Happy? I wouldn't be happy but I'd have no problem with paying more without any conditions. I won't be paying anything voluntarily to the Treasury (although that's possible to do for those who think higher tax is a good idea.)
A better question would be what proportion of GDP should be collected by the state? When we know what we need we have a better idea if we want to pay it. It's been a bit under ~40pc[1]since WW2, and 37pc at the moment which is about the middle of what it usually is. So what's the right amount? I presume if people think that everything is currently pretty bad then 2-3pc isn't going to cut it. Are people thinking it needs nearer to 60pc?
[1] https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/past_revenue
You could take a look at this list and see what conclusions you reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
You could take a look at this list and see what conclusions you reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio/blockquote >
I'm asking the people who think we've got it badly wrong what 'right' is.
I’ve been lucky to have paid some large tax bills. I’d also pay more tax if there was some direct correlation between my extra tax and outcomes (schools/nhs/police). It’s the lack of accountability and direct consequences that pisses people off.
Very much my mindset too. Over the years I've had some big earning periods where I've paid a hell of a lot of tax, I still pay an awful lot now. Having dealt with several different public sector verticals professionally, I have sadly seen plenty of examples of poor performance culture (both individual and departmental/institutional) that's tolerated and allowed to continue, rather than being sanctioned and poor performers either being retrained or got rid of. I'd be concerned that just chucking more money at things would act as an enabler to continuation of that.
If there were strict SLA's on both individuals and departments, with regular assessment and action on those assessments to ensure performance improvements, then yes I'd pay more as it would result in improved services. Without that caveat, then no.
No , not until the whole government and every sector was stripped down and built back from the ground up. Which will never happen. MP's need to be elected in and not handed a title via a best mate. A chief constable has to work with experience to get the position, not because his/her dad knew some guy at eton, etc. etc.
The whole thing stinks for low earners and the lower middle class, the majority of the people, the world over. Sadly when money and power is involved that is where we see the human races real survival of the fittest instinct kick in. The grotesque and demeaning sights and stories we see or hear about everyday.
While we have achieved and advanced alot in 50 years it could all seem petty and in vain the way current trends are going. Everything is not ok , but we are helpless in what we can do about it. If a dung beetle pushes around for long enough , it will get to a point where it can't roll anymore.
No ones mentioned the black hole that is public sector final salary pensions.
We need a tiered approach to closing final salary pensions, the private sector did it years ago as it’s a stack of cards..
For that reason why should I pay more taxes to fund public sector workers fruitful retirements when many will have little income for basic food and bills ..
I’ve worked in the public sector and saw many obscene ways of spending, I think my biggest gripe, agency staffing in the nhs. Middlemen making huge sums of money for nothing
No ones mentioned the black hole that is public sector final salary pensions.
We need a tiered approach to closing final salary pensions, the private sector did it years ago as it’s a stack of cards..
You're in luck the public sector did too.
whatyodoinsucka
...We need a tiered approach to closing final salary pensions, the private sector did it years ago as it’s a stack of cards.....
We also need to find a way for people to have pension funds that cannot be robbed by the govt or finance sector.
If you have misgivings about the safety of your money in a pension fund you're not going to be keen to be contributing what you should.
Absolutely.
But we don't need to.
The Government can't simply run out of money nor does it need to balance the books. We are being driven by a vicious social programme that is pounded out every day that the Government can be short of money. It's twaddle. Tax is mainly there to take money out of circulation and control inflation not to pay for services.
Please see Stephanie Kelton or Richard Murphy about this.
https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/this-economist-wants-to-change-the-meaning-of-money/86035
Agreed @epicyclo pensions is a mess, so many people are living beyond their means and not saving for the future, I’m in a good place compared to some, but former colleagues in the public sector will be far better off in retirement.
@drac, I’ll revise that comment defined benefit or defined contribution ..
Looking at my local council jobs pages the pensions certainly are defined benefit
As someone who pays circa 43% of his overall income in direct taxation
This is the thing with this discussion. Look at your earnings as net earnings as that is what you are taking from the system rather the worry about taxes as that is what you are giving to the system.
If you are taking a high amount from the system others have to take less as it is not infinite which gives a bit more perspective. I am very privileged and take a relatively large amount and would be happy to take less if the additional money I gave was used properly.
