'Do you think you get good value from paying tax?' poll discussion

RAG

the poll asks whether you get good value.
The following questions though are just a numerical do I personally gain or lose.
I get good value from paying taxes, ie good schools and hospitals even if I am not using them. Of course I pay more than I use as a 40% taxpayer but I do not resent that, that is my contribution to society to have well educated people, to have roads, police etc.
So the poll is fallacious, ie change the heading to do I this year contribute more or less than I receive which is meaningless since we have little idea what we benefit from, ie lack of crime because of the lighting in the street, police activity or purely general education and training to give people a job and worth.
So please change the questions to whether we feel we get VALUE for our tax contributions.
I would say yes, very much to produce a country that I would like to live in.

TBagpuss

I put that I pay in More than I receive, because I think that is true at the moment gievn my personal situation as it is today. (I am a higher rate tax payer, i have private health insurance through my job, I don't have children so am not making direct use of the schools system etc)

BUT if I were to look at it over my lifetime the picture might be different - I had state education, and althoughI was left with debts from my University eduucation I was to an extent subsidised, for most of my life I have relied on the NHS exclusively for my health and dental care, and of course I have had, and continue to have the benefit of a good police / fire / ambulance service etc, I make use of the roads system, and I know that there is a safety net, albeit not as good a one as I might wish for, which will help if I were to become unable to work, or suffer seriosu illness or disability.

So, right now this minute, if I look narrowly as the finacial costs of the benefit I personally actually get, I think I pay in more than I get out. But that is OK. I'm very lucky to be in that position, and I think it is absolutely right that those of us who are in that position should pay so that those who are not (whether temporarily or permanently) are supported.

I would be happy to pay more in tax if I felt it would lead to a more equal society (right nw, I think we are, as a sosciety, heading in the opposite direction, with the most vulnerable being hardest hit. I think that is unjust, I also think it is not in the long term best interests of any of us.

It is in everyone's interest to have a well-educated society. It is in eveyone's interest to have a fair society where a person's back ground, or their parent's financial circumsntaces do not dictiaet whether they can get a decent education, or get into a career which they are suited for.

I don't begrudge paying for schools, even though I don't have children, beacause I am a member of society, and schools, and a literate, educated population benefit us a a scoiety.

I don't begrudge paying for the NHS becasue I think it is morally abhorrant that people should die becaue they cannot afford medicine: as a society we are and should be, better than that. Besides which, I want the NHS to be there for me and my loved ones if we need it.

I do begrudge paying for unecessary layers of beaurocracy, and for iilegal wars, but on balance I would rather live in the society we have, and pay the amounts I pay, than pay less and live an an even more unequal society.

moggylover

Empty_pockets wrote: »

I chose I receive MUCH more than I pay in.

I've never claimed any kind of benefit.

I am a 40% taxpayer.

MSE_Martin wrote: »

In that case I hope you voted I pay in MUCH more than I receive?

Have i badly drafted the poll or is this a typo?

I've voted the same as Empty pockets, despite paying tax at a higher rate.

I voted that because I believe that what I actually gain for my taxes is far more than the quantifiable things that you list.

In return for that dosh I also get to live in a Country which provides (or at least attempts to) care for the less fortunate, medical facilities which whilst by no means perfect are not dependant entirely upon the ability to pay at the point of use, and the same can be said for the fire service, the police, education, bins, etc.

It is entirely MY choice if I choose to spend extra money on having any of those services paid for privately: and my own feeling is that any extra money would be better spent in ensuring that those state facilities are World class and removing the need for any private company to provide them.

There are things that my taxes might be spent on that I do not approve of, and I am at liberty to argue and vote accordingly but I bear in mind that on some of those I may remain a minority that does not have the right to force others to believe as I do, and I am ever mindful that my right to vote entirely according to my own beliefs, whim or whimsy is a valuable one that many in the World are not afforded.

Mostly not gains that are quantifiable in monetary terms: but then there is more to life than money and I acknowledge that even after paying tax I am considerably better off than a very large proportion of the population and that the amount they pay often "feels" much larger to them since what is left may not provide much of a standard of living.

moggylover

RacyRed wrote: »

You have picked me up well on that point. I had thought of expanding my post to take the point further -

"The system seems to be skewed in such a way that you are either a contributor or a beneficiary of the tax system..." And heaven help you if, after decades of being a net contributor, you find yourself in a position where you need to be a net beneficiary.

