So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
You had better tell the HoC library they have it wrong then. And even better identify where they have it wrong given they have the specific figures there.
There seems to be increasing talk among Trump-adjacent people about the inevitability of going to war with the drug cartels. It could be a weak point for Biden in the general election.
War on the drug cartels plays well with his base, but surely most rational US voters see it as a completely bollocks idea. We tried a War on Drugs: drugs won and the voters noticed. Much of the country supports drug legalisation. Meanwhile, American isolationists aren’t going to be very excited by the idea of invading another country. Old-school Republicans are horrified at the nonsense of the idea.
Drug legalisation is absolutely impossible and insanely dangerous in the face of new drugs like fentanyl and tranq
Do try and keep up
Legalise, regulate, and tax the hell out of every drug. Works well for alcohol and tobacco, why not the others?
fentanyl Is the perfect example of the war on drugs driving the adoption of worse and worse substitute drugs.
No it's not
It’s being used because it is incredibly compact per dose.
No war on drugs, why would anyone need it? Or touch anything possibly contaminated with it? If Big Pharma is selling medical grade coke etc, for prices the cartels can barely match, why buy from Danny The Drug Dealer.
At the end of Prohibition, the Mob ran, not walked away from the alcohol business. Because they realised they couldn’t compete on price or quality.
But this is simply wrong
By all accounts (I've read a lot) Fentanyl gives a notably superior high, more euphoric, more numbing, than the best heroin. The fact it s horribly addictive, much more dangerous, doesn't worry the cartels; the fact it is cheaper and compact is obviously a big plus
For tranq you can take all this and multiply by ten. The withdrawal can easily kill you, so if you get people to try it just once or twice, you have the perfect customer. Utterly enslaved. Many will die but more will come
It must be 50 years since I read Brave New World but weren't Huxley's proles spaced out on 'Soma' most of the time and happy as larks? "I'm glad I'm a Gamma," they would repeat, insistently, as they quaffed the state brew and chilled. Obviously we Alphas tut-tut at this sort of thing, but from a purely utilitarian perspective...
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
I wasted a lot of time and money a few weeks ago when trying to attend the Post Office Inquiry. They cancelled the hearing after 10 minutes because the Post Office hadn't disclosed all the documents they should have. I was booked in for 2 days.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income and wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
I wasted a lot of time and money a few weeks ago when trying to attend the Post Office Inquiry. They cancelled the hearing after 10 minutes because the Post Office hadn't disclosed all the documents they should have. I was booked in for 2 days.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
Excerpt from that pdf:
Box 1:
Tax receipts and public sector current receipts Most government revenues come from taxes or social contributions. National insurance contributions are the UK’s social contributions. In 2022/23, £916 billion was raised from taxes and social contributions, equivalent to 36% of GDP.
When ‘other receipts’ such as interest payments on government assets, and income generated by public corporations are added in we reach the wider measure of public sector current receipts. In 2022/23, £1,017 billion was raised from public sector receipts, equivalent to 40% of GDP.
Whether you think payments to government owned corporations & interest payments are part of the tax take is perhaps a matter of definition, but it’s important to be clear exactly what we mean.
If you want to match government expenditure to income, then you can cut expenditure or you can raise taxes: What are you going to cut? It’s not enough to say “the government should spend less”, that’s just magically thinking. Which services are you going to put on the chopping board?
The state pension is the obvious one, isn't it? After all, we're told that the average pensioner now has more disposable income than the average person of working age.
So fold the state pension into Universal Credit. If you're over 68, then remove the requirement to be actively seeking work - but keep the means testing, and the progressive removal of benefits for those who have savings or other assets of more than £6k. Align the rates with normal UC rates, too (I think pensions are a bit higher by default? I can't see any way to justify that if so).
There are plenty of low-level jobs available for anyone who'd be left out of pocket, and those who have limited capacity for work would get UC at a higher rate anyway.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
Excerpt from that pdf:
Box 1:
Tax receipts and public sector current receipts Most government revenues come from taxes or social contributions. National insurance contributions are the UK’s social contributions. In 2022/23, £916 billion was raised from taxes and social contributions, equivalent to 36% of GDP.
When ‘other receipts’ such as interest payments on government assets, and income generated by public corporations are added in we reach the wider measure of public sector current receipts. In 2022/23, £1,017 billion was raised from public sector receipts, equivalent to 40% of GDP.
Whether you think payments to government owned corporations & interest payments are part of the tax take is perhaps a matter of definition, but it’s important to be clear exactly what we mean.
If you want to match government expenditure to income, then you can cut expenditure or you can raise taxes: What are you going to cut? It’s not enough to say “the government should spend less”, that’s just magically thinking. Which services are you going to put on the chopping board?
For £1,017 billion to be equivalent to 40% of GDP, the UK GDP would have to be £2,542 billion in the year 2022/23.
Nowhere I can find is quoting it as anywhere near that large. And if it was that is a jump of of almost 19% from 2021. That really would be something to shout about.
I suspect the difference here is in real vs nominal GDP. Some figures you see will be real & normed to a particular year in the past, but in actual current £ our GDP is > £2.5 trillion.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
I wasted a lot of time and money a few weeks ago when trying to attend the Post Office Inquiry. They cancelled the hearing after 10 minutes because the Post Office hadn't disclosed all the documents they should have. I was booked in for 2 days.
Hopefully they will in the US as well. But your strawman comment doesn't detract from my point. How many people have gone to jail in the UK over the various financial scandals over the last couple of decades. And how many in the US?
The US actively goes after the big company bosses when things go wrong. We have a quiet word and ask them not to do it again.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
They've used some pretty extreme methods wrt the war on drugs in places like the Philippines, and most people seem to be supportive of it.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
Some people are paying marginal rates at that level - the combination of the removal of child benefit around £50k & the removal of the tax free allowance > £100k leads to these kind of marginal tax rates.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
Calculate the real income tax rate of a single parent who is earning £30k, claiming Universal Credit and could get a £1000 pay rise. £1000 is purely to do the maths, percentages hold for any figure.
Gross income gain £1000
Income Tax 20% National Insurance 12%
Direct taxation £320
Universal Credit Taper 55% after NI and IT: £680 * 55% = £374 Student Loan Repayments: 9% = £90 Effective Taxation £464
Direct + Effective Taxation = £320 + £464 = £784 Real marginal tax rate 78.4%
Take home pay £216
Note that UC Taper does not take Student Loan repayments into account and as of this year the Student Loan Repayment threshold has been reduced to £25,000 for new students. And of course fiscal drag means people pay these real tax rates even if they're only getting an inflationary pay rise, not a real pay rise.
The really low spending countries are mostly failed states, with a few interesting exceptions like Taiwan, Singapore and Costa Rica. Even middle income counties are typically in the thirties, with Switzerland being another anomaly in that range.
Pretty much all the countries that a reasonable person of no great wealth would want to live in are in the 40-50% range.
I see in Switzerland compulsory health insurance costs an average of £3400 per capita too, and is not tied to earnings. Government subsidies apply to those where this is more than 8% of income.
If we’re doing photos of sundowners then here’s mine. Chase Gin and tonic. Wolf and Dingo and “Ontario rat” knives for display
What kind of nutter has a President Putin mug?
A right-wing nutter.
I’m sorry but I also have a Ukraine flag flying from my balcony
Genuine Russian cultural artefact
I love their political kitsch
I bought the Putin mugs in St Petersburg in 2016. I've got one of him bare chested on the horse. Superb
The Matryoshka doll above was banned by Putin & Co. According to my step-mother the shop she bought such things in was raided by the police who took away all the ones featuring Putin as the smallest piece
Apparently, ones with Putin as the largest doll are ok with him.
I think this pic of Putin is better
To be fair to Vlad he WAS quite buff. And he was about 50, then?
I doubt very much he would take his shirt off today, age 70
I mean, he's not very buff, is he?
Like, there's clearly some steroid use going on to produce that combination of moobs + quasi-six pack (four pack?). But look at his narrow shoulders (and chubby forearms!).
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income and wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
What I find amusing is that those who go on about it being impossible to cut the size of the State are also the ones who complain about all the waste and inside deals and lining of pockets being done by the current administration. The tens of billions being siphoned off to 'Tory friends in big business'. They also complain abouthow much more expensive it is to get infrastructure projects done in this country than in other parts of Europe.
And yet apparently there are no savings to be made.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
You had better tell the HoC library they have it wrong then. And even better identify where they have it wrong given they have the specific figures there.
From that HoC link you provided: "In 2022/23, UK government raised over £1,017 billion in receipts – income from taxes and other sources. This is equivalent to around 40% of the size of the UK economy..."
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
In the past year, inside IR35, I have paid 57% of my day rate to the Government. That is the overall for the year, not just some unusually high part of it. Not quite the 60% but not far off.
The section on the Post office as "We're trusted. We're relatable. We're reliable." is vomit inducing. The multiple spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar don't help either. A whole paragraph on EDI but nothing about ethics and compliance with the law.
"The Inquiry team has been formed within Post Office to resolve certain legacy issues facing Post Office in connection with its dealings with Postmasters."
Legacy issues!
I wasted a lot of time and money a few weeks ago when trying to attend the Post Office Inquiry. They cancelled the hearing after 10 minutes because the Post Office hadn't disclosed all the documents they should have. I was booked in for 2 days.
