readers would be happy to pay more to provide care for their white grans but not brown muslims etc. Few will wish to pay for the sizeable emergencies planning and logistical arrangements required of the military, NHS, Local Authorities and other ministries that are there performing low key but essential functions.
Sometimes you just have to pay up and let those who actually understand the details to allocate the funds.
downshep - Member
Sometimes you just have to pay up and let those who actually understand the details to allocate the funds.
That's a nice pipe dream! 😆
Joe - would you offer tax rebates for those who withdraw from using some services?
As its such a good idea, I am prepared to kick off by doubling the amount I pay in road tax next year.
When asked most folk are willing to pay more tax to have a better health service.
They'll say that but they won't vote for it. Talk and a few facebook likes are cheap, free in fact. Voting for it costs money.
Scotland has a chance to do that right now, put upmtaxes and spend the lot on the NHS. I'll watch to see how the SNP get on with that.
Nah, whatever the tax rates or bands, you don't get to keep your tax for yourself, you need to allocate it somewhere.
i think an all out wild west style system would be out, as well, people can be ****s.
Still I think the idea does have some merits, if on a limited basis.
Scotland has the chance to do some marginal fiddling with income tax in which any rise in rates will be expensive to administer and raise very little. (unless they increase tax on lower earners as well) they do not have the power to revise the system in any significant way
tjagain - Memberso who is the obsessed stalker?
Did I just read that right?
Did a grown man actually just come out with "[i]I know you are but what am I?[/i]"?
Jesus wept.
This is almost as embarrassing as that gushing whinge on the EU thread.
let it be sbob
Scotland has a chance to do that right now, put upmtaxes and spend the lot on the NHS. I'll watch to see how the SNP get on with that.
They politely declining this afternoon, something to do with the Laffer Curve or something like that....
Scotland has the chance to do some marginal fiddling with income tax in which any rise in rates will be expensive to administer and raise very little. (unless they increase tax on lower earners as well) they do not have the power to revise the system in any significant way
Their calculation was that raising the top rate to 50% would cost £30m in lost tax. Scottish Labour think it would raise £100m (Leader on TV earlier). So who is right ?
They politely declining this afternoon, something to do with [s]the Laffer Curve[/s] [b]Westminster[/b] or something like that....
FIFY
jambalaya
Their calculation was that raising the top rate to 50% would cost £30m in lost tax. [b]Scottish Labour[/b] think it would raise £100m (Leader on TV earlier). So who is right ?
Who? Surely you mean "Labour"
twicewithchips - MemberWhy should my company have to pay tax, I could spend that on wages!"
amused me.
I should point out this is what Tax Moaners have said to me, not my point of view.
There is a section amongst owners of small businesses who'd quite like a medal for their efforts. They see themselves as the benevolent kings of commerce – they work harder than anyone else in the history of the world ever to sole-handily build their business from nothing – their only reward is to know they’re supporting their staff. They will, quite often, tell you that they pay the mortgages of their entire work force as if they pop down the building society each month with bags of notes personally and feed their kids for them whilst their staff laze about in hammocks all day.
These Heroes of the SME market would love to do more, pay their staff more, employ more, get better houses for their staff and more comfortable hammocks, but they can’t because “the Tax Man” wants 20% of their profits.
I do struggle to believe them though, Human Nature being what it is whilst they could employ more people or pay the ones they have more which would remove their tax liability but.. when shove comes to push the money usually ends outside in their reserved parking space or on some ghastly 7 bedroom self-build.
teamhurtmore - Memberlet it be sbob
Sage advice.
To the adult place! -> 😀
You could crudely say that we already have such a system - charitable donations, (GiftAid etc mean government even have a reasonable indicator where it has been spent). I'd say it has the opposite effect on core spending - government don't need to spend because the third sector will pick up the pieces. So if your voluntary proportion was at the NHS then they'd reduce the non-voluntary part to compensate!Maybe 50% is too much. However, if you could choose exactly where the final 5-10% of your taxation went it could be taken by government as a very accurate social indicator of how their own financial policy should be developed.
