We need to pay more tax....
Discussion
I'm wondering if, with the increased occurrences in infrastructure breakdown, it may be time to contemplate the unthinkable - namely an increase in taxation? These funds could help build new hospitals, do away with 'smart' motorways, put more police (and traffic police) back on the streets/roads.
The obvious answer to obviate the need for this is for the various public bodies to stop wasting money - but, and this is also the counter-argument to raising taxes, asking public bodies to cut waste is akin to asking an alcoholic to stop drinking. I'd worry that even if the extra funds were to be ring-fenced there'd be a way around this and the extra funds would disappear into the black-hole that is government spending.
What's the consensus?
The obvious answer to obviate the need for this is for the various public bodies to stop wasting money - but, and this is also the counter-argument to raising taxes, asking public bodies to cut waste is akin to asking an alcoholic to stop drinking. I'd worry that even if the extra funds were to be ring-fenced there'd be a way around this and the extra funds would disappear into the black-hole that is government spending.
What's the consensus?
Government need to focus on collecting the tax people and businesses evade than raising tax for those that do pay.
Tax gap is currently £31 Billion https://www.gov.uk/government/news/low-tax-gap-res...
Tax gap is currently £31 Billion https://www.gov.uk/government/news/low-tax-gap-res...
irocfan said:
The obvious answer to obviate the need for this is for the various public bodies to stop wasting money - but, and this is also the counter-argument to raising taxes, asking public bodies to cut waste is akin to asking an alcoholic to stop drinking. I'd worry that even if the extra funds were to be ring-fenced there'd be a way around this and the extra funds would disappear into the black-hole that is government spending.
The casual acceptance by the public that public bodies are run at the bleeding edge of efficiency whereby any drop in funding has to equate to a drop in service level astounds me. It's either that or they accept that public bodies are incapable of being trusted to spend our hard earned that they took away in taxes. What gets me is why we as a whole just accept the situation.
It always amazes me that some people seem to be prepared, not to say willing, to pay more taxes when it’s so clear that both central and local governments waste so many of the billions they already take from the taxpayer.
I’m in a position where I can minimise the tax I pay and have been doing that for a few years now. I’ll continue to do that and will even make efforts to lower what I pay.
Giving them more just encourages the corrupt and inept b
ds.
But, OP, if you see it differently go ahead and send HMRC more of your hard earned; just don’t propose sending any of mine.
I’m in a position where I can minimise the tax I pay and have been doing that for a few years now. I’ll continue to do that and will even make efforts to lower what I pay.
Giving them more just encourages the corrupt and inept b
ds. But, OP, if you see it differently go ahead and send HMRC more of your hard earned; just don’t propose sending any of mine.
I've nothing against more tax if it's needed, but I'm convinced the issue is that we're spending money we don't need to.
I'm sure you've all read the story's of the Army buying light bulbs that cost <£1 for £39. Or the A40 roundabout that cost £10m to rebuild.
In my view, the whole notion of "approved suppliers" is the prime candidate, once on the list, the supplier milks the council/government and in essence giving the tax money to the suppliers in vast quantities. This coupled with a desire to outsource everything, means the money going in is very quickly spent on not a lot. Hardly value for money.
I also notice that in some ONS stats Welfare is our largest annual expenditure (ahead of the NHS), if so I'd also look at whether we are encouraging people into welfare, childbenefit and 10 kids is an example.
The long and short is I feel we're not being sensible in what we spend money on, and how we spend it. If this were changed, I suspect we'd not need to increase taxation.
I'm sure you've all read the story's of the Army buying light bulbs that cost <£1 for £39. Or the A40 roundabout that cost £10m to rebuild.
In my view, the whole notion of "approved suppliers" is the prime candidate, once on the list, the supplier milks the council/government and in essence giving the tax money to the suppliers in vast quantities. This coupled with a desire to outsource everything, means the money going in is very quickly spent on not a lot. Hardly value for money.
I also notice that in some ONS stats Welfare is our largest annual expenditure (ahead of the NHS), if so I'd also look at whether we are encouraging people into welfare, childbenefit and 10 kids is an example.
The long and short is I feel we're not being sensible in what we spend money on, and how we spend it. If this were changed, I suspect we'd not need to increase taxation.