Hopefully they will in the US as well. But your strawman comment doesn't detract from my point. How many people have gone to jail in the UK over the various financial scandals over the last couple of decades. And how many in the US?
The US actively goes after the big company bosses when things go wrong. We have a quiet word and ask them not to do it again.
How many big bank bosses in the US have gone to jail over the GFC?
Here both Adoboli and Hayes went to prison (and I was involved in both those cases, as well as others where insider dealers went to prison).
And, now, because of the US Hayes might get his conviction overturned. I am furious because there is stuff I know about him, which I cannot reveal, which shows that he is not the little innocent he claims to be.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
How do you propose to deal with the Sacklurs and their role in the Oxycontin scandal? Make them patrons of another arts charity?
If we’re doing photos of sundowners then here’s mine. Chase Gin and tonic. Wolf and Dingo and “Ontario rat” knives for display
What kind of nutter has a President Putin mug?
A right-wing nutter.
I’m sorry but I also have a Ukraine flag flying from my balcony
Genuine Russian cultural artefact
I love their political kitsch
I bought the Putin mugs in St Petersburg in 2016. I've got one of him bare chested on the horse. Superb
The Matryoshka doll above was banned by Putin & Co. According to my step-mother the shop she bought such things in was raided by the police who took away all the ones featuring Putin as the smallest piece
Apparently, ones with Putin as the largest doll are ok with him.
I think this pic of Putin is better
To be fair to Vlad he WAS quite buff. And he was about 50, then?
I doubt very much he would take his shirt off today, age 70
I mean, he's not very buff, is he?
Like, there's clearly some steroid use going on to produce that combination of moobs + quasi-six pack (four pack?). But look at his narrow shoulders (and chubby forearms!).
It's all a bit weird and needy.
I’m not sure whether you or Leon has studied the pic in close up more.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income and wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
What I find amusing is that those who go on about it being impossible to cut the size of the State are also the ones who complain about all the waste and inside deals and lining of pockets being done by the current administration. The tens of billions being siphoned off to 'Tory friends in big business'. They also complain abouthow much more expensive it is to get infrastructure projects done in this country than in other parts of Europe.
And yet apparently there are no savings to be made.
You can't have it both ways.
You can have it both ways: you can cut corruption and fund public services properly.
But with insider dealing and other corruption we are talking million not billions. You are intelligent enough to know that clamping down on insider deals is a) not going to plug the hole an public finances but b) is the right thing to do in any event.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
..and be taxed rather than funding criminal gangs.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
If we’re doing photos of sundowners then here’s mine. Chase Gin and tonic. Wolf and Dingo and “Ontario rat” knives for display
What kind of nutter has a President Putin mug?
A right-wing nutter.
I’m sorry but I also have a Ukraine flag flying from my balcony
Genuine Russian cultural artefact
I love their political kitsch
I bought the Putin mugs in St Petersburg in 2016. I've got one of him bare chested on the horse. Superb
The Matryoshka doll above was banned by Putin & Co. According to my step-mother the shop she bought such things in was raided by the police who took away all the ones featuring Putin as the smallest piece
Apparently, ones with Putin as the largest doll are ok with him.
I think this pic of Putin is better
To be fair to Vlad he WAS quite buff. And he was about 50, then?
I doubt very much he would take his shirt off today, age 70
I mean, he's not very buff, is he?
Like, there's clearly some steroid use going on to produce that combination of moobs + quasi-six pack (four pack?). But look at his narrow shoulders (and chubby forearms!).
It's all a bit weird and needy.
I’m not sure whether you or Leon has studied the pic in close up more.
I suspect we all know. Remind me, which one has the mug?
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
..and be taxed rather than funding criminal gangs.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
Completely agreed.
Did you see my reply to your question asking who pays 60-75%?
Do you agree with my numbers that the real marginal tax rate for that individual is 78.4%? And that was just one example, you can do others, and for someone supposedly on a 20% tax band not a "high earner". I meant to specify in the intro that they were a graduate.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I want you to have police that will investigate if you are burgled, and GPs you can get an appointment with. I think, in the short term, the best way of achieving that is voting out the Tories, who have proven they can't do these things. You're sceptical whether any other party in power can deliver these things, but I think it's worth trying!
If you're finding it hard to make ends meet, no, you should not be paying more tax. I'm guessing part of your expenditure is housing costs, so that's something the country could do something about by building more houses. If we bring down housing costs, we put more money in most people's pockets without changing tax rates.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
..and be taxed rather than funding criminal gangs.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
Who are these people who indulge - present tense - in their recreational drug habit?
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
In the past year, inside IR35, I have paid 57% of my day rate to the Government. That is the overall for the year, not just some unusually high part of it. Not quite the 60% but not far off.
Without wishing to know your personal details, how in general does that work? ICT + ee's NIC + do you have to pay er's NIC?
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So now you're gonna hand out Fentanyl at Boots. Genius. What about Tranq, which is even better than Fentanyl?
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
Some people are paying marginal rates at that level - the combination of the removal of child benefit around £50k & the removal of the tax free allowance > £100k leads to these kind of marginal tax rates.
A marginal tax rate, the tax I would pay if I earned £1 more, is not the same as the overall tax rate I am paying on all my income.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
I pay a bit over 53% of my total income in tax (inc. NI & student loan repayment). I'm still saving for a deposit on a flat, so all those who smugly say "oh yeah, just pay more into your pension to avoid the 60% marginal rate" can go fuck themselves - what use is a pension when rent in 30 years' time would overwhelm anything I could reasonably hope to get?
As I understand it, between 20-50 years ago both the Tories and New Labour held out the idea that if you work hard, you'd be able to look after yourself and maybe even own a house and have a family. But now it's a case of "fuck you, you should have had rich grandparents".
It's simply not sustainable. I can't understand why anyone thinks it is.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So now you're gonna hand out Fentanyl at Boots. Genius. What about Tranq, which is even better than Fentanyl?
Not hand it out. Sell it, and tax it, and have the appropriate health warnings and health treatment options available.
But at least its purchasers would know the purity of what they're buying - and Boots would be a better place to facilitate treatment options than drug dealers.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So now you're gonna hand out Fentanyl at Boots. Genius. What about Tranq, which is even better than Fentanyl?
Not hand it out. Sell it, and tax it, and have the appropriate health warnings and health treatment options available.
But at least its purchasers would know the purity of what they're buying - and Boots would be a better place to facilitate treatment options than drug dealers.
Tranq is so powerful it can get you addicted from the first hit, the withdrawal is so dangerous it can kill you with seizures, and the high is so intense it leaves you immobile on the ground for hours so you get open weeping sores and your legs are chopped off
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
Some people are paying marginal rates at that level - the combination of the removal of child benefit around £50k & the removal of the tax free allowance > £100k leads to these kind of marginal tax rates.
A marginal tax rate, the tax I would pay if I earned £1 more, is not the same as the overall tax rate I am paying on all my income.
Marginal tax rate is the more important tax rate though. It is the rate at which it prompts people into thinking about whether they should do extra hours, extra shifts, or should they take a promotion. Or if they take a promotion, should they engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
It is also the tax rate that fiscal drag causes, which means that if 78.4% of your marginal pay rise is gobbled up by effective taxation, then if you get an inflation-meeting pay rise (lucky you) you only have 21.4% of that inflationary pay rises to pay for inflationary costs - but costs take 100% of inflation, not 21% of it.
This is why taxes are better when they're flatter and simpler. It doesn't cause oddities, or NYC skylines of tax rates, and means everyone pays more consistent rates rather than extreme amounts or minimal amounts depending upon your circumstances.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So now you're gonna hand out Fentanyl at Boots. Genius. What about Tranq, which is even better than Fentanyl?
Not hand it out. Sell it, and tax it, and have the appropriate health warnings and health treatment options available.
But at least its purchasers would know the purity of what they're buying - and Boots would be a better place to facilitate treatment options than drug dealers.
Tranq is so powerful it can get you addicted from the first hit, the withdrawal is so dangerous it can kill you with seizures, and the high is so intense it leaves you immobile on the ground for hours so you get open weeping sores and your legs are chopped off
That's from day 1
You want to hand it out at Boots?
With the appropriate education and health warnings, yes.
Hopefully properly educated and without any bait and switch though, nobody would be stupid enough to buy it, but if they are, they're not getting it from drug dealers who are baiting and switching others into taking it.
If we’re doing photos of sundowners then here’s mine. Chase Gin and tonic. Wolf and Dingo and “Ontario rat” knives for display
What kind of nutter has a President Putin mug?
A right-wing nutter.
I’m sorry but I also have a Ukraine flag flying from my balcony
Genuine Russian cultural artefact
I love their political kitsch
I bought the Putin mugs in St Petersburg in 2016. I've got one of him bare chested on the horse. Superb
The Matryoshka doll above was banned by Putin & Co. According to my step-mother the shop she bought such things in was raided by the police who took away all the ones featuring Putin as the smallest piece
Apparently, ones with Putin as the largest doll are ok with him.
I think this pic of Putin is better
To be fair to Vlad he WAS quite buff. And he was about 50, then?
I doubt very much he would take his shirt off today, age 70
I mean, he's not very buff, is he?
Like, there's clearly some steroid use going on to produce that combination of moobs + quasi-six pack (four pack?). But look at his narrow shoulders (and chubby forearms!).
