Is the UK tax system day light robbery

[einsign]

If we could opt out of the NHS payments me and a few mates could definitely afford a couple of very good nurses to take care of us into old age..

[anonymous-user]

Clarity and transparency is all that I want.

[Countdown]

El Guapo said:

JREwing said:

The situation here really is no worse than most developed countries, and better than most less developed countries.
If anything, compared to most of Europe (particularly north west) we pay remarkably little.

Not sure if serious.

Income tax, NI, council tax, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, TV licence, insurance premium tax, airline ticket tax etc etc, the list is extensive.

Nope. We pay less than most of our Western European counterparts for our Public Sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

[Countdown]

swerni said:

That's depends where you sit in the income scale.
This at the top pay more tax than virtually anywhere else (50% this year going to 45%. next)

The 50% rate affects relatively few people. However, whilst high, there are quite a few countries ahead of us.

The link below shows income tax "havens" and "hells".

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-havens-tax-he...

Notice any patterns?

[vonuber]

Eric Mc said:

No system is perfect. Some things are better handled in the public sector. Some things are better handled by the private sector.
The NHS has its problems - but private healthcare is not perfect either. A mix of both (as we have) is not a bad thing.

And no, I have no vested interest in any public sector areas - apart from wanting this country to remain at least relatively civilised and not degenerate into a country where the weak are pushed to the wall.

I Concur with this statement.

[GavinPearson]

oyster said:

The government is very accountable.

On a daily basis the media and opposition parties hold the government to account. On a weekly basis the House of Commons holds the PM to account. Additionally parliamentary select committees hold government ministers and senior civil servants to account. The House of Lords holds the government to account. And best of all, every 5 years, YOU hold the government to account.

I'm not sure whether or not you're joking here....

Can an ordinary British citizen access information readily which shows the tax receipts and outgoings by every government department, local authority & quango? Can the same citizens see the data behind the immigration figures for the past 50 years?

The simple fact is that they can't. The British government is as transparent as the wall of a nuclear bunker. Because if people actually knew the truth they would be absolutely livid.

[Countdown]

swerni said:

I wouldn't call 4, quite a few

The 50% countries are purely in alphabetic order

Fair enough

Notice any similarities between the countries considered "tax hells" or those considered "tax heavens"?

I'm only banging on about this because some people only see th downside of tax without seeing all the benefits it provides.

[Countdown]

GavinPearson said:

Can an ordinary British citizen access information readily which shows the tax receipts and outgoings by every government department, local authority & quango?

Yep. All of the above are required to prepare annual accounts. Central Govt accounts tend to be a lot of mumbo jumbo. However LA and Quango accounts are usually provided in both a statutory and an "Accounts for Dummies" format.

[Johnnytheboy]

bp1000 said:

El Guapo said:

Not sure if serious.

Income tax, NI, council tax, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, TV licence, insurance premium tax, airline ticket tax etc etc, the list is extensive.

Nice to be able to buy your own house, send your kids to schools equipping them for a high standard of education, nice to be able to afford new cars on cheap finance. Nice that most people have the latest mobiles, plasmas and Internet connections. Great to receive the latest screening for cancer, brain and heart surgery procedures. Great to even get access to a doctor almost the same day within 5 miles of your house. Nice that our insurance and police protect us from personal loss and extortion.

But of course it all comes at a price

Yes, and the price is too high for the outcomes.

This thread has gone the same way as threads on public spending do: when someone suggests it's too high or the state spends it unwisely someone else replies "don't you want doctors/teachers/etc.?"

This is either vague idiocy or debate triangulation, i.e. replying to an existing two way debate with a third point that isn't really related, to move it on to your own terms.

For the benefit of clarity, no one sensible is saying they want to pay no tax and have no state spending.

But lots of people are saying they'd happily swap the status quo for paying less tax and having a smaller state; smaller through a combination of doing less things and doing the other things more efficiently. But not getting rid of all the lovely "key workers".

For the same reason, saying other states spend more than we do is irrelevant, because levels of government expenditure should be set by need, not by comparison. Obvious really.