Maybe we could pick 600 people to make a collective decision. Perhaps they could have a team of experts to help work out where to spend it! Then maybe every 5 years we could reselect the 600 people based on some sort of policies or promises they make.Still I think the idea does have some merits, if on a limited basis.
And therein lies the problem with asking the people. I'd not pay more for the NHS, but I would pay more for 1. Preventative Health programmes - that will have an impact on NHS demand 5,10,20,40 years from now; 2. Improved social care to avoid the pressure on the NHS that needlessly comes from weaknesses elsewhere in the mix. I realise I am in the minority though, in that I would happily pay a bit more tax, and I also think Inheritance tax should be INCREASED.Sure if you ask people "should there be tax increases to pay for NHS" a lot of people will say yes.
Well there is an element of truth in what they are saying. Companies do not pay taxes - their customers, staff and shareholders do, to varying degrees of course.
Whats the point of 'democratic' taxes if it's only 50%. I could say use 'my' 50% to fund, say, the NHS and education only as I disagree with defence spending. The govt will just turn round and use 'their' 50% on defence. I don't see how I (or anyone) really benefits at all. Apart from the people (and IT companies) employed to handle this new way of working.
downshep - Member
Sometimes you just have to pay up and let those who actually understand the details to allocate the funds.
Who actually understands it though? I doubt the civil service understand the strategic level and politicians of all parties are tainted by their own ideologies rather than taking any sort of evidence-based approach.
Their calculation was that raising the top rate to 50% would cost £30m in lost tax. Scottish Labour think it would raise £100m (Leader on TV earlier). So who is right ?
They both are, and they both aren't.
You have to make assumptions about behaviours when you change tax rates. Change the assumptions and you change the outcome.
I imagine the SNP have, perhaps reasonably, decided that people would restructure their finances or relocate to avoid the 50% rate. Labour could be being rather optimistically assuming that everyone stays put and pays up.
Indeed, I posted the link on the SNP's analysis above or on the SNP thread - more RW that the Tories!
But hats off to them for being explicit on Taxable Income Elasticity - far better explanation than any Osborne&Co managed. Oddly, they missed out the bit on cost of delivery and/or not making any difference. Not sure why?
@grumpy I was being a bit facetious, I agree behaviour changes. The govt is always doing it deliberately like increasing taxes on big polluting cars to discourage people from buying them.
Who? Surely you mean "Labour"
It was Kezia Dugdale the MSP and leader so I called her Scottish Labour which is ok ?
Anyway, democratic taxes won't work. If people want to give extra to the NHS just write a hospital charity a cheque or sponsor people raising money for things.
Grumpy sculler - plus the cost of collecting it which is huge. SNP allow for that, labour don't.
Very few people will be able to change their behaviour to pay less. This is high earners on PAYE not people paid in dividends etc. Hospital consultants, head teachers and so on. People will not relocate - they say they will but in reality very few would as the job does not go with them
TJ there is no way collecting 50% tax ffrom 17,000 people costs £130m (£30m + £100m) the difference is primarily due to changes in behaviour, ie people will move. The £150k+ pa earners are not consultants and head teachers they are primarily business people, financiers etc. It isn't the people earning £175k who move it's those earning £300k £500k £1m etc .. and the loss of all that taxable income is huge vs small gains from those earning (say) £150-£200k
This is what the "right wingers" in the SNP think (FWIW)
Source: The Horse's MouthThere is considerable uncertainty associated with estimates of the extra tax revenue which could be raised by increasing the additional rate of income tax in Scotland. [b]This reflects the uncertain, and potentially large, behavioural response [/b]which could be expected to impact on the yield from the policy.