It's all a bit weird and needy.
I’m not sure whether you or Leon has studied the pic in close up more.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
Some people are paying marginal rates at that level - the combination of the removal of child benefit around £50k & the removal of the tax free allowance > £100k leads to these kind of marginal tax rates.
A marginal tax rate, the tax I would pay if I earned £1 more, is not the same as the overall tax rate I am paying on all my income.
Marginal tax rate is the more important tax rate though. It is the rate at which it prompts people into thinking about whether they should do extra hours, extra shifts, or should they take a promotion. Or if they take a promotion, should they engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
It is also the tax rate that fiscal drag causes, which means that if 78.4% of your marginal pay rise is gobbled up by effective taxation, then if you get an inflation-meeting pay rise (lucky you) you only have 21.4% of that inflationary pay rises to pay for inflationary costs - but costs take 100% of inflation, not 21% of it.
This is why taxes are better when they're flatter and simpler. It doesn't cause oddities, or NYC skylines of tax rates, and means everyone pays more consistent rates rather than extreme amounts or minimal amounts depending upon your circumstances.
Marginal tax rates are important, yes. But they're still different from overall tax rates, which are also important.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So now you're gonna hand out Fentanyl at Boots. Genius. What about Tranq, which is even better than Fentanyl?
Not hand it out. Sell it, and tax it, and have the appropriate health warnings and health treatment options available.
But at least its purchasers would know the purity of what they're buying - and Boots would be a better place to facilitate treatment options than drug dealers.
Tranq is so powerful it can get you addicted from the first hit, the withdrawal is so dangerous it can kill you with seizures, and the high is so intense it leaves you immobile on the ground for hours so you get open weeping sores and your legs are chopped off
That's from day 1
You want to hand it out at Boots?
With the appropriate education and health warnings, yes.
Hopefully properly educated and without any bait and switch though, nobody would be stupid enough to buy it, but if they are, they're not getting it from drug dealers who are baiting and switching others into taking it.
You'd have hundreds of thousands of people buying an incredibly dangerous drug from the government (because Tranq is GOOD), with about 10% of them dying of it every year (going by American stats)
Call me Professor Skeptical-pants, but I doubt any sane government could ever risk that, and the ensuing legal bills. So you're back to square 1. Prohibition of drugs
This is why legalisation is no longer a go-er, sadly
If we’re doing photos of sundowners then here’s mine. Chase Gin and tonic. Wolf and Dingo and “Ontario rat” knives for display
What kind of nutter has a President Putin mug?
A right-wing nutter.
I’m sorry but I also have a Ukraine flag flying from my balcony
Genuine Russian cultural artefact
I love their political kitsch
I bought the Putin mugs in St Petersburg in 2016. I've got one of him bare chested on the horse. Superb
The Matryoshka doll above was banned by Putin & Co. According to my step-mother the shop she bought such things in was raided by the police who took away all the ones featuring Putin as the smallest piece
Apparently, ones with Putin as the largest doll are ok with him.
I think this pic of Putin is better
To be fair to Vlad he WAS quite buff. And he was about 50, then?
I doubt very much he would take his shirt off today, age 70
I mean, he's not very buff, is he?
Like, there's clearly some steroid use going on to produce that combination of moobs + quasi-six pack (four pack?). But look at his narrow shoulders (and chubby forearms!).
It's all a bit weird and needy.
I’m not sure whether you or Leon has studied the pic in close up more.
I suspect we all know. Remind me, which one has the mug?
Last time @Leon showed us his mugs, I believe they were Moomin ones by Iittala - so he does at least have some degree of good taste!
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
Some people are paying marginal rates at that level - the combination of the removal of child benefit around £50k & the removal of the tax free allowance > £100k leads to these kind of marginal tax rates.
A marginal tax rate, the tax I would pay if I earned £1 more, is not the same as the overall tax rate I am paying on all my income.
Marginal tax rate is the more important tax rate though. It is the rate at which it prompts people into thinking about whether they should do extra hours, extra shifts, or should they take a promotion. Or if they take a promotion, should they engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
It is also the tax rate that fiscal drag causes, which means that if 78.4% of your marginal pay rise is gobbled up by effective taxation, then if you get an inflation-meeting pay rise (lucky you) you only have 21.4% of that inflationary pay rises to pay for inflationary costs - but costs take 100% of inflation, not 21% of it.
This is why taxes are better when they're flatter and simpler. It doesn't cause oddities, or NYC skylines of tax rates, and means everyone pays more consistent rates rather than extreme amounts or minimal amounts depending upon your circumstances.
Marginal tax rates are important, yes. But they're still different from overall tax rates, which are also important.
If we had flat taxes, they wouldn't be different.
Either way though, if people are paying a real marginal tax rate of 78.4% then do you think that might be a tad too high?
Do you think that might discourage work, discourage people from seeking opportunities to earn more or progress? Or might encourage them to seek methods of cash in hand tax evasion?
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But Fentanyl is better. Miles better
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If fentanyl is miles better, all the more reason it should be distributed and taxed via Boots rather than criminals.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
So now you're gonna hand out Fentanyl at Boots. Genius. What about Tranq, which is even better than Fentanyl?
Not hand it out. Sell it, and tax it, and have the appropriate health warnings and health treatment options available.
But at least its purchasers would know the purity of what they're buying - and Boots would be a better place to facilitate treatment options than drug dealers.
Tranq is so powerful it can get you addicted from the first hit, the withdrawal is so dangerous it can kill you with seizures, and the high is so intense it leaves you immobile on the ground for hours so you get open weeping sores and your legs are chopped off
That's from day 1
You want to hand it out at Boots?
With the appropriate education and health warnings, yes.
Hopefully properly educated and without any bait and switch though, nobody would be stupid enough to buy it, but if they are, they're not getting it from drug dealers who are baiting and switching others into taking it.
You'd have hundreds of thousands of people buying an incredibly dangerous drug from the government (because Tranq is GOOD), with about 10% of them dying of it every year (going by American stats)
Call me Professor Skeptical-pants, but I doubt any sane government could ever risk that, and the ensuing legal bills. So you're back to square 1. Prohibition of drugs
This is why legalisation is no longer a go-er, sadly
Though you claimed people were getting hooked on these drugs by bait and switch etc
Cut out the drug dealers, that won't happen anymore.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
Housing again is the root of the problem.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
..and be taxed rather than funding criminal gangs.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
The government is a criminal gang whether labour or tory or libdem
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
In the past year, inside IR35, I have paid 57% of my day rate to the Government. That is the overall for the year, not just some unusually high part of it. Not quite the 60% but not far off.
Without wishing to know your personal details, how in general does that work? ICT + ee's NIC + do you have to pay er's NIC?
It's worth noting that employees really should be including ER NICs when comparing rates with freelancers, contractors, or people outside of the UK.
In particular, lots of people do themselves down by not including it when negotiating salaries for new jobs.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
Housing again is the root of the problem.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
Ben however would say they can take a shed load more tax off me as I am well off by income....mid 50k. Take another for example 200 a month off me and I am looking at eating beans on toast to make the food last
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
And what happens when as expected it raises the square root of bugger all as all countries that have tried it found? Yes you will expand it downwards
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
..and be taxed rather than funding criminal gangs.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
Completely agreed.
Did you see my reply to your question asking who pays 60-75%?
Do you agree with my numbers that the real marginal tax rate for that individual is 78.4%? And that was just one example, you can do others, and for someone supposedly on a 20% tax band not a "high earner". I meant to specify in the intro that they were a graduate.
Just seen it now. Haven't checked your numbers but I don't dispute them. Freezing the personal allowances was a deeply nasty stealth tax.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
I would roll NI into Income Tax
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
I would roll NI into Income Tax
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
And what happens when as expected it raises the square root of bugger all as all countries that have tried it found? Yes you will expand it downwards
You really are the most depressing poster on here.
If you are right, you might as well just accept that life is shit and then you die; nothing will ever change for the better.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
I would roll NI into Income Tax
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
Good stuff, Mr Roberts. The quibble is that if we are to tax the value of the site - just the site and its potential, not the buildings - then it does not matter in the slightest whether it is the primary residence or not.
You are so very nearly on board with Lib Dem policy. Congratulations!
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
Housing again is the root of the problem.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
Ben however would say they can take a shed load more tax off me as I am well off by income....mid 50k. Take another for example 200 a month off me and I am looking at eating beans on toast to make the food last
But Bart's right here.
Suppose- somehow- the government found a way of cutting everyone's taxes by £100 a month. It really wouldn't be long before your rent increased to syphon that money off you. Because in most places, the going rate for housing is "every last penny you have".
Hence the Two Nations thing we see here and elsewhere. People who rent, or bought recently, having a rubbish time of it. People with paid off mortgages wondering what the fuss is about.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
And what happens when as expected it raises the square root of bugger all as all countries that have tried it found? Yes you will expand it downwards
Wealth taxes do raise bugger all, they're too easily dodged.
Property taxes do not. You can't easily dodge them.
Equalising tax rates will not raise bugger all either, it would raise tax receipts. And will mean that tax rates can be lower for those who are currently subject to too high tax rates.