[rover 623gsi]

I’m guessing some people on this thread have missed the fact that all local authority spending over £500 has to be made public
http://local.direct.gov.uk/LDGRedirect/index.jsp?L...

and this story from last year

A personalised annual tax statement from HMRC will be sent to all 20 million UK taxpayers from 2014, going out annually with their tax code notice or emailed to those who file online. The two-page statement is simple, bright (HMRC, spiritual home of the austere brown envelope, has finally latched on to full colour printing) and friendly. Big bold figures tell you how much you earned, how much you took home, how much tax you paid and, crucially, where the money went.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2012/mar/20/i...

[Johnnytheboy]

rover 623gsi said:

I’m guessing some people on this thread have missed the fact that all local authority spending over £500 has to be made public
http://local.direct.gov.uk/LDGRedirect/index.jsp?L...

and this story from last year

A personalised annual tax statement from HMRC will be sent to all 20 million UK taxpayers from 2014, going out annually with their tax code notice or emailed to those who file online. The two-page statement is simple, bright (HMRC, spiritual home of the austere brown envelope, has finally latched on to full colour printing) and friendly. Big bold figures tell you how much you earned, how much you took home, how much tax you paid and, crucially, where the money went.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2012/mar/20/i...

Are you posting these as examples of transparency or pointless waste?

[Eric Mc]

Looks like government can never win.

Information hard to find - example of government secrecy and obfuscation.

Information provided - looked on as waste of government resources.

[oyster]

GavinPearson said:

oyster said:

The government is very accountable.

On a daily basis the media and opposition parties hold the government to account. On a weekly basis the House of Commons holds the PM to account. Additionally parliamentary select committees hold government ministers and senior civil servants to account. The House of Lords holds the government to account. And best of all, every 5 years, YOU hold the government to account.

I'm not sure whether or not you're joking here....

Can an ordinary British citizen access information readily which shows the tax receipts and outgoings by every government department, local authority & quango? Can the same citizens see the data behind the immigration figures for the past 50 years?

The simple fact is that they can't. The British government is as transparent as the wall of a nuclear bunker. Because if people actually knew the truth they would be absolutely livid.

The biggest lack of transparency is the tin hat on your head.

If I remember rightly, you're an expat? Pray tell me, how open is the government of the country you live in compared to the UK?

[Countdown]

Johnnytheboy said:

Yes, and the price is too high for the outcomes.

I'm not sure how you're making this judgement. For example a person earning £50k will be paying (roughly) £15k in direct Tax & NI. Add on another £2k for council tax = £17k pa. For this he gets

Education
24 hour healthcare (GP, A&E, Hospitals)
Elderly care
Support for any disbaled children
Police, Prisons, Courts
Fire services
Roads maintenance
Refuse collection

I appreciate he might not use some/any/all of the above services. But he'll expect the State to pick up the tab when he [bdoes[/b]. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to buy all the above services privately for the same cost.

Johnnytheboy said:

This thread has gone the same way as threads on public spending do: when someone suggests it's too high or the state spends it unwisely someone else replies "don't you want doctors/teachers/etc.?"

Which services would you cut and how much tax would this save?

Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 19th March 13:17

[IATM]

Countdown said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Yes, and the price is too high for the outcomes.

I'm not sure how you're making this judgement. For example a person earning £50k will be paying (roughly) £15k in direct Tax & NI. Add on another £2k for council tax = £17k pa. For this he gets

Education
24 hour healthcare (GP, A&E, Hospitals)
Elderly care
Support for any disbaled children
Police, Prisons, Courts
Fire services
Roads maintenance
Refuse collection

I appreciate he might not use some/any/all of the above services. But he'll expect the State to pick up the tab when he [bdoes[/b]. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to buy all the above services privately for the same cost.

Johnnytheboy said:

This thread has gone the same way as threads on public spending do: when someone suggests it's too high or the state spends it unwisely someone else replies "don't you want doctors/teachers/etc.?"

Which services would [byou[/b] cut and how much tax would this save?

That is a very theoretical answer to the post you are replying to.

The dispute is not the services we get; it is the quality of services we get. Education is many part is of a poor standard; waiting times on the NHS are becoming next to a joke; the few times I have used the local NHS/doctor I can't get an appointment for at least a week; police take a decade to arrive and roads are close to the quality of a third world country if not worse.

