The Tory way of governance

Fitzy Tax really is the answer. I've already given one answer (pension contributions). I could give more, including the self-employed who pay themselves dividends instead of income, which avoids National Insurance. As I'm sure you know, NI is now 12% and is just another form of tax - a regressive one. They can also lower their tax by paying corporate tax rather than personal income tax and/or pay pension contributions (with a top of 40% from the government) in lieu of income. It's all perfectly legal, so could be stopped, and costs the country billions. That's before those who park their money offshore, but earn it in the UK, are taxed.

Council tax is another regressive tax, because the poorest generally pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthiest. People in some of the richest areas, such as Westminster, hardly pay anything, while people in some of the poorest areas pay more for a property worth a fraction of a London property's value.

Tax collected from those who can afford it would make a huge difference.

I could go on, but I'm tired.

think-left.org/2017/02/26/pensions-thatchers-vision-is-coming-to-fruition/

There's a very worrying paragraph halfway down this link.

“We can trace the untimely demise of retirement to a number of assumptions about how society ought to be organised. At no other time since its inception has the welfare state been so hated by the governing elite. Social care. Unemployment assistance. Health. Local councils and libraries. Municipal parks. Anything relating to what used to be called “the public good” is attacked at the roots. Austerity redefines these things as fiscal liabilities or deficits rather than shared investments in common decency. It was only a matter of time before pensions too were put on the chopping block”.

It's so true, and yet May pretends it's not so.

Yes that just about sums it up. It is the tail wagging the dog. The minority of the population with wealth seeks to keep even more of it by not taking part in society as a whole.

Your link is from 'thinkleft* djen so it will be automatically skewed leftwards about everything.
'Not taking part in society as a whole' ww what exactly do you mean by that?
With regards to taxation, I think that putting up income tax to 21% is the way to go.
All council tax is going up anyway, as local authorities can now decide ( for the time being) but it won't be enough.
The government should not be fixated about income tax levels staying at a magic low of 20%

Forgot to say, although that would bring in the most revenue, of course, no need for a magic low of 40% either, could be 41% and the higher rate could also have the same small hike.

Yes, roses, I do know where my links come from.

The Tory government is always elected on the premise of reducing taxes. Why would they put the basic rate up to 21% to help fund the welfare state that they want to reduce or privatise anyway?

Not taking part in society as a whole means not paying their taxes, I would think.

rose The wealthy have no vested interest in our schools or hospitals, social services etc etc. The can pay for all their needs. So therefore may consider that the taxes they pay towards British society bring no benefit to themselves. They understand that the rule of law of course benefits them which is why you will find that emphasised so frequently by the right. So clearly they understand that some money is needed to defend their position, but see little reason to contribute towards anything else. They do not take part in the social contract which to many of us makes Britain a civilised society.

By 'the wealthy' are you talking about politicians or the general public?
The really wealthy are a small proportion of the population, but still pay taxes, even if they use all private schools/hospitals, and in that case reduce the number of people using those public services.How do the rest of us take part in the 'social contract which to many of us makes Britain a civilised society' apart from paying our taxes, just as the wealthy do?

This government is not interested in the social contract. It believes in a small state and low tax. This will mean as we already know that the poor will get even poorer with few safety nets. Just like we may unfortunately discover as we get older, that there is insufficient help for our needs available because of the cuts. Children who received help for various reasons at school now no longer do so and the only way is for their parents to pay which is way out of most people's ability to do so. We are more than aware of the hospital crises, the prison crises and so on. This is what is meant by a small state and low taxes. If this government continues along this route our society will be unrecognisable compared with the society our parents hoped they were building post war.

The wealthy pay accountants to make sure they pay as little tax as possible. Most of us are not able to do that.

It it's within the law.....then it's legal.
I would put up taxes ( slightly) for all taxpayers, as taxing just the wealthy more would not bring in enough revenue.

And your opinion about a small state and low taxes rose?

Getting them to pay their taxes in the first place would be a start, roses. That would fill a big gap in the NHS and DWP finances.

It's alright saying if it's within the law it's legal, but who makes the laws?
The DWP has twice been told that they are flouting the law about benefits, and have changed the laws to suit themselves without any recourse to parliament.
The law on the NHS has ben changed and is being changed again, against the wishes of even many Tory MPs. This is not democratic law making.