Why should someone who works hard for £55k pay your tax rate, while someone who gets £55k gifted to them via inheritance gets it completely tax free? If those tax rates were the same, yours could be lower, and the person receiving the inheritance is still getting a bonus on top of whatever income they earn even if they pay income tax on that.
Land should be higher taxed in this country than it is, there are good economic and philosophical reasons to justify that.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
Housing again is the root of the problem.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
Even those who have mortgages have, until very very recently, been in a much better position than those who rent.
For example, we had someone on PB who recently reported that a family member's mortgage on a 5 bedroom house in a nice part of SW London was likely going to triple to £6k per month. That implies that their current mortgage costs a little less than my current rent on a north-facing single aspect lower ground floor studio flat (aka a cave) on the fringe of zone 2. Which is completely mind-boggling, when you think about it.
How do we fix this? Fiddling around with tax incentives or ever-more-complex help to buy-type schemes isn't going to solve anything in the long run, it just shuffles the problem round to other people. We need to build, build, build. Build the sort of flats and houses that people want to buy in the places they want to live.
Barty wants suburban semis with two-car garages on the outskirts of conurbations. I want high-density mansion blocks and 8 storey tenements in city centres. Let's do both!
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
BiB: All the more reason to legalise drugs.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
..and be taxed rather than funding criminal gangs.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
Completely agreed.
Did you see my reply to your question asking who pays 60-75%?
Do you agree with my numbers that the real marginal tax rate for that individual is 78.4%? And that was just one example, you can do others, and for someone supposedly on a 20% tax band not a "high earner". I meant to specify in the intro that they were a graduate.
Just seen it now. Haven't checked your numbers but I don't dispute them. Freezing the personal allowances was a deeply nasty stealth tax.
The kindest description is utter cowardice- raising taxes (a lot) by a bit of technical gobbledegook in one speech.
The class war description is that lower thresholds coupled with lower rates (still the Sunak aspiration) leaves poorer people paying more tax and richer people paying less. Jolly bad show.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
I was just hit with some unexpected bills last week. A boiler repair call-out I hadn't been expecting and the the factors (building maintenance people). £95 and £300 respectively. As it is this takes me into "oh well, no new glasses for me this month, Or anything beyond the basics for food.". I'd hate to think if I was just scraping by on a minimum wage retrail job.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
Housing again is the root of the problem.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
Ben however would say they can take a shed load more tax off me as I am well off by income....mid 50k. Take another for example 200 a month off me and I am looking at eating beans on toast to make the food last
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
I would roll NI into Income Tax
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
Good stuff, Mr Roberts. The quibble is that if we are to tax the value of the site - just the site and its potential, not the buildings - then it does not matter in the slightest whether it is the primary residence or not.
You are so very nearly on board with Lib Dem policy. Congratulations!
I'm a liberal, so that's hardly a surprise, the problem is that the Lib Dems come up with insane policies I deplore like NIMBYism.
Given the housing shortage in this country, it absolutely does matter if primary residence or not. Everyone needs a primary residence. The way I would do it is set the tax rate at the higher rate, but then set a discount for your primary residence; though if the chronic housing shortage could be resolved, say by eliminating planning permission and NIMBYism, then there'd be no reason to do this.
If the Lib Dems were properly liberal, I'd wholeheartedly support them.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
Housing again is the root of the problem.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
Even those who have mortgages have, until very very recently, been in a much better position than those who rent.
For example, we had someone on PB who recently reported that a family member's mortgage on a 5 bedroom house in a nice part of SW London was likely going to triple to £6k per month. That implies that their current mortgage costs a little less than my current rent on a north-facing single aspect lower ground floor studio flat (aka a cave) on the fringe of zone 2. Which is completely mind-boggling, when you think about it.
How do we fix this? Fiddling around with tax incentives or ever-more-complex help to buy-type schemes isn't going to solve anything in the long run, it just shuffles the problem round to other people. We need to build, build, build. Build the sort of flats and houses that people want to buy in the places they want to live.
Barty wants suburban semis with two-car garages on the outskirts of conurbations. I want high-density mansion blocks and 8 storey tenements in city centres. Let's do both!
Absolutely 100% agreed, I don't only want my preference built, I want everyone's preference able to be built. Everyone should be able to get whatever they want, with no supply limitations.
For me I have a young family. Parking spaces and a garden for them and our dog to run around is absolutely valuable, hence suburban semi.
For younger people without kids a tenement in the city centre within walking distance of bars and clubs, or whatever else, might be preferable.
And as those younger people get married and have kids they might want to stay where they are, or might want to move to the suburbs, nobody should be tied to one for eternity.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
I would roll NI into Income Tax
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
Good stuff, Mr Roberts. The quibble is that if we are to tax the value of the site - just the site and its potential, not the buildings - then it does not matter in the slightest whether it is the primary residence or not.
You are so very nearly on board with Lib Dem policy. Congratulations!
I'm a liberal, so that's hardly a surprise, the problem is that the Lib Dems come up with insane policies I deplore like NIMBYism.
Given the housing shortage in this country, it absolutely does matter if primary residence or not. Everyone needs a primary residence. The way I would do it is set the tax rate at the higher rate, but then set a discount for your primary residence; though if the chronic housing shortage could be resolved, say by eliminating planning permission and NIMBYism, then there'd be no reason to do this.
If the Lib Dems were properly liberal, I'd wholeheartedly support them.
Any tax on a landlord will simply be passed onto the tenant, though.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
I would roll NI into Income Tax
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
Good stuff, Mr Roberts. The quibble is that if we are to tax the value of the site - just the site and its potential, not the buildings - then it does not matter in the slightest whether it is the primary residence or not.
You are so very nearly on board with Lib Dem policy. Congratulations!
I'm a liberal, so that's hardly a surprise, the problem is that the Lib Dems come up with insane policies I deplore like NIMBYism.
Given the housing shortage in this country, it absolutely does matter if primary residence or not. Everyone needs a primary residence. The way I would do it is set the tax rate at the higher rate, but then set a discount for your primary residence; though if the chronic housing shortage could be resolved, say by eliminating planning permission and NIMBYism, then there'd be no reason to do this.
If the Lib Dems were properly liberal, I'd wholeheartedly support them.
Any tax on a landlord will simply be passed onto the tenant, though.
If we had a free housing market where anyone could build whatever they want without planning permission getting in the way that'd be the case, since landlord's rent would be lowered down to the marginal cost of housing plus a margin.
However in our broken system with insufficient housing, that's not the case. Which is why people with property portfolios make a healthy income and capital gains from them, while people renting are in penury.
Turn it on its head. Did lower interest rates on landlords result in lower rents?
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
In the past year, inside IR35, I have paid 57% of my day rate to the Government. That is the overall for the year, not just some unusually high part of it. Not quite the 60% but not far off.
Without wishing to know your personal details, how in general does that work? ICT + ee's NIC + do you have to pay er's NIC?
Yep. If you are inside IR35 you basically are liable for all taxes that would be due on employment including both employers and employees. So it is tax, both employers and employees NI and also the other bits and pieces such as the apprenticeship levy. It is pernicious because it is basically a way for the end user (who would normally be the employer) to avoid paying the payroll taxes themselves.
But it also gives you a good insight into just how much of the payroll for a company is being taken by the Government.
bondegezou said: "We tried a War on Drugs: drugs won and the voters noticed."
Consider a parallel argument: We tried a war on [pick your favorite pathogen]: The [pathogen] won, and the survivng voters noticed.
It is not difficult to think of "wars" on pathogens that have lasted years, even centuries. Nonetheless most of us believe we should continue fighting them, and we have had some successes over the years.
Will we ever finally win all of them? Not in my life time -- but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting them.
Similarly, it is possible to find examples of gains against illegal drugs. At its peak the crack epidemic in the US was so bad that it produced signficant declines in the life expectancies of black Americans, especially men. But the measures taken against it reduced crack use over time.
(It is often argued that the policies against crack adopted in the 1980s and 1990s were excessive. That's probably true, but it seems nearly certain to me that they were one reason, probably the biggest reason, that crack use declined.)
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
In the past year, inside IR35, I have paid 57% of my day rate to the Government. That is the overall for the year, not just some unusually high part of it. Not quite the 60% but not far off.
Without wishing to know your personal details, how in general does that work? ICT + ee's NIC + do you have to pay er's NIC?
Yep. If you are inside IR35 you basically are liable for all taxes that would be due on employment including both employers and employees. So it is tax, both employers and employees NI and also the other bits and pieces such as the apprenticeship levy. It is pernicious because it is basically a way for the end user (who would normally be the employer) to avoid paying the payroll taxes themselves.
But it also gives you a good insight into just how much of the payroll for a company is being taken by the Government.
I agree with you that it gives a good insight into just how much of the payroll the Government takes. Most of it. In my 78.4% calculation for marginal income tax rate, I never even included Employers NI and it absolutely should be included, which would take the calculation closer to 90% which is just shocking, and really does happen. Especially when fiscal drag is causing the pay rise.
As far as the end user avoiding paying the taxes themselves, it should work out relatively neutral for them should it not? Ie if they were paying an employee, they'd be liable for the taxes, whereas if they're paying a contractor then the contractor should quote with the taxes in mind?
It ends with these two pragraphs: "Indeed, such tolerance would only undercut support for legalization. Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths."
Not being a libertarian, I disagree with her -- but at least she is taking the problem seriously.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
Spot on.
