Don't really have much of an opinion. Taxes are taxes. Not a *great* deal we can do to avoid them. And fair enough there is the whole 'Elect a decent government' arguement, but I don't vote, so again, it doesn't matter.

---

by Incandenza
Are you willing to pay more tax if public services improve?

---

Yes

---

What do you think the extra money should be spent on?

---

NHS and schools

Yes in principle; but there are things that make me reluctant. For example, the Government have thrown money at the NHS with far too few results... the problem isn't so much the lack of funding (although that obviously contributes), it's the structure, the management, the time spent meeting Government targets and implementing new schemes which impacts on the time spent on seeing patients, diagnosing and treating them (working for a Local Authority, we get kind of the same thing; so busy dealing with inspections and submitting paperwork that the social workers don't get time to visit their clients). I don't know so much about Education, but I know I see my sister-in-law (a teacher) spending more and more time doing the paperwork, I see the children having days off school for "inset days" (what are they? Why did we never have them when I were nobbut a lad?). Sure, if by being taxed a bit more it meant that we ended up with more nurses, more teachers, and that they were paid properly and could afford to live where they wanted to work. If public services improved, yes, here's my 3p in the pound. I just don't think it would happen sadly.

Having said that, if Mr Brown wants to improve public services by giving more money to a Programme Administrator in a certain Local Authority, that's fine by me and I'll get on to it first thing in the morning

(Edited by Vix 14/04/2002 21:49)

I don't think taxes should be increased - the UK is already one of the most taxed nations in the world, I really don't see why we should be taxed even further.
I think more questions need to be asked on exactly where the current funds are going, now I know that there are a lot of people on this site with experience of working for/with the gonvernment and it's various agencies and will probably know this - There is a hell of a lot of money that bleeds out of various budgets. (One thing that I saw was that for some reason things tend to cost more for no apparent reason - on example was parts for a bog standard computer system, nothing special, but they were paying over 10 times the normal price for it - money that would have come from the taxpayers!)
I'm sure if they stopped the various bleed-outs there would be plenty of funds available to the NHS and Education Departments..

I dont think taxes should be raised, they should just be spent more wisely.

I speak as someone who has just had to pay £5000 and they want more in july. My business is tiny, i cant afford the current tax rates and i dont think there's any justification for raising them.

---

by Cat
I dont think taxes should be raised, they should just be spent more wisely.

---

Yep! This country really needs to sort out the NHS. It's a shambles and not many people can afford to go private.

I would be very happy to pay more tax if it meant that the education system and the NHS were improved.

I also think that the fairest way to do it would be to increase the number of tax bands, so that rather than everyone earning over about £36000 paying 40% on the top slice of their income, maybe people who earn over £100,000 could pay 50% on everything over that.

Socialist, moi?

---

by White Hart
I would be very happy to pay more tax if it meant that the education system and the NHS were improved.

---

Ditto!

Yup, I believe I've said a few times in various threads that I'd be quite happy to pay more income tax (or national insurance due to the governments idiotic manifesto commitment).

Health, education, public transport would be my priorities.

Taxes should of course be spent wisely as well, however I do believe all available research points to a necessity for more funding for the NHS, as well as better management of available resources.

On the other hand, taxes definitely should not be used for underwriting contracts for construction firms to build dams in Turkey in case the Turkish government fails to pay up...

I'd gladly pay more tax if it meant no back-door privatization of the NHS, GPO and Tube. Throw in increased pay and conditions for teachers and nurses, an end to student tuition fees and loans replaced with grants, renationalization of Rail, Bus, Electricity and Gas, and I might even consider voting for Labour again.

However, I don't think that national insurance is the best means to do this, but then I think the only morally justifiable tax is income tax, and that's a whole other issue...

Whilst I personally wouldn't want to pay more tax (who would?!?!?), I do see the reasons for increasing it (which ever way they government decides to do it technically).

The health service (once the pride of the nation) is where, like most other folks, I'd start with, yep you guessed it, education close behind (but I'm in 2 minds over whether University should be free for all or whether scholarships based on ability in the chosen subject area wouldn't be a better idea). I'm personally going to go with Policing next on the list.

And yes I'd also say that taxing the highest earners even more is probably the optimum way for "society" to pay the tax. Although I do see thier p.o.v. and perhaps coupling this with a "token" increase in the national insurance contribution might also be somewhat fairer.

