Would you pay more tax if it meant protecting public services?

[Herr Tubthumper]

Charlotte Church says she would pay tax at 70% to protect public services

http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...pay-70-percent-tax-to-protect-public-services

I personally think 70% is a bit high but I'd certainly go for 50%. Would you?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And this is what anti-austerity looks like

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If you are a lower rate tax payer, then upping it to 50% is a bit of an ask.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Can Charlotte Church guarantee that the money will be spent correctly and efficiently? Chucking tons of tax payers money at something is not always the answer.

 

[synavm]

I'd accept a base rate increase of 5-10% if it came with a guarantee a certain level of investment into the NHS, I think 50% would be OTT. I think the big concern would be that the revenue raised would be wasted, and if that were to be the case, I would clearly not be happy with a tax hike.

 

[Superphil]

I would accept it, I think taxation is a huge part of the problem and has been for a long time. I agree that lower earners should pay less, but to pay nothing doesn't seem right either. When I started work income tax was around 33p in the pound for regular wage earners, with higher earners paying more. Now regular wage earners are paying 20p in the pound for much of their earnings, is that a gap in revenue that needs to be addressed.

Of course bankers/evasion/avoidance/rich people etc also need to be brought into line.

 

[studio150]

Giving that NI is a tax in everything but name, then if you are in the 40% tax band you are already paying 50% anyway.

 

[Simster]

It is a ridiculously open ended question really.

But yes, I would love to ruin Charlotte Church. Please could you tell her this?

 

[Notters]

Yes, but I don't think pumping more money at the NHS is the answer. There's an awful lot of money wasted.

 

[Driver8]

Giving that NI is a tax in everything but name, then if you are in the 40% tax band you are already paying 50% anyway.

42%. NI is 2% above £42,380.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Not sure that paying higher taxes is the easy fix for public services. If everyone suddenly started paying 50% tax there would be far less money being spent by consumers, the economy would shrink considerable and workers would lose their jobs. This would mean less people earning a wage and paying their taxes. There needs to be a balance.

 

[beorhthelm]

anyone voting yes is lieing to themselves. did you hear of any district voting to increase the council tax? did you hear about the Scots using their power to increase income tax 3p? people want the services but they want someone else to pay: the "rich" (ie anyone earning over 40k), the "super-rich" (anyone over 100k), businesses (who create jobs), banks (who have always paid substantial taxes), big business (both the aforementioned) are viewed as fair game. and then of course there is the mythical avoidance and evasions, one of which is legal and using the system as provided and the other is by definition unknown quantity.

what we really need is to overhaul taxation to leave fewer avoidance and evasion options, and streamline public services to ensure the funds are available to the actual service and not drained by administrative functions along the way. bit controversial i know, saving money by being effificent.

those that genuinly mean they want to pay 50% could calculate the difference between their current tax and 50%, and pay it to a couple of charities. i know a few people do pay 10% to charity, but its rare and usually a religious thing, i will look forward to hearing about all the charity NSC readers are paying their 10% to.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I've no idea what Charlotte earns (and nor is it any of my business), but if it's some eye-watering sum of the kind I could only ever dream of earning, then yes, I would be prepared to pay a high level of tax.

In my own personal circumstance, no. After all deductions (Tax, NI, pension contributions, levy on work benefits - car / prvate healthcare) I bring home enough to keep my family in modest comfort. I think I work hard enough (most days) for that to be an equitable state of affairs.

That said, if I really felt that MORE money was needed to protect public services, then I'd understand why I had to find my share. I don't though - we just need to spend it on the right things.

 

[tinycowboy]

I would pay more, but I agree that a tax rise should be targeted - much better to take more tax off people who do not need to spend what they earn than to take tax off everyone.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I would accept it, I think taxation is a huge part of the problem and has been for a long time. I agree that lower earners should pay less, but to pay nothing doesn't seem right either. When I started work income tax was around 33p in the pound for regular wage earners, with higher earners paying more. Now regular wage earners are paying 20p in the pound for much of their earnings, is that a gap in revenue that needs to be addressed.

Of course bankers/evasion/avoidance/rich people etc also need to be brought into line.

Taxation was switched from income tax to VAT, so that you paid tax on things that you needed/wanted rather than on earnings.

I think a lot of tax payers money is wasted by inefficiences, and some public services need to get their acts together to ensure it is spent correctly.

 

[tinycowboy]

anyone voting yes is lieing to themselves. did you hear of any district voting to increase the council tax? did you hear about the Scots using their power to increase income tax 3p? people want the services but they want someone else to pay: the "rich" (ie anyone earning over 40k), the "super-rich" (anyone over 100k), businesses (who create jobs), banks (who have always paid substantial taxes), big business (both the aforementioned) are viewed as fair game. and then of course there is the mythical avoidance and evasions, one of which is legal and using the system as provided and the other is by definition unknown quantity.

what we really need is to overhaul taxation to leave fewer avoidance and evasion options, and streamline public services to ensure the funds are available to the actual service and not drained by administrative functions along the way. bit controversial i know, saving money by being effificent.

I agree that greater tax efficiency should be the first port of call. I disagree that people voting yes are liars though, they just have a different value system.

 

[Superphil]

Taxation was switched from income tax to VAT, so that you paid tax on things that you needed/wanted rather than on earnings.

I think a lot of tax payers money is wasted by inefficiences, and some public services need to get their acts together to ensure it is spent correctly.

But I think VAT was 15% then anyway so hardly making a huge difference.

 

[beorhthelm]

I disagree that people voting yes are liars though, they just have a different value system.

i know, and i expect alot of flak for putting that. but i've based it on the facts, if people on basic income tax were willing to pay a 50% rate they could be giving 20% to charities. they do not. at the time of writing 55% are saying they would, which extrapolated would mean ~35bn in personal donations to charities, which is twice what they get (if everyone paid 50% it would raise about 70Bn. charity donations are about 14Bn.). maybe the genuine people willing to give more are those online at this time.


one should point out that with NI and VAT we do pay near enough 50% in tax anyroad. so i take it all back, we're all 50% tax payers.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But I think VAT was 15% then anyway so hardly making a huge difference.

Not at first, and there was no VAT at all on utilities.

 

[tinycowboy]

i know, and i expect alot of flak for putting that. but i've based it on the facts, if people on basic income tax were willing to pay a 50% rate they could be giving 20% to charities. they do not. at the time of writing 55% are saying they would, which extrapolated would mean ~35bn in personal donations to charities, which is twice what they get (if everyone paid 50% it would raise about 70Bn. charity donations are about 14Bn.). maybe the genuine people willing to give more are those online at this time.


one should point out that with NI and VAT we do pay near enough 50% in tax anyroad. so i take it all back, we're all 50% tax payers.

It's also possible that people voting yes are top rate tax payers already, or 40% tax payers who are making donations to charity. In addition, not paying tax due is an offence whilst charitable giving is a choice - people react differently to things that are mandatory and may tolerate a higher statutory rate of tax whilst not engaging in charitable donations prior to that increase.