Taxation, welfare and inequality in the British Social Attitudes

l for me.

Always interesting that whenever there is one of the international surveys on Happiest citizens, it those of countries with high taxation (and equally high spending on all social services) that comes out as the most happiest.

Wouldn't it be good for UK to be one of those!!!! (Statement not question)

Increase taxes for the wealthier.

I think we pay far too little into the state pot.
Have always thought this.
So for me, raise taxes and help people more is a no-brainer.

henetha

Increase taxes for the wealthier.

That wasn't one of the questions henetha. Which of those would you choose.

Daisy - if you Increase taxes and spend more on health, education and social benefits. you automatically protect the weakest in society so henetha has no fears I feel.

In that case, 1. I just adapted it a little.

Have they been asking exactly the same questions since 1983?

I don’t see how this works.?

Yes, they have Lathyrus. It's more about the changes - or not - over the years, in social attitudes. This isn't the only area they cover; they look at other areas too. I just thought this one was current.

I can give you the link to the graph that they produced on this area, but I thought it better not to sway people in their answers.

It’s just, if you ask the same question but conditions have changed, does it tell you about people’s attitudes or about the conditions they live in.

What I mean is, if you asked those questions in the Thatcher era you would get different answers from asking them in the Blair era, because things were different.

Oh dear I’m not explaining this very well.

1

Both, I would think. But maybe you are overthinking this for a thread that just asks you to choose one answer

1. ideally.
I wouldn’t mind paying more for health and education. Social benefits is a big concern, which affects my family, but it’s a money pit. It’s already difficult to get a benefit you genuinely need. The more social benefits there are, the more claims there would be and the more criteria for claiming would appear.
Cynically, is it only me who suspects a lot of the funding raised by increased taxes would go into creating new management posts, with new offices, to manage increased the funding and not go where it’s needed?

A couple of papers have used these when commenting recently. This year's has only just been done and released. I will try and find them later, but I am cutting out elf aprons at the moment

I answered the question and then deleted the lot. These kind of simplistic questions, force people to vote one way only. It is a bit like the question 'have you stopped beating your wife'

It is not worth answering because the results will be meaningless. Bythe way, have you stopped drinking?

I think "one way only" is the point M0nica. They don't what to know your in depth thinking, just which block you best fit in.

The results, when you look at the graph, are not meaningless. I'll put the link on tomorrow. The FT and, I think, The Observer, have used this is articles.

1 for me obviously. I am a Liberal leftie.

I am very much in favour of more taxation and less targeting. If we all pay in depending on our means, and all get back the things we need, those who have more can pay for upgrades or ‘top-ups’ but (critically) everyone has enough.

That way there is some encouragement for people to strive for more if they want to, and no feeling that it is pointless to bother, as anything ‘extra’ will be taken away as soon as you get it, which I think applies now, whether it is situations where people are getting less in work than on benefits, or the iniquitous social care system, or grants to people on £X but not for those on £X+1, or free entry to somewhere for those on benefits or pensions, but not for those with less money, but who don’t or can’t claim so don’t qualify. I also think that anything means-tested can be withdrawn, and it’s better to have as much as possible free for everyone when they need it than to have people living with the knowledge that things are temporary hand-outs that are dependent on the whim of a government.

But someone is going to come along and remind us that taxation doesn’t fund spending, aren’t they?

www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-39/taxation-welfare-and-inequality.aspx

Gillian Prior, Deputy Chief Executive at NatCen, said: “Our annual survey suggests the public faces the ‘cost of living crisis’ with as much appetite for increased government spending as it had during the pandemic. Recognition of inequalities in Britain is at a level not seen since the 1990s, with people more willing than they were a decade ago for government to redistribute income from the better off to the less well off.”

From 1983 the "Reduce taxes and spend less on health, education and social benefits." group scuttles along the bottom. Any evidence that this is what the country wants is, very obviously, not there.

Over the period of the international monetary crisis, you can see people went for the more conservative keeping taxes and spending at the same level. The "tax more, spend more" then goes back to the lead as it has from the mid 1980s except for the international monetary crisis period. This is what the majority say they want. It is not what we have been given for the last 12 years, or are being offered now.

That is the point *DaisyAnne. Everyone will say (1), no matter what, even if they think the opposite. No other answer is possible.

Would you risk the ontempt and disgust that would land on you in bucket loads if you said anything but (1)?

Obviously "everyone" didn't in the survey M0nica.

I found it interesting. So did the FT and a couple of other reasonable sources. If you didn't, that's okay. I am not trying to convert anyone.

If it is an anonymous survey, there will be no contempt or disgust landing on anyone. They just complete it and walk away.

I do think that there is often a mismatch between how people answer questions like this and how they vote though. They can know what they think they should feel, and believe it is the right approach, but when it comes down to it, if another way would make them better off, they vote for that, as the vote is anonymous too.

It is a large survey Doodledog. I imagine it becomes more useful with each year that is added. It is about trends rather than "what would you do tomorrow if ...".

If people felt they couldn't go for the "lower taxes, lower spending", they would be more likely to go for (2). Other than just after the international financial crisis, the majority stayed, as they had done previously with what I have numbered (1). I don't think there is any argument for missing or shy 3s but I would be interested to hear it if anyone sees one.

M0nica's view of such people is that they know "better". I don't think those wanting a 3 policy will think it is worse. I don't notice those in government with strong and entrenched views on this changing them. They think they are right.

It is worth remembering that they are working through a lot of questions on other subjects too. Not just this one as we are.