By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
After all the furore over the non-story of Cameron's tax affairs, it got me thinking. Do people think they pay enough tax to cover what they 'get back' so to speak? Let's look at what we cost the state, or may cost the state -
Midwives and medical/hospital staff when born. I believe this carries on for a few weeks/months afterwards? (someone else can no doubt verify on that point)
Maternity/Paternity leave for your parents and then for you if you have children (again unsure of the exact rules as I don't have children)
Child benefit
Schooling
Health Services throughout life (doctors, hospitals, dentist, etc etc etc)
Pension upon retirement
Some people obviously use other services as well depending on circumstances (job seeking allowance, housing benefit, sickness benefit etc, etc)
I'd say all that potentially adds up to a pretty hefty amount for all of us, with some more than others depending on circumstances.. Do we in fact pay enough tax to cover what we 'take out' or 'get back'? I don't know the answer, I was just pondering it.
The kind of weird shit I think about. Suppose it could be considered philosophical or sociological.........or alternatively the damaging effects of too much booze and gear over the years
I would look at this from another view point. Having lived and worked in Denmark taxes there are very high, eye wateringly so for highest earners. But as a consequence public services and infrastructure are excellent. The jantelaw concept where everyone is seen as equal and consensus is seen as a good thing helps. Ultimately though people accept that higher taxes mean better standards of living for wider society.
In the uk by contrast we are obsessed with neo liberal economic theory. This is the idea of small government and low taxes with business and the market know best.
Probably best summed up as what you pay for is what you get.
I would look at this from another view point. Having lived and worked in Denmark taxes there are very high, eye wateringly so for highest earners. But as a consequence public services and infrastructure are excellent. The jantelaw concept where everyone is seen as equal and consensus is seen as a good thing helps. Ultimately though people accept that higher taxes mean better standards of living for wider society.
In the uk by contrast we are obsessed with neo liberal economic theory. This is the idea of small government and low taxes with business and the market know best.
Probably best summed up as what you pay for is what you get.
This is why Denmark rather than the UK is the preferred EU state of settlement for those fleeing the horrors of Isis..
Perhaps because he wasn't fiddling anything? He was operating within the law. There's a long thread on it on here
[Post edited 16 Apr 2016 12:03]
Not true, he tried to hide his Panama dealings by not declaring his Financial Interests, in the 'Register of Members (of Parliament) Financial Interests, that for me is not a non story
Not true, he tried to hide his Panama dealings by not declaring his Financial Interests, in the 'Register of Members (of Parliament) Financial Interests, that for me is not a non story
TBF, it is hard to keep up, the story changes every day.
Not true, he tried to hide his Panama dealings by not declaring his Financial Interests, in the 'Register of Members (of Parliament) Financial Interests, that for me is not a non story
But the rules are the members only have to declare their interest in sums over £70k (and his was less than half of that).
Not true, he tried to hide his Panama dealings by not declaring his Financial Interests, in the 'Register of Members (of Parliament) Financial Interests, that for me is not a non story
And you did';t say it was a story in the first instance, you said it was a fiddle! Now you've changed tact you scallywag! Still a non-story anyway as it's all within the law.
And you did';t say it was a story in the first instance, you said it was a fiddle! Now you've changed tact you scallywag! Still a non-story anyway as it's all within the law.
[Post edited 16 Apr 2016 12:17]
Ha ha, whose the scallywag ?
Your post is full of innuendo, but pretty obvious of your intentions
Income tax NI VAT Council Tax Stamp Duty Fuel Duty Booze & Tobacco Airline duty (not sure of the proper name) Dividend Tax Tax on interest (if you are earning any) Supplementary stamp duty (new 3%) Insurance premium tax Capital gains tax Inheritance tax
I think we probably do. I might have missed some though
Unless you are unemployed or, otherwise, on benefits, you are effectively in receipt of the proceeds of tax when your are young (being born, childhood illnesses and education) and at the end of your life (pensions and increasing demand on the health service). So from 22-65 you are probably a net contributor.
As an aside, that is why immigration could be considered a positive thing. Most immigrants are well educated, in work and not old enough to be a burden on the state.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop
Not sure if this is quite what you mean but interesting article as in contrast to the impression we often get, of wholesale tax dodging, the top 1% of earners pay a large proportion -30% - of income tax received. People who earn less than £36,000 make no net contribution because they take out, on average, as much as they put in.
So overall it's only the top 40% of income earners by household actually pay in enough to cover the services they receive.
Unless you are unemployed or, otherwise, on benefits, you are effectively in receipt of the proceeds of tax when your are young (being born, childhood illnesses and education) and at the end of your life (pensions and increasing demand on the health service). So from 22-65 you are probably a net contributor.
As an aside, that is why immigration could be considered a positive thing. Most immigrants are well educated, in work and not old enough to be a burden on the state.
Unless you are unemployed or, otherwise, on benefits, you are effectively in receipt of the proceeds of tax when your are young (being born, childhood illnesses and education) and at the end of your life (pensions and increasing demand on the health service). So from 22-65 you are probably a net contributor.
As an aside, that is why immigration could be considered a positive thing. Most immigrants are well educated, in work and not old enough to be a burden on the state.
And are exactly the right age to have lots of children ... some are so efficient they start the process before they even arrive . Still it gives us the maximum time to organise and pay for ante natal care , education , interpreters ... . Etc
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