It's the efficiency of that 17k spent. Also the17k does not take into account all of the other many many taxes that are charged.

[Countdown]

IATM said:

That is a very theoretical answer to the post you are replying to.

I agree, but it's a bit of a vague question.

IATM said:

The dispute is not the services we get; it is the quality of services we get. Education is many part is of a poor standard;

Teachers are not any worse than they were 20/30/50 years ago,(neither are students). the biggest impact on children's attainment is the level of parental involvement. 20+ years ago you had more stable families where usually one parent was "stay at home". Nowadays you have many more single parents or families with both parents working who don't have the desire or time/energy to spend helping their children. I'm not suggesting there aren't other factors and that there aren't "sink schools". However (IME) the main reason for falling attainment is parental involvement.

IATM said:

waiting times on the NHS are becoming next to a joke; the few times I have used the local NHS/doctor I can't get an appointment for at least a week;

Service I have received has been quite good but I appreciate YMMV. However you get what you pay for. Our health outcomes, in terms of VFM, are far better than those in the US (and not as good as Socialist France).

IATM said:

police take a decade to arrive and roads are close to the quality of a third world country if not worse.

When they do arrive they don't expect a bribe, nor are they likely to arrest you because your neighbour doesn't like you and has paid them a bung I agree about the roads.

IATM said:

It's the efficiency of that 17k spent. Also the17k does not take into account all of the other many many taxes that are charged.

The £17k was a hypothetical example (assumed average PH'er earnings). Most people pay a lot less tax. That aside, how would you improve efficiency?

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

Which services would you cut and how much tax would this save?

oh dear. list some services we all might use at some point and ask which ones we should cut. don't whatever you do list overseas aid, public sector pensions, welfare, housing benefit or payments to the eu for starters...

[Johnnytheboy]

Countdown said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Yes, and the price is too high for the outcomes.

I'm not sure how you're making this judgement. For example a person earning £50k will be paying (roughly) £15k in direct Tax & NI. Add on another £2k for council tax = £17k pa. For this he gets

Education
24 hour healthcare (GP, A&E, Hospitals)
Elderly care
Support for any disbaled children
Police, Prisons, Courts
Fire services
Roads maintenance
Refuse collection

I appreciate he might not use some/any/all of the above services. But he'll expect the State to pick up the tab when he [bdoes[/b]. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to buy all the above services privately for the same cost.

Johnnytheboy said:

This thread has gone the same way as threads on public spending do: when someone suggests it's too high or the state spends it unwisely someone else replies "don't you want doctors/teachers/etc.?"

Which services would you cut and how much tax would this save?

Bloody PH - I just wrote a huge post and lost the lot. Suffice to say I'd get rid of almost everything you didn't mention above.

First, stop triangulating - I made more than one reference to the problem being that outcomes are poor value for money in, not that I wished to end services. That's the mentality that gets rid of frontline services while buying paintings for the Chief Exec's office on the sly.

But I would get rid of almost all state involvement in health/lifestyle promotions, advertising, art, culture, sport, foreign aid, minority language support...

I'd sack half the receptionists, I'd sack most of the MOD procurement people (there's 20,000 of them ffs and all they need to do is buy it all from the yanks), I'd stop the state buying any more art for public buildings and sack the people involved.

I'd vastly simplify the tax and benefits system and sack all the people no longer needed. I'd cap housing benefit, total household beneift, seriously tighten up the rules on who can get disability benefits, means test age related benefits and get rid of child benefit - at the very least for more than 2 kids per household.

I'd strictly ringfence what the NHS is and is not expected to provide for free. If you ain't ill, it ain't free. No fertility treatment for people who left it too late, no alternative medicine, no cosmetic surgery (excepting accident repair), no sex changes, etc.

I'd close all final salary pension schemes to new employees and reduce annual leave to the workforce average, and I'd ban union officials from being paid by the state when on union business.

And I'd end all town twinning arrangements are they a pure junket. And lord mayors - whatever they do.

That would do for starters.

And all your nice fluffy photogenic key workers that usually get dragged into debates like this would remain in post.