All in all I think better management rather than more/higher paid management over current funding is what's needed before any monies should be collected. Otherwise all the increased revenue will end up getting spent on an incredibly expensive multi discipline report that'll simply say "more money is needed" can you say "Duh" ?!?!?

***RANT ON***
I have to take a slightly different tack to some of the
above posters, but I have a couple of thoughts contrary to
the previous posts.
First is that higher earners already pay a large amount of tax. If someone earns 100000 pounds, then they already pay pretty close to 40% of that in tax. That is 40000 pounds in tax. Yes that also means they get to take home 60K, but there is probably a reason they are paid that much and that is they are worth the money. They are almost certainly helping to generate vast amounts of money for the company they work for which in tunr generates more tax revenue for the government and bolsters the economy. If you want to penalise them for working that hard and being rewarded then be clear that you are doing this to penalize them out of 'socialist' theories and not to try and get more revenue.
If you want to tax them more, they will be needing larger pay rises from the companies, which will increase inflation, reduce the company profits, therefore reducing growth, all to fund an incredibly inefficient 'redistribution' of income by the government.
The second point is that higher taxes actually raise less revenue. When the tories slashed the tax bands to just 2 bands in the late eighties, this actually increased revenue, as people spent less effort to avoid tax and also this helped the economy grow faster which has a vastly more positive effect on revenue that raising taxes for a small number of high earners. This point is reinforced by the fact that due to 9 years of continuous economic growth the government has been swimming in cash. It is only during recessions that they get shortfalls. Thus it is more important for the government to stimulate the economy to raise revenue unless of course you want, out of socialist jealously to penalize the more highly paid.
And lets look at who is in the 40% bracket, and therefore 'the rich' according to left wingers. A good friend of mine is a deputy head of a state primary school. She is in the 40% tax bracket....does this mean she is a rich toff who should be taken for as much money as she has?
***RANT OFF***

See if you can guess which party I voted for in the last election (and several before that)

---

by Leif
***RANT ON***
I have to take a slightly different tack to some of the
above posters, but I have a couple of thoughts contrary to
the previous posts.

First is that higher earners already pay a large amount of tax. If someone earns 100000 pounds, then they already pay pretty close to 40% of that in tax. That is 40000 pounds in tax. Yes that also means they get to take home 60K, but there is probably a reason they are paid that much and that is they are worth the money. They are almost certainly helping to generate vast amounts of money for the company they work for which in tune generates more tax revenue for the government and bolsters the economy. If you want to penalize them for working that hard and being rewarded then be clear that you are doing this to penalize them out of 'socialist' theories and not to try and get more revenue.

---

I don’t think it is penalization so much as an enforced altruism. I’m sure there is a reason that they earn that much money, but I’m also pretty sure that in most cases they went to University or got treatment form their GP etc. on the financial backs of their forefathers who all contributed to the “state”. What’s wrong with expecting those member of society who can most easily afford to to give something back to ensure the continued survival of the society?

---

by Leif
If you want to tax them more, they will be needing larger pay rises from the companies, which will increase inflation, reduce the company profits, therefore reducing growth, all to fund an incredibly inefficient 'redistribution' of income by the government.

---

Need larger pay rises? Well…no. Greedily expect/desire/get them? Well… yes.

---

by Leif
The second point is that higher taxes actually raise less revenue. When the Tories slashed the tax bands to just 2 bands in the late eighties, this actually increased revenue, as people spent less effort to avoid tax and also this helped the economy grow faster which has a vastly more positive effect on revenue that raising taxes for a small number of high earners. This point is reinforced by the fact that due to 9 years of continuous economic growth the government has been swimming in cash. It is only during recessions that they get shortfalls. Thus it is more important for the government to stimulate the economy to raise revenue unless of course you want, out of socialist jealously to penalize the more highly paid.

---

Not gonna argue with the statistics here as I’m not an economist. But I can’t help feeling that a better system than either party’s government has used could quite easily and inexpensively be found.

---

by Leif
And let’s look at who is in the 40% bracket, and therefore 'the rich' according to left wingers. A good friend of mine is a deputy head of a state primary school. She is in the 40% tax bracket....does this mean she is a rich toff who should be taken for as much money as she has?
***RANT OFF***

---

A deputy head doesn’t earn ‘that’ much. The 40% tax band may seem steep, but maybe it should be steeper for those who earn in a week, what ‘a deputy head of a state primary school’ earns in a year.

---

by LeifSee if you can guess which party I voted for in the last election (and several before that)

---

Tories?