An obvious move would be to unify income tax & employee NI. Now the retired have a 32% income tax rate for income over £10k.
Will take a brave government though. Is Starmer’s Labour up to the task?
I agree with you on this and have long advocated it. But this is a separate (although still valid) question to that of the overall size of the State. We need to change both where we get the tax from and the amount the State is taking. #
And actually neither one is directly dependent on the other. Both are valid positions that could be pursued either in combination or independently.
But how big is too big?
It's the Laffer Curve argument in a different guise; almost everyone can agree that 0 percent and 100 percent are bad, but very little is known about the line that joins those two points. And whilst "tax income from different rates" is at least two objective quantities, "goodness of society from different sizes of state" is going to be pretty subjective.
The fact is that we are both to the left and the right of the Laffer Curve, simultaneously.
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
Who's paying 60-75% of their income in tax?
In the past year, inside IR35, I have paid 57% of my day rate to the Government. That is the overall for the year, not just some unusually high part of it. Not quite the 60% but not far off.
Without wishing to know your personal details, how in general does that work? ICT + ee's NIC + do you have to pay er's NIC?
Yep. If you are inside IR35 you basically are liable for all taxes that would be due on employment including both employers and employees. So it is tax, both employers and employees NI and also the other bits and pieces such as the apprenticeship levy. It is pernicious because it is basically a way for the end user (who would normally be the employer) to avoid paying the payroll taxes themselves.
But it also gives you a good insight into just how much of the payroll for a company is being taken by the Government.
I agree with you that it gives a good insight into just how much of the payroll the Government takes. Most of it. In my 78.4% calculation for marginal income tax rate, I never even included Employers NI and it absolutely should be included, which would take the calculation closer to 90% which is just shocking, and really does happen. Especially when fiscal drag is causing the pay rise.
As far as the end user avoiding paying the taxes themselves, it should work out relatively neutral for them should it not? Ie if they were paying an employee, they'd be liable for the taxes, whereas if they're paying a contractor then the contractor should quote with the taxes in mind?
No because the end users have simply moved all their contractors inside IR35 and kept day rates the same. They say that any changes in Goverment taxation policy should be kept cost neutral for them. So now they get the felxibility of contractors - effectively a posh zero hours situation without any additional costs to them.
This is just a fact of life now. I only raised it as it gave me an interesting inisght into exactly how much the Government take is of payroll.
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.
As @NickPalmer and others have pointed out in the past, Russia have been busily creating "facts on the ground" in Crimea and the Donbas since 2014. Ukrainians might reasonably term this "ethnic cleansing" - but, even if it weren't for the current war, reversing this might well be messy.
Russia has force Ukraine into a position where they have to choose a hegemon - and they've chosen to look west. They want to see a path towards EU membership, and either full NATO membership or some form of association with strong security guarantees. That's Number 1 on their list, everything else is below that.
So if some sort of deal can be worked out - say if Russia pays something towards compensation for the lost territory and an indemnity for the cost of the current war - then I suspect that many Ukrainians may be tempted to settle.
But they'd need to be very very sure about those security guarantees - no more military incursions, no more threats to Black Sea shipping, no more cutting off oil or gas pipelines, some form of international control for Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station.
The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.
Yes. But that doesn't seem to apply to the Russians. As long as the Russians want more territory, Ukraine will have no security. Hence I think Ukraine's three basic choices are as I set out.
I can see an eventual deal where Ukraine trades Russian occupation of Crimea for getting out of disputed areas of the Donbas. The key would be to turn Crimea from a stronghold to a Ukrainian hostage. Ukraine trains its guns across the Crimean isthmus and down the Azov Sea to Kerch: you don't muck us up in Donbas and we won't do the same to you in Crimea.
I was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, but at this point it seems to me a necessary element of a potential deal. Russia is having enough trouble fighting Ukraine with NATO backing: they certainly would not attack them as a NATO member, any more than they've attacked the Baltic States, because they'd be fighting the US directly. A ceasefire on current lines plus Ukraine in NATO would (a) defeat the main objective of the invasion, so that aggression is not rewarded (b) give the solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety (c) allow the pro-Russian minority to stay with Russia and (d) stop the slaughter. Would most people in Ukraine support years more war in order to retake Crimea, if they knew they'd be safe with a ceasefire?
Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
I was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, but at this point it seems to me a necessary element of a potential deal. Russia is having enough trouble fighting Ukraine with NATO backing: they certainly would not attack them as a NATO member, any more than they've attacked the Baltic States, because they'd be fighting the US directly. A ceasefire on current lines plus Ukraine in NATO would (a) defeat the main objective of the invasion, so that aggression is not rewarded (b) give the solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety (c) allow the pro-Russian minority to stay with Russia and (d) stop the slaughter. Would most people in Ukraine support years more war in order to retake Crimea, if they knew they'd be safe with a ceasefire?
Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
Tax on income should not go up. Ideally it should be cut.
Where there is room for tax rises is equalising unearned and earned incomes.
There is no justification for National Insurance, or some income being exempt from it.
Merge NI and Income Tax. Ensure all income of the same amount always pays the same rate of tax.
To do so would be politically "brave", but is long overdue. Osborne had an opportunity to do it, but flunked it.
Sir Keir Starmer has an opportunity to do it too, if he wins the next election.
Absolutely not, the reverse should be happening. National Insurance funds should be ringfenced and only those who have contributed to it should be eligible for the full state pension and contributions based JSA. It was set up after all to fund unemployment insurance and later funded the state pension too.
It could also be used to fund some state health and social care as well given most OECD nations fund much of their healthcare via insurance
I was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, but at this point it seems to me a necessary element of a potential deal. Russia is having enough trouble fighting Ukraine with NATO backing: they certainly would not attack them as a NATO member, any more than they've attacked the Baltic States, because they'd be fighting the US directly. A ceasefire on current lines plus Ukraine in NATO would (a) defeat the main objective of the invasion, so that aggression is not rewarded (b) give the solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety (c) allow the pro-Russian minority to stay with Russia and (d) stop the slaughter. Would most people in Ukraine support years more war in order to retake Crimea, if they knew they'd be safe with a ceasefire?
Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
I don't know if it would be possible to get them into NATO without serious US coercion on members which I accept is a definite possibility. Aside from those that, rightly, have doubts about the strategic wisdom of such an enterprise everybody saw how Erdogan was able to extract a high price for admitting Sweden and Finland and will fancy a bit of that themselves.
Three month anniversary of the start of The Counteroffensive today so well done to all involved. We'll always have (what's left of) Robotyne.
So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.
That's horrific.
Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?
Where does it end?
I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
If you see everything as costs, then your instinct is to cut. If you see everything as investments, maybe you’d have a different approach. The Tories have cut and ended up costing us more. So I think we can get improvements without increasing the tax take.
But I’m all for increasing the tax take as well! There are countries with higher tax takes. They also have a higher quality of life. I think one can sell that vision to voters.
I fully accept that the state can be run better; but you can't alter the rules of maths by labelling state expenditure as investment any more than a household can.
But 'increasing the tax take' needs detail, and detail is politically tough.
Total managed expenditure in 22/23 was 45.6% of GDP. At the same time we borrowed over £100bn. At the same time every bit of the state budget is under huge pressure to expand.
So, as a % of GDP, how much would be enough, and who shall pay how much of it?
As a rough intro and a starter for 10, the £100 bn borrowing is £3,300 per income tax payer (or per household, the numbers are similar) per year.
Sure, it needs detail. I am not standing for election. I don’t have any economists working for me, nor friendly think tanks. So, sorry, I’m not going to give you detail.
I don’t know that households = income tax payers. Income tax is 27% of the UK tax take, so it’s an important part of the picture, but misleading to imply that the solution lies purely in income tax increases., although I’m fine with higher rate tax payers, like myself, paying more.
I can point to examples of steps in the right direction here and there. Bart has laid out some solid plans around taxing unearned income more so as to match tax on earned income. He’s also laid out solid plans around housing. I support merging NIC and income tax.
Foxy, and others, has pointed out how the NHS has to pay heavily for agency staff, without addressing why it needs agency staff. The ridiculous pantomime around asylum seekers where the government avoids processing people at ever greater cost is a nonsense and readily solved.
I would have saved money by not doing the PHE->UKHSA reorganisation, nor the NHSE/NHSX/HEE merger, but we are where we are. I work in digital health. I’d do more central commissioning of digital health. At present, it’s difficult for innovation to develop or spread because local commissioning is inefficient and often inexpert.
Of course income tax isn't the only part of employment taxes. There is another almost 19% being taken in Employer and employee national insurance plus other minor taxes such as the Apprenticeship levy which are also charged against wages.
You are looking at somewhere over 45% of payroll being taken by the State in tax.
Now I have lots of sympathy for those on here and elsewhere who say we should rebalance tax away from employment and onto wealth. But my fear, in fact my expectation, is that any wealth taxes that are introduced will be in addition to not instead of employment taxes. That seem to be exactly what you are implying.
We have to stop thinking the State can continue to expand forever and that the taxpayer - whether a wage earner, a company or a shopper can continue to keep paying for it.