One of the wealthiest people I know has been a Tory supporter for decades. He's usually very supportive in debate. He's always had private health care. I think now he's in his 80s it's dawning on him that he is likely to need the NHS at some stage, just as it's going downhilll. And of course voted to Remain.
Anyway his verdict on the current government is "I despair".

Rather than argue that we can't afford welfare, etc, maybe we should turn this round and decide what the UK, as a relatively wealthy, allegedly civilised and caring country, can't not afford. Where are the red lines?

I think most people would agree that there are minimums, such as a roof over one's head, food on the table, health and social care, education, etc. Some people have already crossed over the red lines.

I believe that our first priority must be to ensure that those minimum standards are reached for every single citizen. If that means some wealthier people lose out, tough luck. I'm not so bothered as some how money is distributed once the minimum standards have been afforded.

An unresponsive state is just as bad as untamed markets.

This is a link to Rachel Reeves' 'Clement Attlee Memorial Lecture' in 1914 (before the last election).

www.renewal.org.uk/articles/clement-attlee-and-the-foundations-of-the-british-welfare-state

It struck me that many of the issues Attlee was concerned about are still relevant today.

Corbyn is no Attlee, but it's worth remembering that Attlee became PM almost by accident. Morrison was the favourite. Not forgetting Churchill's famous quote, "A modest man, who has much to be modest about." Hmm, Winston, I think history judges Attlee differently!

With the addition of clean water, that's the list of what we need to live on which I base teaching humanities to my grandson , daphne. A shame it gets forgotten about as people get older and possibly more selfish.

In answer to your question ww I would like a 'medium' state, and as I have already just said, taxes to go up slightly all across the board for maximum revenue.

My starting point isn't the basics of what we need but what we have available to spend. I don't agree that it's clear we can collect significantly more tax than we do, at least not on a sustained basis, other than through growth.
DD, I understand that the pension example was just that- an example of many ideas to collect more tax. My response was really just an eg. of issues that always crop up with any attempt to raise more tax.
I also don't agree at all that the govt. have no interest in the social contract (they spend a huge amount of money on health etc, albeit less than many people would like), or that the rich have no vested interest in our schools or hospitals. Even those (very few I would think) who rely completely on private medicine and education will be acutely aware of the likely effect on the society within which they live, and on which everyone relies, of a breakdown in the provision of basic rights. Not to mention the fact that just because someone is rich doesn't mean they feel no moral duty to support such services!

What makes anyone think that Labour would do a better job of Governing? I remember all these so-called crisis under poor old done-for Labour! People need to realise the Country not longer has the money to throw at Welfare. Cut-backs are necessary.

Yep! Cut backs to the wealth of the wealthy would be great!

Fitzy Can I recommend Richard Murphy's 'Joy of Tax' or Ha Joon-Chang for some ideas. You really seem to think that the current systems are the only ones, whereas 'thinking outside the box' would suggest other solutions. The country has been brain-washed for too long into thinking the country is like a household budget.

What do you think we can't afford to not afford? Surely you're not one of the people who thinks that the poorest in this country are all shirkers and responsible for their own poverty, or that poverty doesn't exist.

Fitzy: "My starting point isn't the basics of what we need but what we have available to spend."

I realised it isn't your starting point. That's where I fundamentally disagree with you, because I believe that in a wealthy country it must be the starting point.

DD I certainly don't think the poorest are all shirkers or that poverty doesn't exist. It's simply that there will always be things we can spend more money on, and, having spent it, at least some people will pretty much always say we need more to provide what they then consider to be the basics. That's not to say they would necessarily be wrong, but it suggests to me that we have to start by working out what we can spend, and then allocating it. As to tax, I'll see if I can get around to adding your books to my reading list - though I have quite a pile to get through first!
Just to finish I agree entirely that you don't run a country as though it were a household budget. But neither are the two entirely dissimilar.

I note that final hurdle for HS2 has been removed. £56 billion if my memory serves me right. To shorten the journey between London and Birmingham by about 20 mins. And we can afford Trident.
The banks put this country into a huge amount of debt which gave the Tories an excuse for "austerity".
Many of the highest earners in the country work for banks. They have got of pretty much scot free. I can't see why people who get "bonuses* over a million should not get taxed more heavily.