---

by Leif
If you want to penalise them for working that hard and being rewarded then be clear that you are doing this to penalize them out of 'socialist' theories and not to try and get more revenue.

---

But to view taxes as a 'penalty' depends entirely on your point of view. I don't earn enough to be in the highest tax bracket, but I do pay a large proportion of my gross income in taxes, as do most people. I don't view that as a penalty, I view it as a fair and reasonable way of contributing to the public services and infrastructure of this country, and if the day comes when I earn more money than I do now, then yes, I will expect to pay more tax.

---

If you want to tax them more, they will be needing larger pay rises from the companies

---

I take issue with your use of the word 'need' here. They may expect pay rises, but that is in no way the same thing.

---

which will increase inflation, reduce the company profits, therefore reducing growth, all to fund an incredibly inefficient 'redistribution' of income by the government.

---

Um, the aim is not actually to redistribute income, it is to increase funding for public services. Now if you want to argue that we don't need (better) public services, then go ahead...

---

The second point is that higher taxes actually raise less revenue. When the tories slashed the tax bands to just 2 bands in the late eighties, this actually increased revenue, as people spent less effort to avoid tax and also this helped the economy grow faster which has a vastly more positive effect on revenue that raising taxes for a small number of high earners.

---

Ah, so you believe that if taxes are to be raised, it should be through an increase in the standard rate. Fair enough.

---

This point is reinforced by the fact that due to 9 years of continuous economic growth the government has been swimming in cash. It is only during recessions that they get shortfalls. Thus it is more important for the government to stimulate the economy to raise revenue unless of course you want, out of socialist jealously to penalize the more highly paid.

---

Which is of course precisely what the New Labour government have been doing for the last 5 years. I'm increasingly confused as to who this rant is actually aimed at..

---

And lets look at who is in the 40% bracket, and therefore 'the rich' according to left wingers.

---

It has nothing to do with being left-wing. They earn substantially more than the average income, and therefore, relative to the rest of the population, are rich.

---

A good friend of mine is a deputy head of a state primary school. She is in the 40% tax bracket....does this mean she is a rich toff who should be taken for as much money as she has?

---

Ooh, attempting to bring class into the argument. Nice. No, it doesn't mean she's a 'rich toff', and I doubt you'll find anyone here who thinks that the state should take all of anyones income. It does mean that she earns a relatively high amount and should contribute accordingly. In my opinion.

---

See if you can guess which party I voted for in the last election (and several before that)

---

Well, since New Labour are doing everything that you think a government should be doing on the issue, it's only the 'several before that' which provides a clue..

---

by Leif
First is that higher earners already pay a large amount of tax. If someone earns 100000 pounds, then they already pay pretty close to 40% of that in tax. That is 40000 pounds in tax.

---

Point of information: in the tax year to 5th April 2003 someone earning £100,000 per annum with a standard personal allowance and no additional taxable benefits would actually pay £32,638.40 in tax (Yes, I'm a sad accountant who actually sat down and worked that out).

---

by Leif
unless of course you want, out of socialist jealously to penalize the more highly paid.

---

My definition of socialism (now sadly out of fashion):

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs

Those who are able to contribute more to support the common good should pay more. It's exactly the same principle as if you lived in a house share where one person earnt £20k and one earnt £10k. You don't necessarily split the bills down the middle if one person can clearly afford more.

---

by Leif
And lets look at who is in the 40% bracket, and therefore 'the rich' according to left wingers. A good friend of mine is a deputy head of a state primary school. She is in the 40% tax bracket....does this mean she is a rich toff who should be taken for as much money as she has?

---

Earning £34,100 a year doesn't make you a toff, or even particularly rich. Earning £100,000 makes you rich but that doesn't necessarily mean you're a toff.

As far as I can work out allowing for payrises and the fact that I have more than one source of income, this year I too will be a higher rate taxpayer. As I said earlier, I'm happy to pay more as I know I can afford it. Most people in the 'professional' classes with more than a few years' experience are likely to skim this band. I may be somewhere up to £1000 into the band, so I pay 40% on that amount. Not 40% on the whole lot.

Equally, when I suggest a 50% tax band for earnings over £100,000, that means that someone earning £120,000 would pay an extra £2000. £166 a month out of a gross salary of £10,000, and I beg to suggest that that would be felt less keenly than £16 a month for someone whose gross salary was only £1,000.

---

by Leif
See if you can guess which party I voted for in the last election (and several before that)

---

Natural Law Party?

(Edited by White Hart 16/04/2002 15:12)