Interestingly would there be a credible argument for allowing tax reduction (say to 18% off the top of my head) if the employer paid all their staff living wageThese Heroes of the SME market would love to do more, pay their staff more, employ more, get better houses for their staff and more comfortable hammocks, but they can’t because “the Tax Man” wants 20% of their profits.
Really? Why do yo think that? You think a hospital consultant or senior reg will move? A head teacher? A senior charge nurse? Senior managers in private business will quit and chose unemployment instead?
People say they will move but in reality they will not.
the main problem is that the powers are too limited to actually make the system work properly.
In which case, why didn't the SNP simply say so?
Sorry Joe, this should all be on the other thread. But having a live example of this stuff does make it more relevant and interesting.
Jamba - you should also realise that nothing scottish labour says can be trusted to have any relationship to the truth. They claimed half a billion of cuts in the scottish NHS when the budget went up 3%
Everything Scottish Labour says has to be seen thru the lens of the Bain Principle
poly - Member
You could crudely say that we already have such a system - charitable donations
Charity isn't the same at all. I'm just talking about allocate tax to where you think it should go. Not saying you don't have to pay tax.
So put some more skin on the idea Joe
Assume a tax rate of 40% and that 30% is allocated in a standard way (as now). If I understand correctly, individuals could then allocate the final 10% as THEY see fit. If that is correct, would you include all current services in both categories? Could you simply allocate all of the 10% to the biggest part of the existing 40% etc.?
It was Kezia Dugdale the MSP and leader so I called her Scottish Labour which is ok ?
Thought that Corbyn bloke was the Labour leader? She's the most senior Labour MSP at Holyrood if that's what you mean - seems nice, but isn't really running the show now is she... bit like that Mundell fella.
This is a terrible idea. Have we learnt nothing from Brexit? You'd basically be handing power to the popular press like the Daily Mail. They'd just run a few scare stories about unemployed immigrants getting free boob jobs on the NHS and how we're at risk of a nuclear war with France or something and we'd have no tax for the NHS and loads for defence.
How many people are going to research the state of the country and come to a rational conclusion before deciding how to vote on these things?? no-one!
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html ]Another link to the story about the British Public being wrong about almost everything[/url]
Taxation in it's current form and given the manufactured divisions in society, it would just be fluffing round the edges of an already punitive system, leading to further tribal behaviour.
Is probably humanities biggest challenge and key to everything else. To go from adversarial, selfish and punitive to a more collaborative and inclusive existence. I'm sure it will carry on improving, will never be perfect, with some backward steps along the way.
Exposure of the hurdles and hurdle makers (not just the obvious targets in public office) will make the divisive manipulation more difficult to pull off and is probably where action is needed first IMO.
Great information on all things government spending.
[url= http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/ ]UK Central Government Spending[/url]
OP you can democratise "tax" as the Americans do and make charitable donations 100% tax deductible. That's why their Universities are so well funded. People donate to their old colleges so that they can provide scolarships.
USA donations aren't 100% tax deductable. USA charitable donations work something like ours. If you donate say $300 your taxable income is reduced by $300. So your tax paid will be reduced by $100 if the tax rate was 33%. You are still paying the net $200 though.
To illustrate, suppose that the American Cancer Society is hosting a formal dance as a fund-raiser (the ACS is a certified charitable organization). Further suppose that the fair market value of a ticket to the dance is 75 USD, and that the donor pays 375 USD to purchase a ticket. The donor may claim only a 300 USD deduction, because the amount contributed (375 USD) is reduced by the amount of the benefit that he received (75 USD, the fair market value of the ticket). This holds true even if the donor does not actually attend the dance.The taxable income of the donor is reduced by 300 USD. If the donor's income was in the 35% income tax bracket both before and after the deduction, the donor's tax liability (amount of taxes owed to the government) is reduced by 105 USD.
Much the same way we can gift aid contributions except we pay from taxed income then the charity pays it back.
Maybe Americans are just more generous?
Or maybe there are limits to gift aid but American charitable donations are without limit? Any accountants in the house.