Realise that all sounds a bit like the "I would give to charity if they didn't spend so much on x, y and z" but I really don't believe the Tory party can be trusted to spend any extra money on what is required to make less privileged peoples lives better.
You’re in luck the public sector did too.
Its like bullshit bingo in this thread!
@drac, I’ll revise that comment defined benefit or defined contribution ..
Looking at my local council jobs pages the pensions certainly are defined benefit
How dare they try to make the job more attractive.
I'd happily pay more council tax, my city obviously needs more money considering the closure of public toilets, libraries, social care, social support charity funding, transport etc
But it's been frozen for about 10 years now. Doesn't really make much sense. I'd rather have somewhere to pee when I'm out and about.
The number of admin staff in NHS doing nothing more than paper pushing is a disgrace matched only by the ridiculous salaries they are on.
Of course much better a medic is doing admin rather than looking after patients.
What are these high paid admin jobs you talk about?
Increase duty on alcohol 50%. Increase mental health funding 100%. That would free up the Police’s time no end + the NHS.
How dare they try to make the job more attractive.
Funny how will still have massive shortages of nurses and teachers despite such amazing benefits.
The Government can’t simply run out of money
That's true if you can print money you can never run out of money. Of course that money is worthless, but you can still print plenty of it.
So yeah, we'd be Venezuela, rather than Greece but the consequences are identical. Greece can't print money, so ran out of money, Venezuela can print money so it's money becomes worthless. IN terms of spending power it's the same thing.
Can someone answer my question from above. If ~40pc of is a disaster, what is the right amount? ~60pc? ~80pc? Without an answer to that it's a completely futile debate. If we're talking about 0.00001pc extra we'll all be happy to dip in to our pockets, if we need to double revenue to have adequate services that's a bit harder.
Also I guess that most higher tax payers have either private health insurance, live in low crime areas and/or send kids to private schools so don’t see the benefits to society of paying more tax
This is laughably wrong
... For example...universal state education benefits society as a whole producing an educated workforce who can undertake higher value work which generates greater national wealth etc etc. Just because I don't have kids or someone else chooses to privately educate doesn't mean we don't benefit massively from education spend.
The way to generate more taxation isn't really about raising or lowering bits of taxation at the margins- that is more about social engineering and perceptions of fairness/unfairness. Tax take increase with increased GDP.
Austerity over the last 10 years has been a massive drag on the economy and growth - a real failure or economic thinking. This has created a downward spiral of cuts in services and public spending/investment leading to weaker growth and so greater spending constraint
I’d happily pay more, but only if they could convince me that they wouldn’t waste it.
Hugely unpopular opinion here, but while their pensions are grossly out of proportion with what the average population gets in terms of contribution and age of retirement, I’d argue that more funds isn’t the last role of the dice.
Two friends are coppers, both retired this year in their early 50s. Neither are anywhere close to being too old for the job, and if they’d be asked (forced) to do a few more years the savings would be massive. It’s not like either were over-worked during their time in the job, frankly (or underpaid during it)...
It’s interesting that high earners rarely mention their reduction in National Insurance contributions.
Try reading back earlier in the thread, taking NI into account bumps up the overall percentage tax take quite considerably for someone on 60k.
I am very privileged and take a relatively large amount and would be happy to take less if the additional money I gave was used properly.
And that rather sums things up in a nutshell, if you take less you're not giving it to the government, it wasn't yours in the first place.
It's an indisputable fact that most higher earners pay (alot) more actual tax and more in percentage terms, net that off against benfits and there is an even more marked line between net contributors and recipients.
The big argument is over how much of GDP should be taken, the net recipients always expect more from the contributors. Our welfare state scope has expanded so much from it's original intent, it can't keep doing that.
The way to generate more taxation is really about raising or lowering bits of taxation at the marhins- that is more about social engineering and perceptions of fairness/unfairness. Taxes increase with increased GDP.
Austerity over the last 10 years has been a massive drag on the economy and growth – a real failure or economic thinking. This has created a downward spiral of cuts in services and public spending/investment leading to weaker growth and so greater spending constraint
No doubt to a degree this is true. (Although, blatantly obvious so you have to assume there's a very good reason the Treasury didn't choose to do this. That's what the USA did, they talked the Austerity talk but kept spending. I'm thinking the UK didn't have the strength in depth to risk a progressive gambling strategy while the USA did.)