I think the reality is that a future government is going to have to increase income taxes on the retired. Currently they only pay income tax - no NI, no employers NI. The working age population has been squeezed already & they have the largest expenses - housing, childcare & increasingly student loan repayments. It's hard to see how they can be made to pay much more. The wealthier retired are sitting on large incomes, housing that they own outright & are paying a pittance in tax by comparison whilst getting the lions share of the output of the NHS. If they want quality healthcare in their old age, the older generation are going to have to start paying for it.
Yes, this will be incredibly controversial. The alternative is steady decline in public services that destroys the ability of the economy to generate the wealth that allows that generation to enjoy their comfortable retirements. They’re going to pay out one way or the other - services that can’t be paid for won’t happen. Better for everyone to have a working population that generates decent GDP growth to fund their retirements.
But the overall tax take is already too high.
According to the HOC library the total public sector receipts for 2022/23 is £1,017 billion.
For a GDP of somewhere around £2,300 billion. That is 44% of GDP being taken in taxes.
On top of that we borrowed another £130 billion.
So the Government is spending just shy of 50% of GDP.
As I say, I agree we should rebalance the tax take away from earnings and onto wealth - or at reduce it on earned income and increase it on unearned. And I say that as someone who will eb retiring in a decade or so, so looks to get hit twice. But at the same time we ned to reduce how much money the State is spending. It is unsustainable.
They are not my figures. That is why I provided the link.
They are from the HoC Library which itemises the exact tax take in the link I included.
And the GDP of £2,300 billion is from the OBR. Actually theirs was slightly less at £2,230 billion but I rounded it up as it was for 2022 rather than 2022/23. Using the OBR figure makes the numbers even worse.
The OBR's data shows forecast public receipts at 41.1% GDP in 2023/24 forecast spend is 46.2% GDP.
The actuals for 2022/23 were 40.5% and 45.6% respectively. It's in the OBR databank link I provided https://obr.uk/data/
And the majority of people get little in return from this tax take unless they are heavily dependent on the nhs or schools which is not most of us. For the taxes I pay I get bin collections, police that wont investigate if I get burgeled, gp's I cant see if I am ill because by the appointment is due (2 to 3 weeks I am either better or have died). Frankly I am paying to fund other people and I am paying too much to the point I am finding it hard to make ends meet. Yet people like you want to take even more off me
I really don't want to take more off you if you're below average income or wealth and not living off unearned income. It's people like me that need to be paying more.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
See there you have the problem....I am not below average income....does not mean however I am not struggling to make ends meet by the time I pay rent, council tax and power thats about 70% of my pay gone even though being above median salary....take anything more of me and I am choosing heat or eat. As a single person that lives alone I am punished harder by tax rises
As I have said several times on here, I would roll NI into Income Tax (thus extend it to unearned and pension income), introduce a wealth tax targeting the wealthiest 10%, and increase inheritance tax. None of those are likely to adversely impact you.
And what happens when as expected it raises the square root of bugger all as all countries that have tried it found? Yes you will expand it downwards
You really are the most depressing poster on here.
If you are right, you might as well just accept that life is shit and then you die; nothing will ever change for the better.
You call me depressing....yes I am because I dont believe anything will change with our current model...labour or tories will get in the decline will continue...then labour or tories get in the decline will continue....then labour or tories get in the decline will continue.
It is not I am depressive I just recognise doing the same old shit over and over isnt going to fix anything when its what got us in this mess. You are actually the depressive on because you are arguing for more of the same just with a different rosette.....at least I am saying this doesnt fucking work lets do something different
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.
As @NickPalmer and others have pointed out in the past, Russia have been busily creating "facts on the ground" in Crimea and the Donbas since 2014. Ukrainians might reasonably term this "ethnic cleansing" - but, even if it weren't for the current war, reversing this might well be messy.
Russia has force Ukraine into a position where they have to choose a hegemon - and they've chosen to look west. They want to see a path towards EU membership, and either full NATO membership or some form of association with strong security guarantees. That's Number 1 on their list, everything else is below that.
So if some sort of deal can be worked out - say if Russia pays something towards compensation for the lost territory and an indemnity for the cost of the current war - then I suspect that many Ukrainians may be tempted to settle.
But they'd need to be very very sure about those security guarantees - no more military incursions, no more threats to Black Sea shipping, no more cutting off oil or gas pipelines, some form of international control for Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station.
The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.
Yes. But that doesn't seem to apply to the Russians. As long as the Russians want more territory, Ukraine will have no security. Hence I think Ukraine's three basic choices are as I set out.
I can see an eventual deal where Ukraine trades Russian occupation of Crimea for getting out of disputed areas of the Donbas. The key would be to turn Crimea from a stronghold to a Ukrainian hostage. Ukraine trains its guns across the Crimean isthmus and down the Azov Sea to Kerch: you don't muck us up in Donbas and we won't do the same to you in Crimea.
I was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, but at this point it seems to me a necessary element of a potential deal. Russia is having enough trouble fighting Ukraine with NATO backing: they certainly would not attack them as a NATO member, any more than they've attacked the Baltic States, because they'd be fighting the US directly. A ceasefire on current lines plus Ukraine in NATO would (a) defeat the main objective of the invasion, so that aggression is not rewarded (b) give the solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety (c) allow the pro-Russian minority to stay with Russia and (d) stop the slaughter. Would most people in Ukraine support years more war in order to retake Crimea, if they knew they'd be safe with a ceasefire?
Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
This post is quite wrong, for several fairly obvious reasons.
*) What do the Ukrainians want? They want a) their territory back, and b) a reduced, or no, threat from Russia. Memberships of NATO and the EU are nice-to-haves, but those top two are vital.
*) What do we want? Ukraine and Russia to be at peace forever (or at least a very long time). We want to deter other similar wars of expansionist aggression around the world. We want Russia to stop interfering with neighbouring countries.
*) What does Russia want? Eastern Europe to be under its influence, directly or indirectly, and to be seen as a major stronking world power (despite having the 11th largest economy, and shrinking). It wants to destroy the western-based world order and replace it with its own view.
Your idea of a 'peace' deal is nothing of the sort, as it will not prevent Russia interfering in its neighbouring countries, politically or militarily. Putin sees NATO as a weak entity, despite everything that has happened, and he knows it be be divided politically.
Your 'peace' proposal does nothing to dissuade Putin from his imperialist, fascist expansion. He will take a few years off, rebuild his military, absorb Belarus, then go for one of his non-NATO members such as Georgia or Khazakhstan, or break NATO politically and then go for Ukraine again. After all, enough idiots believe the 'Ukrainian NAZI's!!!! rubbish.
We need the Russian government and Putin to realise that this war has been disastrous for them, and that it is not worth doing again. If they *gain* territory - as your 'peace' deal proposes, then they will show that the war *was* successful, and that the business is very much unfinished.
Russia's aggression will have been rewarded.
"solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety "
Nick, I don't know if you've seen the reports that came out of the Donbass after 2014, and the way the public were treated. The same with Chechnya. You are condemning good men and women to similar. The real Nazis, or at least fascists, are the ones your 'peace' deal will hand millions of people to.
Ukraine has three basic choices, I think. It can (1) try to settle as best it can with Russia; (2) try to hold the current line of control - defensive position; (3) try to take back territory from Russia - attack position.
(1) Would be carte blanche for Russia to take more and more of Ukraine. It hasn't respected a single agreement it has make with Ukraine and it is anyway committed to taking more territory.
(2) Might result in Ukraine losing soldiers slower than (3) and also using equipment more slowly, but Ukraine still needs to keep fighting and see its men being killed at a slightly slower rate. The problem of (1) still applies. Russia won't be satisfied with the current LoC.
(3) Sees the highest casualty rates but it does potentially create facts on the ground, or at least avoid facts on the ground that are detrimental to Ukraine,and may eventually force Russia to a settlement.
My question to @Leon and @CorrectHorseBat is why would (1) or (2) be better than (3) for Ukraine, and why wouldn't we as outsiders support Ukraine if they choose (3) ?
The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.
As @NickPalmer and others have pointed out in the past, Russia have been busily creating "facts on the ground" in Crimea and the Donbas since 2014. Ukrainians might reasonably term this "ethnic cleansing" - but, even if it weren't for the current war, reversing this might well be messy.
Russia has force Ukraine into a position where they have to choose a hegemon - and they've chosen to look west. They want to see a path towards EU membership, and either full NATO membership or some form of association with strong security guarantees. That's Number 1 on their list, everything else is below that.
So if some sort of deal can be worked out - say if Russia pays something towards compensation for the lost territory and an indemnity for the cost of the current war - then I suspect that many Ukrainians may be tempted to settle.
But they'd need to be very very sure about those security guarantees - no more military incursions, no more threats to Black Sea shipping, no more cutting off oil or gas pipelines, some form of international control for Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station.
The Ukrainians I know are perhaps less revanchist than you might expect. Territorial integrity is almost a secondary concern compared to the overriding desire to get out of Russia's shadow.
Yes. But that doesn't seem to apply to the Russians. As long as the Russians want more territory, Ukraine will have no security. Hence I think Ukraine's three basic choices are as I set out.
I can see an eventual deal where Ukraine trades Russian occupation of Crimea for getting out of disputed areas of the Donbas. The key would be to turn Crimea from a stronghold to a Ukrainian hostage. Ukraine trains its guns across the Crimean isthmus and down the Azov Sea to Kerch: you don't muck us up in Donbas and we won't do the same to you in Crimea.
