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

[Superphil]

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

When I started work in '84 vat was 15% and it never went down.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

I'd rather pay less tax and have the cash in hand to pay for services I actually want to use.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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.

And it is commonly accepted, I would have thought, that VAT is a far less fair method of taxation, because it hits those who can least afford it the hardest.

 

[beorhthelm]

And it is commonly accepted, I would have thought, that VAT is a far less fair method of taxation,....

you think wrong. some think its fair to tax people on luxuries. debate ensues on what is luxuries, certainly not utilities, but we have a decent set of zero rated to say that we've got an OK balance. personally id increase the VAT on some obviously luxury items and remove from items such as utilities and clothing.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I would but 50% or 70% is ludicrous - surely Church's perspective is from someone with a large income, if you hit average earners with a 50% tax the amount being spent in shops and on services etc would fall through the floor- or some of the tax would have to be spent immediately on debt advisory services.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

And this is what anti-austerity looks like

 

[Thunder Bolt]

When I started work in '84 vat was 15% and it never went down.

The original tax was called Purchase tax and changed to VAT, 11 years earlier than that when it was 10%.

 

[BLOCK F]

Throwing more money at the public services is not the answer.
There is a huge amount of money wasted at present.My ancient parents still live in their own flat; my mother is 96 and has Alzheimers; my father is 98 and is a retired G.P. My mother has a carer coming in every morning,for which they pay.That system works well, but trying to sort out and co-ordinate any other help she or he may need is a complete nightmare. The different agencies of the NHS, just appear completely independent of each other, resulting in duplication of visits, misunderstandings, time wasting and inevitably a waste of money. A lot of the problems could be solved by proper communication;it isn't always a question of more money.My old man who still has his marbles is horrified by the waste of time and money.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

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?

I'm happy to spend money but I don't like wasting it. Great swathes of the public sector operate way below reasonable efficiency and large chunks of it - I know; I've been there - waste other people's money like there's no tomorrow. I would be happy to pay more tax if it was allocated directly to nominated parts of the public sector that could demonstrate an efficient use of it. I've no wish to pay a penny more to bureaucrats who have a much lucrative life than I do and who will retire 15 years before I will.

 

[cjd]

Just one of those oddities in life.

The more money we pump into the NHS, the longer we will all live................and the more expensive it will become to sustain it.

People living longer means increased population.....shortage of housing.....and increase in values.

End result; Chaos. Too few people working to provide and pay for health services, food, heating subsidies, and pensions for an ageing population.

Another brilliant idea brought to you from Herr Tubthumper...(probably via McDonalds).

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Departments within the public services have a budget to use each year, if they don't spend it all , then they don't get the same amount again the following year so there is no incentive to use this money wisely and consider value for money to the tax payer. Most departments then have an end of year spend just to use up what is left from their budget to avoid losing this, so throwing more money at the public services will just lead to more wasted cash imo. - People would be shocked at how a lot of your tax payers money is wasted if they were to witness it for themselves.

What would be far better would be a change in how these budgets work, allowing them to run efficiently, to find the best solutions for their needs when making purchases (rather than pick the one that either suits their current budget or allowing them to buy it cheaper from an unapproved supplier rather than only use one that's approved but costs 3 times more) and not have to a penalty for not spending all the money in their budget. (excess goes into a central account and can be used in subsequent years to cover unexpected financial pressures, regardless of which department needs it (like a bail out but without having to go cap in hand to the Government or Local Authority) - there is no incentive to be prudent.

So in answer to the OP, no I wouldn't. I would rather have money in my pocket and then able to spend this using the local economy and have the tax taken on purchases by the Government used to support the local economy instead of directly from wages. This gives people freedom of choice, increases their spending power (regardless of income) and stimulates the economy and may push up wages as demand for labour increases due to economic growth - to me, it's win - win (but people would have you believe it's all just about greed doing it this way)

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

you think wrong. some think its fair to tax people on luxuries. debate ensues on what is luxuries, certainly not utilities, but we have a decent set of zero rated to say that we've got an OK balance. personally id increase the VAT on some obviously luxury items and remove from items such as utilities and clothing.

Good point and fair enough.

 

[BLOCK F]

Blimey, at the time of posting, 42% have said they would be 'happy to cough up' 50% income tax etc.
Don't believe it(unless they are all very high earners). Even without adding on N.I. that level of tax would screw so many modest earners and push them into poverty.
Why not go the whole hog and give all your earnings to the State to waste and be grateful when they give you back a bit for pocket money?

 

[jackanada]

Throwing more money at the public services is not the answer.
There is a huge amount of money wasted at present.My ancient parents still live in their own flat; my mother is 96 and has Alzheimers; my father is 98 and is a retired G.P. My mother has a carer coming in every morning,for which they pay.That system works well, but trying to sort out and co-ordinate any other help she or he may need is a complete nightmare. The different agencies of the NHS, just appear completely independent of each other, resulting in duplication of visits, misunderstandings, time wasting and inevitably a waste of money. A lot of the problems could be solved by proper communication;it isn't always a question of more money.My old man who still has his marbles is horrified by the waste of time and money.

I'm sure the fragmentation and privatisation of NHS services will make that a whole lot better!

 

[OzMike]

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?

You can say what you like.

 

[jackanada]

I'm still unsure how it is we bail the banks out to the tune of £70 billion then give them £300 odd billion of free money to lend at a profit and still end up owing banks money.


Slightly more on topic corporate tax avoidance is conservatively estimated (by Conservatives) at £30 billion (£130 billion by other estimates). That should be the focus rather than the relative pittance taken out by immigrants and benefit cheats.

Samantha Cameron could start by making her posh stationery company pay more than zero tax since it was bought out and offshored by major tory donors making her tens of millions in the process.

 

[GT49er]

Bit of a loaded poll this - a straight Yes, No or Fence would have been fine, without putting in that 50% bo11ocks.



To a straight Yes, No or Fence poll I'd have answered yes, so long as tax was proportionate and ALL the loopholes the rich use - legal or illegal - were closed firmly and irrevocably. Also I'd be happier if ALL the money spent on the NHS (and what I pay for gas, electricity and rail fares for example) was spent on providing those services, without any of it being diverted to pay shareholders.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

42%. NI is 2% above £42,380.

Therein lies the problem , NI shouldn't be lowered to 2% on any earnings above £42,380 pa.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Another brilliant idea brought to you from Herr Tubthumper...(probably via McDonalds).

I think you'll find who raised this was Charlotte Church.

 

[Superphil]

The original tax was called Purchase tax and changed to VAT, 11 years earlier than that when it was 10%.

I thought VAT was 15% in 1984, certainly what it says on Wikipedia and on tax.org, at the same time as income tax was around 33p in the pound for normal earners, or perhaps I'm missing something.