A lifetime of tax

antrobus

I'd have thought it was intuitively obvious that the amount that the government received in tax from the 'average person' would be the same as the amount that the government spent on providing benefits and services to the 'average person'

I realise, of course, that this is based on the quite absurd assumption that governments should seek to balance their budgets over at least a reasonable period of time. But then again, as recent events have shown, governments who don't do so, tend to get into trouble eventually and become obliged to do so.

mulronie

Arg wrote: »

The NHS and education aren't that great and they're imposed on you so if we're looking at what the public gets we should also be looking at what it's denied or forced to take.

This is a really interesting argument - essentially that the worth of state services have to be looked at according not to how much they cost, but how much we as individuals actually value them.

Let's say I'm a pensioner prescribed 16 aspirin on the NHS - the value of that to me is about £0.20 (the cost of the alternative - i.e. buying them myself off-the-shelf) but the cost to the NHS will be many multiples of that (let's say a conservative £5 - the admin of processing my prescription, cost of sourcing, reimbursement to the pharmacy, etc etc etc).

Under your model, how should we value that prescription? I would view that I've paid £XXX in taxes, and received £0.20 back, but the government would say I paid £XXX in taxes and received £5 back.

Which is why I think Arg is spot-on - in order for there to be any point to this analysis we would need a view on not just how are taxes are spent, but what they are spent on and whether or not I could spend that money better if I was allowed to keep it myself rather than being forced to give it to the state.

somethingcorporate

antrobus wrote: »

I'd have thought it was intuitively obvious that the amount that the government received in tax from the 'average person' would be the same as the amount that the government spent on providing benefits and services to the 'average person'

I realise, of course, that this is based on the quite absurd assumption that governments should seek to balance their budgets over at least a reasonable period of time. But then again, as recent events have shown, governments who don't do so, tend to get into trouble eventually and become obliged to do so.

Businesses generate a lot in tax, you are missing this entire piece from your calculation.

antrobus

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Businesses generate a lot in tax, you are missing this entire piece from your calculation.

Businesses are owned by people.

somethingcorporate

antrobus wrote: »

Businesses are owned by people.

Not the average person.

Which is my point that businesses, wealthy, above average tax-payers etc subsidise the lives of the "average" tax payer.