I was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, but at this point it seems to me a necessary element of a potential deal. Russia is having enough trouble fighting Ukraine with NATO backing: they certainly would not attack them as a NATO member, any more than they've attacked the Baltic States, because they'd be fighting the US directly. A ceasefire on current lines plus Ukraine in NATO would (a) defeat the main objective of the invasion, so that aggression is not rewarded (b) give the solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety (c) allow the pro-Russian minority to stay with Russia and (d) stop the slaughter. Would most people in Ukraine support years more war in order to retake Crimea, if they knew they'd be safe with a ceasefire?
Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
This post is quite wrong, for several fairly obvious reasons.
*) What do the Ukrainians want? They want a) their territory back, and b) a reduced, or no, threat from Russia. Memberships of NATO and the EU are nice-to-haves, but those top two are vital.
*) What do we want? Ukraine and Russia to be at peace forever (or at least a very long time). We want to deter other similar wars of expansionist aggression around the world. We want Russia to stop interfering with neighbouring countries.
*) What does Russia want? Eastern Europe to be under its influence, directly or indirectly, and to be seen as a major stronking world power (despite having the 11th largest economy, and shrinking). It wants to destroy the western-based world order and replace it with its own view.
Your idea of a 'peace' deal is nothing of the sort, as it will not prevent Russia interfering in its neighbouring countries, politically or militarily. Putin sees NATO as a weak entity, despite everything that has happened, and he knows it be be divided politically.
Your 'peace' proposal does nothing to dissuade Putin from his imperialist, fascist expansion. He will take a few years off, rebuild his military, absorb Belarus, then go for one of his non-NATO members such as Georgia or Khazakhstan, or break NATO politically and then go for Ukraine again. After all, enough idiots believe the 'Ukrainian NAZI's!!!! rubbish.
We need the Russian government and Putin to realise that this war has been disastrous for them, and that it is not worth doing again. If they *gain* territory - as your 'peace' deal proposes, then they will show that the war *was* successful, and that the business is very much unfinished.
Russia's aggression will have been rewarded.
"solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety "
Nick, I don't know if you've seen the reports that came out of the Donbass after 2014, and the way the public were treated. The same with Chechnya. You are condemning good men and women to similar. The real Nazis, or at least fascists, are the ones your 'peace' deal will hand millions of people to.
The idea that Russia *has* to come out of this war with *something* is identical to the “peace deals” of the Yugoslav wars. Because “facts on the ground”.
Comments
Real tax rates of 60-75% absolutely do disincentivise work and encourage people to engage in tax avoidance, or tax evasion.
Real tax rates of 20% do not.
The problem is that currently some people can be on 60-75% while others on same income can be on 20%.
And the irony is that those who will have a lower Laffer curve peak, those working for their income who can change the hours they work etc, are those on the highest tax rates.
Those who rely on unearned incomes, who can't adjust their working hours etc so would have a higher Laffer curve peak, have the lowest tax rates.
The tax system is broken. I would love to see a politician of any party fix it. I will not be holding my breath for that.
As regards paying for services you don't use, it's a false argument. We don't have children so could argue we get no benefit from education spend. But Mr's P and I did both go to school ourselves of course. And we also benefit from living in a country where most people have received at least a basic education.
Part of your problem seems to be the poor quality of the services available. I agree. How do you think they are going to improve when their funding is reduced to meet the overall levels of tax take you would like to see?
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/feared-illicit-fentanyl-now-drug-choice-many-opioids-users-rcna40418
"One of the deadliest street drugs, illicit fentanyl, has transitioned from a hidden killer that people often hope to avoid to one that many drug users now seek out on its own.
"The shift to intentional use of fentanyl underscores a worrying trend in the country's ongoing opioid epidemic, experts say: That a growing number of people have become so tolerant to opioids like heroin, that they're turning to the synthetic compound, which is up to 50 times stronger."
And
"Mary Ward, president of the McLeod Addiction Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, has noticed the shift toward a preference for fentanyl in her home state. "Some people thought they were buying heroin on the street, and it turned out to be fentanyl," Ward said. "They ended up liking it better."
"Alex Kral, a Berkeley, California-based epidemiologist who studies illicit drugs at the nonprofit research institute RTI International, said he's heard from users that once they start using fentanyl, it's very tough to go back to using heroin, because they don’t get the same high"
This is why the War on Drugs debate is basically irrelevant, now. We cannot allow this horribly addictive stuff to get a grip on Britain's cities. And Tranq is ten times worse than Fentanyl in every way. WORSE THAN FENTANYL
I can see why Trumpites are talking about a REAL war on drugs. Going into Mexico and massacring people, the way the cartels are massacring Americans in American downtowns
If you want to match government expenditure to income, then you can cut expenditure or you can raise taxes: What are you going to cut? It’s not enough to say “the government should spend less”, that’s just magically thinking. Which services are you going to put on the chopping board?
The state pension is the obvious one, isn't it? After all, we're told that the average pensioner now has more disposable income than the average person of working age.
So fold the state pension into Universal Credit. If you're over 68, then remove the requirement to be actively seeking work - but keep the means testing, and the progressive removal of benefits for those who have savings or other assets of more than £6k. Align the rates with normal UC rates, too (I think pensions are a bit higher by default? I can't see any way to justify that if so).
There are plenty of low-level jobs available for anyone who'd be left out of pocket, and those who have limited capacity for work would get UC at a higher rate anyway.
I suspect the difference here is in real vs nominal GDP. Some figures you see will be real & normed to a particular year in the past, but in actual current £ our GDP is > £2.5 trillion.
The US actively goes after the big company bosses when things go wrong. We have a quiet word and ask them not to do it again.
Gross income gain £1000
Income Tax 20%
National Insurance 12%
Direct taxation £320
Universal Credit Taper 55% after NI and IT: £680 * 55% = £374
Student Loan Repayments: 9% = £90
Effective Taxation £464
Direct + Effective Taxation = £320 + £464 = £784
Real marginal tax rate 78.4%
Take home pay £216
Note that UC Taper does not take Student Loan repayments into account and as of this year the Student Loan Repayment threshold has been reduced to £25,000 for new students. And of course fiscal drag means people pay these real tax rates even if they're only getting an inflationary pay rise, not a real pay rise.
Like, there's clearly some steroid use going on to produce that combination of moobs + quasi-six pack (four pack?). But look at his narrow shoulders (and chubby forearms!).
It's all a bit weird and needy.
And yet apparently there are no savings to be made.
You can't have it both ways.
The OBR Public Finances Databank, freely downloadable here https://obr.uk/download/public-finances-databank-august-2023/ shows £2,531.9bn GDP and £1,024.3bn public sector current receipts. That's 40.4%.
Forecast figures for 2023/24 are £2,573.2bn GDP and £1,057.6bn tax take respectively giving 41.1%.
Here both Adoboli and Hayes went to prison (and I was involved in both those cases, as well as others where insider dealers went to prison).
And, now, because of the US Hayes might get his conviction overturned. I am furious because there is stuff I know about him, which I cannot reveal, which shows that he is not the little innocent he claims to be.
If people were buying their heroin from Boots, instead of drug dealers, it would not be fentanyl instead, or laced with other substances. It would be exactly what they ordered, at the right purity etc
But with insider dealing and other corruption we are talking million not billions. You are intelligent enough to know that clamping down on insider deals is a) not going to plug the hole an public finances but b) is the right thing to do in any event.
As an aside, it's rather ironic that a number on here who rail loudest against illegal immigration and imported gang violence are also the ones who indulge in their recreational drug habit... which funds the former.
Did you see my reply to your question asking who pays 60-75%?
Do you agree with my numbers that the real marginal tax rate for that individual is 78.4%? And that was just one example, you can do others, and for someone supposedly on a 20% tax band not a "high earner". I meant to specify in the intro that they were a graduate.
So the dealers would come in and offer Fent and Tranq at a discount, or indeed free for the first use (a known technique). They get you hooked on the "better" shit, then you're fucked and addicted, and your policy falls apart at the first hurdle
I used to believe in drugs legalisation quite strongly. In the face of these news drugs I have changed my mind. They are FAR too dangerous
If you're finding it hard to make ends meet, no, you should not be paying more tax. I'm guessing part of your expenditure is housing costs, so that's something the country could do something about by building more houses. If we bring down housing costs, we put more money in most people's pockets without changing tax rates.
Boots presumably wouldn't do a bait and switch like that.
As I understand it, between 20-50 years ago both the Tories and New Labour held out the idea that if you work hard, you'd be able to look after yourself and maybe even own a house and have a family. But now it's a case of "fuck you, you should have had rich grandparents".
It's simply not sustainable. I can't understand why anyone thinks it is.
But at least its purchasers would know the purity of what they're buying - and Boots would be a better place to facilitate treatment options than drug dealers.
That's from day 1
You want to hand it out at Boots?
It is also the tax rate that fiscal drag causes, which means that if 78.4% of your marginal pay rise is gobbled up by effective taxation, then if you get an inflation-meeting pay rise (lucky you) you only have 21.4% of that inflationary pay rises to pay for inflationary costs - but costs take 100% of inflation, not 21% of it.
This is why taxes are better when they're flatter and simpler. It doesn't cause oddities, or NYC skylines of tax rates, and means everyone pays more consistent rates rather than extreme amounts or minimal amounts depending upon your circumstances.