Of course, stimulus is current news right now, Trump is using stimulus at this point in the cycle, never been done before. On the face of it Corbynomics is looking like a disaster:
https://www.ft.com/content/c059d13b-e3d4-4fe2-85c9-d55bd6494fec
Funny how will still have massive shortages of nurses and teachers despite such amazing benefits.
I know despite it being easy work for lazy people, 51 weeks of holidays per year and able to retire after 10 years on full pay.
So yeah, we’d be Venezuela, rather than
Greece but the consequences are identical. Greece can’t print money, so ran out of money, Venezuela can print money so it’s money becomes worthless. IN terms of spending power it’s the same thing
No, this is often cited.
The general rule of thumb is that if your economy is already screwed you sure can't just keep issuing money.
Venezuela for instance suffered from the value of their oil, which under pins everything in their economy.
So you can issue currency but you have to have the resources to match.
Give this a watch:
Once the loopholes for large corporations are tightened maybe.
Two friends are coppers, both retired this year in their early 50s. Neither are anywhere close to being too old for the job
Exactly how it should be but you'll be glad to hear that younger coppers will have to work until they're too old for the job.
@rone: You're saying "The Government can’t simply run out of money" I'm saying they (effectively) can and explained how. I'm not an economist, so you might be right, you just have to explain why. (and thanks, I'm familiar with MMT. The wikipedia page is a far better than your youtube link.)
The general rule of thumb is that if your economy is already screwed you sure can’t just keep issuing money.
Sounds like running out of money to me.
Taxation. The questions that underpin everything are:
1) What percentage of GDP is required for adequate services?
2) Is there a point on the laffer curve that achieves that?
https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm
Link above has a chart as tax as % of GDP for oecd countries if you scroll down the page.
In terms of what is appropriate depends on whether you are Denmark or USA.
Sounds like running out of money to me.
How so? The fed / boe can issue the money whenever it wants.
The issue is hyperinflation. And matching resources to the spend. That's not the same as running out of money.
Taxation is about destroying money in circulation, it's not about raising money to spend.
A government can spend before it taxes. When the Government runs a deficit (normal) it's a way is saying the private sector has a positive balance.
The economy has to be productive, you can't just issue currency into any economy.
Sorry I posted over the link as it's a nice layman Q&A and Stephanie is at the forefront of this stuff.
The fact that the majority on this topic are pedalling the line of successive governments tells you that we need to re-think our understanding of how money works.
The strongest argument against MMT is governments are politically concerned about what the electorate will ask for so it's easier to say we haven't got enough money.
Not really that complex. Government issues into the economy, towards the consumers/workforce. Resources are matched, economy is matched to the swap and kick started. Taxation then removes money out of circulation to control inflation.
We then don't go on about deficit...
I was listening to local radio the other day, and they stated that an additional 4% of our council tax would be directed toward the police. However, the majority of this would be to used to cover the pensions deficit in the force.
(Oh , and that 4 % would need to be cut from other services in order to pay for it 🙄)
We don’t want that sound economic reasoning here! We want tax the rich. Till the pips squeak! They can afford it. Tim Hartford had a nice podcast on sources of taxation that was very enlightening.
It’s inidicative of the overall state of the economy, failure to grow and economic uncertainty in the future. Sadly the general population are economically illiterate.
Why Drac? Both of them could have done an extra few years, and neither are in roles where age is a limiting factor in their ability. Quite the contrary, their experience makes them a better copper in their role than somebody coming in with less experience.
I thought the new age for retirement is 60. Is that too old?
Why should they work to they are broken let them enjoy their retirement. It’s possible to have experience and not be in your 50s
Yes it’s 60. Yes it’s too old.
Sadly the general population are economically illiterate.
Twenty odd years ago inmy final year at uni I did an economics class (made a nice break from all the engineering) and at the start the lecturer said something similar about a lot of politicians. I didn’t believe him at the time but I did twelve weeks later.
The fact that the majority on this topic are pedalling the line of successive governments tells you that we need to re-think our understanding of how money works.
So every Government there has ever been in the world (except Trump) is failing to take simple actions that would make them and their countrymen better off and make them massively popular. That's quite a conspiracy.
Twenty odd years ago inmy final year at uni I did an economics class (made a nice break from all the engineering) and at the start the lecturer said something similar about a lot of politicians.