As the guy in the adverts says, "It doesn't work that way" And that is why I think the current system is heavily skewed. Everyone gets trapped within a category.

I agree about global taxation, that is well overdue. But there are many ways of reducing a tax bill without having to leave the country.

I don't think that is entirely true RR. Having worked for two decades and paying higher rate tax for a lot of that time, I became ill and was then left with two small children to bring up on my own. Because I had put a goodly sum into providing my own accommodation and not being mortgaged to the hilt, this meant that I could remain in my home and provide at least one area of stability for myself and the kids and I was able to claim benefits until able to return to work.

I suppose that had I also had very large amounts of savings I might have felt "punished" because I would not have been able to get assistance, but I am mightily aware that many at the bottom of the ladder in life have scant chance of ever having any savings because their income will always be gobbled up on little more than basics in this life.

Certainly, it was painful to have to use up the small stock of shares and investments that were meant to make my retirement easier, but I still have the very viable and sensible options of down-sizing my home once my children have left and are settled, or renting part of it out, in order to live comfortably.

moggylover

It is really interesting to note that whilst the poll result suggests that people feel they are paying in more than they get: those coming to discuss that point mostly seem to feel that that is not the point and that in real terms they get good value:)

just_me,_again

I think the results of this survey show how difficult we find it to quantify the monetary value of services we've never paid for.

I'd also be interested to know whether people responded thinking in terms of their current input/receipts or as an averaged out figure for their lifetimes so far.

I've definitely received more than I've put in to date, even though I've never personally been in receipt of benefits. Just as a taster of what I've got out of the state:
1) Antenatal and post-natal care for my mum, ensuring I arrived safely in this world. 2)14 years free full-time education and a further 4 years subsidised (and I'm heartbroken that we'll be denying others that in the future) 3)vaccinations against various potentially murderous or life-destroying diseases including measles, mumps, rubella, TB, tetnus, polio etc. 4)GP appointments and a couple of hospital referrals. 5)free dental care until I was 16, and free optical care to 18, including the screening test that first picked up my less than adequate sight 6)child support for my family to help with the cost of raising me for 16 years (another one that will soon be gone) 7)subsidy of the public transport in my area so I can avoid having a car 8)public libraries 9)public funding so that I can pop into a museum or gallery for free at the weekend and can afford sometimes to go to the theatre 10)My bins collected every week 11)two 999 calls for sick housemates (technically they received the treatment I guess, but there is some value, however hard to assign, to having no financial concerns about making that call), 12)subsidised swimming pools 13)policing cover 24 hours a day 7 days a week - I may never yet have needed to call, but if it wasn't there I'd have to think about alternatives.....the list goes on and on and many items we just don't think about because they've always been there. There's also plenty where I haven't been the direct beneficiary, but the help given to others has protected me - like the foreign office and police support for the family of a friend murdered abroad or the medical treatment received by people I love. You've also got to consider, even if you've never claimed, what it would cost to get private insurance against being incapacitated, losing your job and not finding another for a spell, facing a winter so cold your elderly parents couldn't cover the heating bills and all the other possible pitfalls that our society has agreed to collectively insure against through tax and benefits. I think if you reversed the numbers polled here we'd be closer to the truth - only the very rich would be better off if we taxed people less and left them to fend for themselves.

Ashley3283

This country needs a HUGE kick up the backside.

Why can't single mothers with children at school 6 1/2 hours per day work instead of claiming for a whole host of benefits (housing, child, income support etc. etc.)? Or more importantly why are they not forced to?
If I was in power I'd give them 6 months to find a job, if they still don't then they would be forced to work for there benefits in the form of litter picking and other forms of unskilled labour, if they refuse to do this then stop all benefits.
The problem is that young kids seem to think that they have 2 choices when they leave school. Get a job or have a baby and get every thing paid for. SERIOUSLY what kind of person plans to have a baby without being able to provide for it.
The other thing that I would do is privatise the NHS or make private healthcare insurance compulsory.
I would also have much, much, much stricter immigration policies.