[Countdown]

Johnnytheboy said:

First, stop triangulating - I made more than one reference to the problem being that outcomes are poor value for money in, not that I wished to end services.

I'm not triangulating (whatever that is). You said it's poor VFM. I asked how and gave examples of how much tax somebody on £50k pays and what services he receives FOR that payment.

Johnnytheboy said:

That's the mentality that gets rid of frontline services while buying paintings for the Chief Exec's office on the sly.

On the sly? How does that happen then? Somebody will raise a PO, authorise the invoice and process it for payment. It doesn't happen on the sly and (more and more often) expenditure such as this gets exposed and rightly subjected to ridicule. Councils have to publish items of expenditure over £500 and people should review this and ask questions if they're not happy.

Johnnytheboy said:

But I would get rid of almost all state involvement in health/lifestyle promotions, advertising, art, culture, sport, foreign aid, minority language support...

I agree.

Johnnytheboy said:

I'd sack half the receptionists,

Why half? Why not three-quarters? Seven-eigths? Also most Public Sector organisations deal with the Public. It's cheaper/more efficient to do this with receptionists than have Consultants/GPs doing their own reception work.

Johnnytheboy said:

I'd stop the state buying any more art for public buildings and sack the people involved.

I'm ambivalent about Art but I'd suggest it serves a similar function to the Queen in supporting Tourism. I'd be happy about getting rid of both of them. Less use than ornament.

Johnnytheboy said:

I'd vastly simplify the tax and benefits system and sack all the people no longer needed. I'd cap housing benefit, total household beneift, seriously tighten up the rules on who can get disability benefits, means test age related benefits and get rid of child benefit - at the very least for more than 2 kids per household.

Why not scrap all benefits? If people feel obliged to look after those less fortunate they can do so via charities.

Johnnytheboy said:

I'd strictly ringfence what the NHS is and is not expected to provide for free. If you ain't ill, it ain't free. No fertility treatment for people who left it too late, no alternative medicine, no cosmetic surgery (excepting accident repair), no sex changes, etc.

Again agreed apart from accident repair. Your insurance should pay for it. If you're an insuranceless-scrote, well tough st quite frankly We need to encourage more and more people to make their own provision rather than expect the faceless nanny State to pick up the tab.

Johnnytheboy said:

I'd close all final salary pension schemes to new employees and reduce annual leave to the workforce average, and I'd ban union officials from being paid by the state when on union business.

And I'd end all town twinning arrangements are they a pure junket. And lord mayors - whatever they do.

Again, I agree.

Johnnytheboy said:

And all your nice fluffy photogenic key workers that usually get dragged into debates like this would remain in post.

Why? There isn't a single service that cannot be provided privately. If they really are "key" workers rather than workshy feckless unionised layabouts perpetually on the "sick" they'll soon find gainful employment.

[GavinPearson]

oyster said:

The biggest lack of transparency is the tin hat on your head.

If I remember rightly, you're an expat? Pray tell me, how open is the government of the country you live in compared to the UK?

Where I live the government is very open about their accounting at every level from my local town through to national level. They have their problems, and there is very divided opinion about how to fund government, but the tax level is far lower than it would be in the UK.

While some people might say that the UK is an absolute bargain in tax terms, if they were to compare the level of tax they would pay in the UK with their counterpart in the USA for example, they would find that the same money earned would be taxed at a far lower rate in the USA.

As a guide, somebody earning US$80K would be paying about $20K in all for taxes and in a number of states their kids would get free University education.

So for the GBP 50K earner paying 17K in taxes they ought to be paying more like 12K. And the 5K less that they are taxed could be used to do exactly what they want with it, which in many people's cases would mean spending it, further boosting the economy.

People forget that the USA was founded entirely on the basis of being completely fed up with being taxed to oblivion by the UK with insufficient service to show for it. Because Americans are taught their history from Kindergarten, they have the whole issue of tax drummed into them from an early age and by adulthood what they look for is value from their tax dollars. For the majority of people whether on the left or right, they want to know that they are not being overtaxed and that there's no waste in the system. This tends to be a bigger issue at a local and state level than at a national level, but people vote on tax increases and often knock politicians' proposals down on the basis that they cost too much. That simply doesn't happen in the UK as far as I can see.