Tax.... what is everyone’s problem with it?

[Jimmeh]

Wasn't that forced by the EU?

No.

 

[FoxEye]

But when your only choice is clowns to the left and jokers to the right....

Put the lime in the coconut and shake it all up?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Wait until you’ve had over 40% of your salary taken in PAYE and NI for a decade and report back.

I'm fine with it.

 

[rainbowGuy]

what really gets me is that the more you earn the more % you pay in tax- you dont necessarily get any extra benefits and why do you pay Income tax then Council tax? I know what the difference is but it should just be one tax.

Then there are other things:

1. big corps cheat our tax system but even if they didnt it would hardly make a diff i.e. its not as if that would mean we pay less tax?
2. Govt wasting our money on stupid things - Boris estuary airport comes to mind, chris graylings failed ferry contract, Mps getting paid to keep 2 houses.. i mean who does that? why not move near to your constituency - in private sector you would have to move..
3. the waste in NHS and other dept as well..
4. if you happen to save lots of money (which has been taxed - they tax you on the savings/interest)
5. you also pay VAT etc on top of Income tax..

if we really wanted we could stream line and cut costs everywhere without affecting people. for ex someone told me that on NHS you cant buy products from argos etc you have to go to an approved supplier who then over charge NHS...

Also GPs fob you off without investigating/coming up with a proper solution - and this sentiment has been echoed repeatedly by different people.

Also i think it would be fairer if everyone paid a set amount say 20%.. because 20% of 100k is still a lot more than 20% of 20k

 

[chroniclard]

what really gets me is that the more you earn the more % you pay in tax- you dont necessarily get any extra benefits

Yes you do. There is always a benefit.

 

[FoxEye]

if we really wanted we could stream line and cut costs everywhere without affecting people. for ex someone told me that on NHS you cant buy products from argos etc you have to go to an approved supplier who then over charge NHS...

Just to address this specific point. The system of govt procurement is literally retarded, from what I've seen and heard.

Every contract has to be put out to tender. Including where there is only one supplier of the actual product (like software). If you want to buy, eg, Adobe software, but Adobe doesn't take part in the tender process, then you have to buy from a third party reseller that did. Thus you end up paying 3x the cost of the Adobe software to buy it from a third party, who literally do nothing.

You have a problem and you ask this supplier for support, they just turn round and say "speak to Adobe - it's their software".

And that is govt software procurement. It's beyond stupid. Probably the same for the NHS.

 

[Nevakonaza]

Im fine with paying my taxes,goes towards fire and police who do a fantastic job,Bins always get emptied so council are doing a good job too,However i dont think enough of our tax is going towards the NHS and doctors,Its an absolute nightmare to get into my local doctors,its constantly fully booked with weeks waiting and they wont let you book too far ahead either..

 

[Basher]

Yes you do. There is always a benefit.

Is there? Does someone that pays £80k in tax get more than someone than pays £10k?

Surely the whole point is that the answer to that is 'no'?

 

[FoxEye]

Is there? Does someone that pays £80k in tax get more than someone than pays £10k?

Surely the whole point is that the answer to that is 'no'?

Tax isn't payable based on what you get for it.

Tax is payable based on what you can afford to contribute to help society.

If tax could only be taken based on the value of the services provided - well then we'd scrap tax altogether. Everybody would just pay for the services they used, and only those. And those who couldn't afford the service wouldn't get it.

Tax doesn't work like that.

e: Anyway, here's a question. If you pay less tax, what are you going to do with the extra income? Say the difference between a take-home of 50k and 60k. A slightly better car? An extra holiday a year? A bigger house? A 2nd house?

All of those are nice but hardly essential. Your tax pays for people to live fairly modest lives and keeps essential services running.

Isn't that more worthwhile? You can say no, that's fine, if it's your genuine opinion.

 

[Basher]

Tax isn't payable based on what you get for it.

Tax is payable based on what you can afford to contribute to help society.

If tax could only be taken based on the value of the services provided - well then we'd scrap tax altogether. Everybody would just pay for the services they used, and only those. And those who couldn't afford the service wouldn't get it.

Tax doesn't work like that.

e: Anyway, here's a question. If you pay less tax, what are you going to do with the extra income? Say the difference between a take-home of 50k and 60k. A slightly better car? An extra holiday a year? A bigger house? A 2nd house?

All of those are nice but hardly essential. Your tax pays for people to live fairly modest lives and keeps essential services running.

Isn't that more worthwhile? You can say no, that's fine, if it's your genuine opinion.

I’m not questioning any of that. I’m questioning the belief that as an individual you get more benefit if you pay more tax.

I don’t think you do. I think the more you earn, the more you can afford to contribute back.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

To answer the above, nothing.

Unless there was some radical tax cuts for individuals then additional money for low or middle earners wouldn’t amount to anything significant enough to make any lifestyle changes. Raising the personal allowance £1k saves a basic rate payer £200. Or to put it another way, £3.85 a week. I doubt most would even notice.

 

[Jonny ///M]

Just to address this specific point. The system of govt procurement is literally retarded, from what I've seen and heard.

Every contract has to be put out to tender. Including where there is only one supplier of the actual product (like software). If you want to buy, eg, Adobe software, but Adobe doesn't take part in the tender process, then you have to buy from a third party reseller that did. Thus you end up paying 3x the cost of the Adobe software to buy it from a third party, who literally do nothing.