Edited by phil4 on Friday 13th September 13:35
Tankrizzo said:
I would have absolutely no problem paying more income tax to help out things like the NHS if I could be sure it would be used anywhere near as efficiently as it should be - which it won't. Like trying to fill a mug with a massive bucket of water.
The NHS has already had more money, a lot more of it.
And they've mostly pissed it all away on hiring middle management. Very little tangible benefits have been seen from the POV of the customer.
phil4 said:
I also notice that in some ONS stats Welfare is our largest annual expenditure (ahead of the NHS), if so I'd also look at whether we are encouraging people into welfare, childbenefit and 10 kids is an example.
Welfare includes pensions, which is most of that budget.Edited by phil4 on Friday 13th September 13:35
Digga said:
The NHS has already had more money, a lot more of it.
And they've mostly pissed it all away on hiring middle management. Very little tangible benefits have been seen from the POV of the customer.
I don't disagree with the sentiment but the statement is overly simplistic. There are many reasons why a healthcare service is vastly more expensive to run these days than it was 30 years ago - people are paid more, new treatments are hugely more expensive than they were, as we get better at keeping people alive they need more and more prolonged stays in hospital, there is a much higher expectation of quality from the patient perspective, and (very significantly) the NHS has to pay out millions in negligence claims every year which just didn't happen a few years back.And they've mostly pissed it all away on hiring middle management. Very little tangible benefits have been seen from the POV of the customer.
That's not to say the NHS doesn't need to get more efficient - it clearly does and in a big way - but just to post up some graphs and say "nothing's improved" is disingenuous.
deckster said:
I don't disagree with the sentiment but the statement is overly simplistic. There are many reasons why a healthcare service is vastly more expensive to run these days than it was 30 years ago - people are paid more, new treatments are hugely more expensive than they were, as we get better at keeping people alive they need more and more prolonged stays in hospital, there is a much higher expectation of quality from the patient perspective, and (very significantly) the NHS has to pay out millions in negligence claims every year which just didn't happen a few years back.
That's not to say the NHS doesn't need to get more efficient - it clearly does and in a big way - but just to post up some graphs and say "nothing's improved" is disingenuous.
It is the rate of change that is frightening. That's not to say the NHS doesn't need to get more efficient - it clearly does and in a big way - but just to post up some graphs and say "nothing's improved" is disingenuous.
If you look back to 2005-6, the budget was 100 billion. Now it is knocking on 150 billion, and I don't think the service is any better than it was in 2005 - quite frankly in many ways it is worse. Will they be demanding 200 billion in 2035?
Simple example that is currently in the news:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/10/le...
Tragic story, but if the child is clinically dead, and thus well beyond caring, why are the NHS spending millions fighting in the high court? You want to take this kids body to Italy, crack on. If the child is bloody dead, nothing matters any more. Spend the money on GPs or whatever helps the people who are actually alive.
Edited by rxe on Friday 13th September 14:10
Maybe we should just use the tax revenue we have better?
I'd happily stop spending on Trident and use the money elsewhere but I'd also lessen some of the social spending as well.
I'd also chase the wasters that cause an unnecessary tax burden - including those that claim benefits fraudulently and those that fk around with the rules to not pay their due ... they are both scum whether they're a dad not paying maintenance leaving the state to foot the bill, a chav collecting state cash with no intention of working or Amazon/Vodafone/etc.
I'd happily stop spending on Trident and use the money elsewhere but I'd also lessen some of the social spending as well.
I'd also chase the wasters that cause an unnecessary tax burden - including those that claim benefits fraudulently and those that f
k around with the rules to not pay their due ... they are both scum whether they're a dad not paying maintenance leaving the state to foot the bill, a chav collecting state cash with no intention of working or Amazon/Vodafone/etc.Stay in Bed Instead said:
No no no no no.
The tax burden is already at a 50 year high and still the government spends more than it receives.
Balance the books then tell me what you want to do.
Part of balancing the budget must involve raising considerably more revenue via taxation.The tax burden is already at a 50 year high and still the government spends more than it receives.
Balance the books then tell me what you want to do.
Much more off frontline services and you won't need to hop on a plane to see the third world.
(Clearly scope for savings - I'd pop not sending an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea on the list - but it's nickel and dime stuff in the great scheme of things)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff