…police numbers were brought back to pre-austerity levels?
Greater Manchester has seen its constabulary cut from 8,000 officers in 2008 to 4,000 today.

I’d be happy to pay a few hundred to get a viable police force restored.

I’d prefer a comprehensive increase across all services.

I haven’t been to Manchester in 15yrs, so no.

I’d be happy if they hit the tax loop holes first.

No I’m on the breadline as it is. Reduce all their paperwork do they can spend more time on the streets.

I’d happily pay more income tax to fund all public services to a proper level.

Of course the present government won’t ever fund public services properly, there’s no profit in it for them or their private paymasters.

I already pay more income tax to support Police and other services. Yes, I’d be willing to pay more. Yes I voted for a party committed to fairer taxation. Yes there are other tax takes that could be improved – land tax being a good example.

^What he said. A wealth tax would be great.

” 8,000 officers in 2008 to 4,000 today. “

Not quite. There are around 6,400 currently if I remember correctly. Around 900 of those are recruits or student officers though and one issue is that we are seeing retirements and resignations at a higher level than we are going to be recruiting over the next 12 months as many officers from the big increase in staffing levels in the late 80’s reach their 30 years.

Reduce all their paperwork do they can spend more time on the streets.

The paperwork is what keeps the wrong uns off the street, it’s all part of the job anb just as important as wandering around.
I would be happy to see things like the Trump visit cancelled or at least bill the US for the cost of his little holiday

I think any extra should go to social services so the police can return to policing rather than dealing with all the mental health issues on the street.

I’d happily pay more income tax to fund all public services to a proper level.

That’s a pretty daft statement, there’s no consensus on what a proper level is, I don’t ever remember public services being happy with funding levels under any government. If we spent our entire GDP on public services I don’t think it would be enough. We need a defined level of service from the state but that will never happen as there will be many people who feel entitled to hangouts who won’t get them and no government will set proper targets they can be measured against.

To answer the OP, no because no funding is ever properly ring fenced and I think there’s more fundamental things to be addressed before increasing taxation, like the money wasted on Brexit for example. Secondly no if our government is knowingly perusing a policy that will reduce GDP between 3% and 10% im not making up that shortfall willingly through extra tax.

Sure, charge me an extra £10 a month as long as the proper equivalent is passed on to those earning over £100k

Yes i would happily pay more tax on the proviso it went to front line policing along with health professionals (eg nurses) and other emergency services BUT i would not want to be funding more bureaucracy and pen pushers.

I’d be happy to pay for proper services if I didn’t think that the Tories just channel my taxes to their pals in the private sector.

That’s a pretty daft statement, there’s no consensus on what a proper level is,

My point was really that I object to ring fenced funding for stuff like this.
All it becomes is a sticking plaster and a pointless stat to hit like no daily mail reader should go more than 8brs without seeing a friendly bobby on the beat.

And then like above people only wanting visible police not people doing “stuff we don’t understand”
If we do want to fund making society safer the conversation needs to go well beyond police numbers too.

Sure, charge me an extra £10 a month as long as the proper equivalent is passed on to those earning over £100k

[Devil’s advocate] But anyone earning over 100k pays an effective rate of 60% tax already by losing their tax free allowance….

Maybe those earning under c40k should pay more tax as they’re net receivers from the state….

Or perhaps the approx 50% of UK adults who don’t pay any income tax could fund some of it, rather than expecting and ever smaller group of people to shoulder the national tax burden…

[/Devil’s advocate]

For me, I already pay a lot of income tax. I don’t have a problem contributing more on a hypothecated basis so long as we can agree the scope, parameters and success criteria. I don’t really have an issue with paying some more on a non-hypothecated basis, again so long as it delivers overall fairness.

https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

[Devil’s advocate] But anyone earning over 100k pays an effective rate of 60% tax already by losing their tax free allowance….

I assume what you mean is you are paying 60% on earnings over 100k as a simple calc has the take home from 100k at about 65k so an overall rate of 35%.

But anyone earning over 100k pays an effective rate of 60% tax already

Which country do you live in where this is the case ?

Which country do you live in where this is the case ?

That’s (roughly) the marginal rate here for some salary levels.

That’s (roughly) the marginal rate here for some salary levels.

Which is a little meaningless overall. Its a nice stat to complain about though

The paperwork is what keeps the wrong uns off the street, it’s all part of the job anb just as important as wandering around.

Pure unadulterated shite !!

That’s (roughly) the marginal rate here for some salary levels.

And how is that related to the claimed 60% effective tax rate for £100k earners?

Not at the moment. I wouldn’t give our current political leaders a single extra penny.

A change in regime would make me change my mind.

Which is a little meaningless overall

It’s not meaningless if you’re an individual to whom it applies. In that case, the question “would you be happy to pay more tax” is likely answered “no”.

It’s not meaningless if you’re an individual to whom it applies.

True its a good thing to whinge about when your overall tax rate is closer to 35% before you start any tricks.

Apologies, I wasn’t clear: the 60% is the marginal rate paid between 100k-c120k. It’s down to the loss of the tax free allowance. It’s what I’d describe as a nice problem to have. IIRC there are about 1 million people who earn 100k+ in the UK.

If you want to go for pure pecentages, then excluding NI (though let’s face it, it’s just more income tax) and any in work benefits, then the blended rates are:

Gross income of 15k pays c600 tax or 4%.

Gross income of 30k pays c3,600 tax or 12%.

Gross income of 60k pays c13,500 tax or 21%.

Gross income of 120k pays c40k tax or 33%.

So, my point FWIW is that higher earners pay a larger % already. Which we all know. This thread wasn’t about acceptable levels of income but a general willingness to pay more tax.

BTW in picking at my deliberately provocative statements you haven’t addressed the fact that only just over 50% adults pay any income tax or that you need to be earning c40k to stop being a net receiver from the state.

So, back to the question: irrespective of tax rates, should we all pay more for improved public services? I still think yes but it’s a hard sell to a nation where so many feel so squeezed already – How many public sector workers would rather have a pay rise themselves, rather than spend it on new recruits?

Are the Police not also spending more time picking up the pieces of reduced social and mental welfare services.

There’s a lot broken at the moment.

Undoubtedly many of our public services and our infrastructure are in poor shape through a history of underfunding. To change that funding needs to be increased. If we truly are the 5th biggest economy in the world (and frankly I think that’s a bit far fetched) we ought to be able to find the money for 21st century standards of services and infrastructure. Of course money for publicly funded services has to be raised through taxation and income tax is part of that, though not the full story. I suggest we are a low taxation nation but also a low income nation. Given a more equitable distribution of wealth and more REAL full time employment as opposed to the trumped-up figures we are presented with, I feel increased taxation to improve services and society itself would not be overly problematical for a government to propose.

However, that is not our current trajectory. We are heading towards an even lower paid, less regulated country to benefit the few not the many. If that happens, things will become even worse than they are now.

Ourman, should include NI really, 60k pays nearer 29%. Good point about the dwindling number of adults actually paying tax, sends a very poor message to many in low income roles that tax is something paid by others.

@ stumpyjon – agree. Was just going for a “pure” comparison to show the % of income tax to clarify a point I’d made. Of course to get a truer picture we need all the stats, incl demographics etc.

As you and slowdman say, there’s quite a lot more to it and I completely agree that we need to be clear on where we want the country to head towards.

And, given the current political crisis (which I can’t see abating after 29th March), now is the time to start to get that right.

If wealthy tax dodgers and tax avoiders were clamped down on first, yes.

No, not because i’m intrinsically opposed to it, but because it won’t solve the underlying problems.

I’d be happy to pay more taxes once the hangers on at the top of our public services have their numbers and wages cut to realistic levels.

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.

Same with the Police. How many at Chief Constable rank have been sacked for being bent? Far too many, apart from those like Manchester or Lincoln who top themselves when caught out. Same all down the hierarchy. Every week there seems to be a bent copper in court. Think they are above the law.

Local councils spend vast amounts of our money on what are little more than vanity projects and all cost inordinate amounts. Services to local residents come way down their list of priorities.

The public services in this country are all out of control because they know they can call on public sympathy.

In private enterprise they wouldn’t last a week because they are little more than hangers on. And I’ve worked on both sides of the fence and public sector work is a cushy number.

Stop wasting our money and give us value for what we spend and then we will see just where the money goes.

Gross income of 15k pays c600 tax or 4%.

Gross income of 30k pays c3,600 tax or 12%.

Gross income of 60k pays c13,500 tax or 21%.

Gross income of 120k pays c40k tax or 33%.

So, my point FWIW is that higher earners pay a larger % already. Which we all know. This thread wasn’t about acceptable levels of income but a general willingness to pay more tax.

But you then forget that as a % of income, given VAT on goods and services hits everyone equally, and that after non progressive taxation, people on £40k are still very much “richer” and the true % of tax paid overall is very much evened out. And there are still plenty of mechanics for someone on £40k to exploit, not open to £15 earners.

I’d pay a few extra quid to be able to open up a random thread and not have to see mick posting on it.😟

But you then forget that as a % of income, given VAT on goods and services hits everyone equally, and that after non progressive taxation, people on £40k are still very much “richer” and the true % of tax paid overall is very much evened out. And there are still plenty of mechanics for someone on £40k to exploit, not open to £15 earners.

You’re missing the point of the (deliberately simplistic) illustration.

You’re quite right that flat rate, post income tax taxes are a real issue. Fuel tax is another – it’s progressive in that it’s consumption based, but directly impacts rural dwellers more and rural incomes are on average lower than urban incomes.

And all of this discussion assumes that paying more income tax is sufficient contribution to get the sort of society we want. Perhaps the question also ought to be “what else are we doing to build the right sort of society?”.

How many will assume their parents will move Into care when they’re old rather than move in with them like we used to? How many families will give up farming their kids out to nurseries and give up one parent’s income? Who will ditch two cars, take a job they can walk to?

There’s more to it than money. If we think that governments will get this right on their own without our input and intervention, without people taking responsibility and holding each other to account, then we’ll get what we deserve.

What the OP really meant is would you be happy if other people paid more income tax to fund XXXX. Everyone, when asked, answers they’d pay more but universally vote the opposite. Personally, no as I pay enormous amounts already, I’m happy to do so, but as mentioned, there is a complete absence of clarity about where taxation comes from. And the unpalatable truth is that it is disproportionately the higher paid who make the majority of the contributions.

Hypothecation is what lotteries are for. Maybe we need the Policing lottery as an alternative means of taxation 😉 . It works for the NHS, apparently.

Pretty much TiRed says.

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.

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

As someone who pays circa 43% of his overall income in direct taxation (income tax and national insurance) I’m going to say no, not really.

Everyone, when asked, answers they’d pay more but universally vote the opposite.

Except those that vote for parties that want to raise taxes.