Economists at the treasury *far* outnumber the politicians. The Treasury is not economically naive.
Why should they work to they are broken let them enjoy their retirement.
Because, given - as this thread shows - 99pc of us won't pay more tax - resources are finite and paying healthy people to pay golf full time at 55 [1] is less important funding the disabled and children's homes.
Regarding the 'can states run out of money' debate. The answer is yes. I've explained how.
[1] As nice as that would be.
We have very different opinions, Drac.
I'm not sure why you'd presume working them until 60 will break them, any more than a person who chooses any other physical job like a builder, mechanic, joiner, labourer or shop worker who stands on their feet all day. If it's being mentally broken, then again I'd argue there are just as many mentally tough jobs who don't have provision for early retirement.
I think most people, in most jobs, would expect to retire around 60 - I don't think it's inappropriate to expect it as a standard provision.
As for struggling to recruit (not your point, I know), I think that's very real but I think it's very real for a lot of jobs. Immigration has been necessary for all kinds of industries from police, nursing to fruit pickers, builders, caterers and drivers to keep the industries going. It's not limited to the emergency services, but it's a whole different thread...
There's often a slight tone of whoever questions this stuff disrespects the job the emergency services do. So, to be clear, half my family have been/are in the emergency services and I massively respect the job they do. As I do anybody who gets out of bed to go to work to serve the general public.
Because, given – as this thread shows – 99pc of us won’t pay more tax – resources are finite and paying healthy people to pay golf full time at 55 [1] is less important funding the disabled and children’s homes.
I think you need a recount and take into consideration the other suggestions of closing tax loop holes.
I’m not sure why you’d presume working them until 60 will break them, any more than a person who chooses any other physical job like a builder, mechanic, joiner, labourer or shop worker who stands on their feet all day. If it’s being mentally broken, then again I’d argue there are just as many mentally tough jobs who don’t have provision for early retirement.
I'm not you made that up. The answer isn't to punish those that currently have that option.
take into consideration the other suggestions of closing tax loop holes.
Ahhh, so you think that Policemen should work until 60, *until* tax loopholes are closed to the point where so much cash is gathered that retiring policemen early is the most useful thing that can be done with the cash. Ok, that's reasonable, I'm happy with that, most people would be.
That’s not what I said.
I made up that you thought working them until 60 would break them? It was in response to:
Premier Icon
DracSubscriber
Why should they work to they are broken let them enjoy their retirement.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you - I'm not trying to win you over. I know your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it. I'll maintain I'd happily pay more if I thought the budgets were truly at a breaking point with no options left.
Why it's taken NHS England so long to issue consultation on the over-prescription of over the counter drugs for example, is just scandalous. Estimates anywhere around £200-400m a year in savings here alone. It was announced about a year ago, has anything changed yet?
That's the kind of speed of change and waste that stops any tax payer, regardless of income level, committing more to the public purse. What's the average dispensation cost of paracetamol, wasn't it about £35 including GP time (the drug itself being charged to the NHS at 5 times the cost vs Boots).
I made up that you thought working them until 60 would break them? It was in response to:
No, the part about "anymore than...."
Why it’s taken NHS England so long to issue consultation on the over-prescription of over the counter drugs for example, is just scandalous. Estimates anywhere around £200-400m a year in savings here alone. It was announced about a year ago, has anything changed yet?
That’s the kind of speed of change and waste that stops any tax payer, regardless of income level, committing more to the public purse. What’s the average dispensation cost of paracetamol, wasn’t it about £35 including GP time (the drug itself being charged to the NHS at 5 times the cost vs Boots).
Absolutely agree there's many other things looked at additionally to tax loop hole issues.
I'm a higher rate tax payer. I have no problem paying tax and I'd pay more tax to provide better public services (be they schools/police/bin collections or whatever).
I do however think that everyone should pay tax (even at a very low level) - the reason being that you need to feel part of society and contribute to it. There seems to be a lot of people who think everyone else should pay more tax...
Of course, one of the problems with my plan is that the cost of collection may actually outweigh the value of the actual tax so I suspect it is a non-starter for a practical reason however my point still stands - we all need to feel part of society and contributing via taxes is just one part of this.
Can't you contribute to society by providing labour? Pay everyone enough and they'll be happy to be taxed.