You have a problem and you ask this supplier for support, they just turn round and say "speak to Adobe - it's their software".

And that is govt software procurement. It's beyond stupid. Probably the same for the NHS.

Pretty much what I've heard from a guy regarding have two potential suppliers, they have to buy from one so dodgy dealings going on between the two companies to push the price up.

 

[The_Abyss]

Tax isn't payable based on what you get for it.

Tax is payable based on what you can afford to contribute to help society.

If tax could only be taken based on the value of the services provided - well then we'd scrap tax altogether. Everybody would just pay for the services they used, and only those. And those who couldn't afford the service wouldn't get it.

Tax doesn't work like that.

e: Anyway, here's a question. If you pay less tax, what are you going to do with the extra income? Say the difference between a take-home of 50k and 60k. A slightly better car? An extra holiday a year? A bigger house? A 2nd house?

All of those are nice but hardly essential. Your tax pays for people to live fairly modest lives and keeps essential services running.

Isn't that more worthwhile? You can say no, that's fine, if it's your genuine opinion.

I completely agree that tax isn't payable based on what is received - that's all part of our society's contract.

However, if anyone pays less tax then they have more income. They can do whatever they live with that extra income, but the point is that they can do more. Sp yes, it might be an extra holiday a year, or a bigger house, or another house. None are essential but all might be possible and desirable. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Basher]

Just to address this specific point. The system of govt procurement is literally retarded, from what I've seen and heard.

Every contract has to be put out to tender. Including where there is only one supplier of the actual product (like software). If you want to buy, eg, Adobe software, but Adobe doesn't take part in the tender process, then you have to buy from a third party reseller that did. Thus you end up paying 3x the cost of the Adobe software to buy it from a third party, who literally do nothing.

You have a problem and you ask this supplier for support, they just turn round and say "speak to Adobe - it's their software".

And that is govt software procurement. It's beyond stupid. Probably the same for the NHS.

This is a big part of the issue for me. I'm happy to pay more tax, but I want issues like the above fixed, first. Why throw more money at terrible inefficiency?

 

[FoxEye]

I completely agree that tax isn't payable based on what is received - that's all part of our society's contract.

However, if anyone pays less tax then they have more income. They can do whatever they live with that extra income, but the point is that they can do more. Sp yes, it might be an extra holiday a year, or a bigger house, or another house. None are essential but all might be possible and desirable. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that per se, except when people start to think in terms of tax being an unfair burden, and how they'd always like to pay less, and possibly not taking time to think about the social contract you mentioned.

It's about context, and having a bit of empathy and not always wanting maximum advantage for oneself.

At least it would be if successive governments weren't also continually finding ways to **** a lot our taxes away. But that's (to my mind) a separate issue from being required to pay our taxes. We should want maximum value for them, but we seem to be sorely lacking any mechanism to hold govts to account for wastefulness or misuse of funds.

 

[FoxEye]

This is a big part of the issue for me. I'm happy to pay more tax, but I want issues like the above fixed, first. Why throw more money at terrible inefficiency?

I don't think there's any indication that this will ever get better.

So perhaps think of it as the cost of doing business. No org is ever 100% effective or efficient with its resources.

So yeah, 10% of your taxes will always be wasted, but 90% (hopefully) will be spent on good causes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pay more, or that we can justify paying less along lines of govt wastefulness. You just have to cost that in.

Like I said, I don't think there's a mechanism for holding either local or central govt to account in its spending.

 

[The_Abyss]

Nothing wrong with that per se, except when people start to think in terms of tax being an unfair burden, and how they'd always like to pay less, and possibly not taking time to think about the social contract you mentioned.

It's about context, and having a bit of empathy and not always wanting maximum advantage for oneself.

At least it would be if successive governments weren't also continually finding ways to **** a lot our taxes away. But that's (to my mind) a separate issue from being required to pay our taxes. We should want maximum value for them, but we seem to be sorely lacking any mechanism to hold govts to account for wastefulness or misuse of funds.

I think that we agree.

I, as will many, always want to pay less for something, especially if it is something that I need to buy. But that doesn't diminish the need to actually buy it.

The rest of your post, as you said, is a separate issue. But it is one that is used (or abused) in the debate about taxation and the cost of funding public services.

 

[kindai]

first hand at how the money is wasted

This is my main issue.

If I could see the money was being used wisely and to good effect, then yes, but when you have the government throwing money at pet projects that are clearly a bad ROI to anyone except the gov and those in line for a fat paycheck...

HS2 London section or Hinkley for example

 

[Basher]

I don't think there's any indication that this will ever get better.

So perhaps think of it as the cost of doing business. No org is ever 100% effective or efficient with its resources.

So yeah, 10% of your taxes will always be wasted, but 90% (hopefully) will be spent on good causes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pay more, or that we can justify paying less along lines of govt wastefulness. You just have to cost that in.

Like I said, I don't think there's a mechanism for holding either local or central govt to account in its spending.

I agree that not everything is 100% efficient, but from working with the Pub Sec for a while, it's so crazily inefficient that there HAS to be room for improvement. The answer cannot always be throw more money at it.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

@Pudney - where are you at, my dude?