Hopefully properly educated and without any bait and switch though, nobody would be stupid enough to buy it, but if they are, they're not getting it from drug dealers who are baiting and switching others into taking it.
Call me Professor Skeptical-pants, but I doubt any sane government could ever risk that, and the ensuing legal bills. So you're back to square 1. Prohibition of drugs
This is why legalisation is no longer a go-er, sadly
Either way though, if people are paying a real marginal tax rate of 78.4% then do you think that might be a tad too high?
Do you think that might discourage work, discourage people from seeking opportunities to earn more or progress? Or might encourage them to seek methods of cash in hand tax evasion?
Cut out the drug dealers, that won't happen anymore.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/03/jeremy-hunt-under-fire-after-treasury-says-no-new-cash-to-fix-raac-in-schools
I did say earlier that the Tories Do Not Care about kids education. And now the Treasury prove my point.
Until you get to almost insane incomes, it almost doesn't matter what your income level is, you are going to struggle to make ends meet if you're renting. Especially since higher incomes tend to be in higher housing cost areas.
If you're living mortgage-free, rent-free on the other hand, then you're set. Your living costs are a fraction of other people's living costs.
And our tax system means that those who are renting, who are working to make ends meet and pay their rent and try to save for a deposit, pay the highest tax rates.
While those who live rent and mortgage free, or have income they don't work for like charging others rent, or pensions etc, pay the lowest tax rates.
The system could not be more broken, if you tried.
The left and right are both correct. Taxes are both too low, and too high, it all depends upon your situation.
Kenan Malik
A proposed ban on abuse of religious objects only helps to silence critics and dissenters"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/03/blasphemy-law-is-no-answer-to-bigotry-in-the-wake-of-denmarks-quran-burnings
In particular, lots of people do themselves down by not including it when negotiating salaries for new jobs.
Abolish both Stamp Duty and Council Tax and replace with a Land Value Tax, paid by the owner not the tenant. This tax would be higher if not the primary residence of the owner (ie second homes or letting).
Abolish Inheritance Tax, simply apply Income Tax (which now would include NI of course) to the entire inheritance received instead.
Long term I would seek to abolish Employers NI, but that might be difficult to achieve immediately.
Happy to elaborate if required. I'm available most days.
If you are right, you might as well just accept that life is shit and then you die; nothing will ever change for the better.
You are so very nearly on board with Lib Dem policy. Congratulations!
Suppose- somehow- the government found a way of cutting everyone's taxes by £100 a month. It really wouldn't be long before your rent increased to syphon that money off you. Because in most places, the going rate for housing is "every last penny you have".
Hence the Two Nations thing we see here and elsewhere. People who rent, or bought recently, having a rubbish time of it. People with paid off mortgages wondering what the fuss is about.
Property taxes do not. You can't easily dodge them.
Equalising tax rates will not raise bugger all either, it would raise tax receipts. And will mean that tax rates can be lower for those who are currently subject to too high tax rates.
Why should someone who works hard for £55k pay your tax rate, while someone who gets £55k gifted to them via inheritance gets it completely tax free? If those tax rates were the same, yours could be lower, and the person receiving the inheritance is still getting a bonus on top of whatever income they earn even if they pay income tax on that.
Land should be higher taxed in this country than it is, there are good economic and philosophical reasons to justify that.
Earned Income is far too highly taxed.
The problem isn't economics, its politics.
For example, we had someone on PB who recently reported that a family member's mortgage on a 5 bedroom house in a nice part of SW London was likely going to triple to £6k per month. That implies that their current mortgage costs a little less than my current rent on a north-facing single aspect lower ground floor studio flat (aka a cave) on the fringe of zone 2. Which is completely mind-boggling, when you think about it.
How do we fix this? Fiddling around with tax incentives or ever-more-complex help to buy-type schemes isn't going to solve anything in the long run, it just shuffles the problem round to other people. We need to build, build, build. Build the sort of flats and houses that people want to buy in the places they want to live.
Barty wants suburban semis with two-car garages on the outskirts of conurbations. I want high-density mansion blocks and 8 storey tenements in city centres. Let's do both!
The class war description is that lower thresholds coupled with lower rates (still the Sunak aspiration) leaves poorer people paying more tax and richer people paying less. Jolly bad show.
Given the housing shortage in this country, it absolutely does matter if primary residence or not. Everyone needs a primary residence. The way I would do it is set the tax rate at the higher rate, but then set a discount for your primary residence; though if the chronic housing shortage could be resolved, say by eliminating planning permission and NIMBYism, then there'd be no reason to do this.
If the Lib Dems were properly liberal, I'd wholeheartedly support them.
For me I have a young family. Parking spaces and a garden for them and our dog to run around is absolutely valuable, hence suburban semi.
For younger people without kids a tenement in the city centre within walking distance of bars and clubs, or whatever else, might be preferable.
And as those younger people get married and have kids they might want to stay where they are, or might want to move to the suburbs, nobody should be tied to one for eternity.
However in our broken system with insufficient housing, that's not the case. Which is why people with property portfolios make a healthy income and capital gains from them, while people renting are in penury.
Turn it on its head. Did lower interest rates on landlords result in lower rents?
But it also gives you a good insight into just how much of the payroll for a company is being taken by the Government.
Consider a parallel argument: We tried a war on [pick your favorite pathogen]: The [pathogen] won, and the survivng voters noticed.
It is not difficult to think of "wars" on pathogens that have lasted years, even centuries. Nonetheless most of us believe we should continue fighting them, and we have had some successes over the years.
Will we ever finally win all of them? Not in my life time -- but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting them.
Similarly, it is possible to find examples of gains against illegal drugs. At its peak the crack epidemic in the US was so bad that it produced signficant declines in the life expectancies of black Americans, especially men. But the measures taken against it reduced crack use over time.
(It is often argued that the policies against crack adopted in the 1980s and 1990s were excessive. That's probably true, but it seems nearly certain to me that they were one reason, probably the biggest reason, that crack use declined.)
https://x.com/johnestevens/status/1698380334323347924
As far as the end user avoiding paying the taxes themselves, it should work out relatively neutral for them should it not? Ie if they were paying an employee, they'd be liable for the taxes, whereas if they're paying a contractor then the contractor should quote with the taxes in mind?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
It ends with these two pragraphs:
"Indeed, such tolerance would only undercut support for legalization. Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths."
Not being a libertarian, I disagree with her -- but at least she is taking the problem seriously.
This is just a fact of life now. I only raised it as it gave me an interesting inisght into exactly how much the Government take is of payroll.
Can we/should we push Ukraine to consider that? No, but we could express it as a preference, rather than escalating with one more weapons system every 3 months, which encourages a one-more-heave approach by Ukraine without actually resulting in victory.
It could also be used to fund some state health and social care as well given most OECD nations fund much of their healthcare via insurance
Three month anniversary of the start of The Counteroffensive today so well done to all involved. We'll always have (what's left of) Robotyne.
It is not I am depressive I just recognise doing the same old shit over and over isnt going to fix anything when its what got us in this mess. You are actually the depressive on because you are arguing for more of the same just with a different rosette.....at least I am saying this doesnt fucking work lets do something different
"What prisons teach us about democracy
Treat people like dirt, and they'll behave like dirt
By Ian Birrell"
https://unherd.com/2023/09/what-prisons-teach-us-about-democracy/
*) What do the Ukrainians want? They want a) their territory back, and b) a reduced, or no, threat from Russia. Memberships of NATO and the EU are nice-to-haves, but those top two are vital.
*) What do we want? Ukraine and Russia to be at peace forever (or at least a very long time). We want to deter other similar wars of expansionist aggression around the world. We want Russia to stop interfering with neighbouring countries.
*) What does Russia want? Eastern Europe to be under its influence, directly or indirectly, and to be seen as a major stronking world power (despite having the 11th largest economy, and shrinking). It wants to destroy the western-based world order and replace it with its own view.
Your idea of a 'peace' deal is nothing of the sort, as it will not prevent Russia interfering in its neighbouring countries, politically or militarily. Putin sees NATO as a weak entity, despite everything that has happened, and he knows it be be divided politically.
Your 'peace' proposal does nothing to dissuade Putin from his imperialist, fascist expansion. He will take a few years off, rebuild his military, absorb Belarus, then go for one of his non-NATO members such as Georgia or Khazakhstan, or break NATO politically and then go for Ukraine again. After all, enough idiots believe the 'Ukrainian NAZI's!!!! rubbish.
We need the Russian government and Putin to realise that this war has been disastrous for them, and that it is not worth doing again. If they *gain* territory - as your 'peace' deal proposes, then they will show that the war *was* successful, and that the business is very much unfinished.
Russia's aggression will have been rewarded.
"solidly independence-minded parts of Ukraine real independence and safety "
You mean, none of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#/media/File:1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum_results.svg
Nick, I don't know if you've seen the reports that came out of the Donbass after 2014, and the way the public were treated. The same with Chechnya. You are condemning good men and women to similar. The real Nazis, or at least fascists, are the ones your 'peace' deal will hand millions of people to.
The idea that Russia *has* to come out of this war with *something* is identical to the “peace deals” of the Yugoslav wars. Because “facts on the ground”.
Which resulted in years of slaughter.
The Norwegians are definitely getting something right.