Will Messrs Reeves and Raynor Still Be Around This Time Next Year?

Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure

I don’t understand this point of view.
We all contribute to the NHS and other infrastructures through the taxes we pay. For all but the poorest of pensioners, we’re still paying income tax, but we and others who no longer work in paid employment, or have never worked in paid employment, pay taxes when we buy things, when we pay council tax, when we buy a new car or a different house etc.
I don’t understand the idea that those who don’t work don’t contribute, but in any case, I thought the provision of health care, education, roads, and other infrastructure was part of a civilised society. As I said, we all contribute.

growstuff

ronib It would make sense if you found yourself a job because you'd probably only pay 20% tax and your husband could work less. It's up to you how you divide the work in your household, but Doodledog is correct. Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure.

Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure

Do you mean no-one should be able to retire - ie work until you drop because younger people are paying for our access to the NHS and other infrastructure?

😁

Why would ronib get a job?
She’s retired!

growstuff

ronib

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

I assume your DH is also over 67.

Never assume anything!

But the UK is still classified as a first world country.

One of the benefits of being a first world country, is that we’re expected to pay out millions to poorer countries, even those poor enough to have their own space race plans.

growstuff the point being?

ronib

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

I assume your DH is also over 67.

ronib

growstuff for some, the USA is seen as first world! Certainly in economic clout, it’s way ahead of the UK.

Indeed! But the UK is still classified as a first world country.

ronib

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

The next thing will be VS comments about how childless people are paying for other people’s children . . .
Oh sorry, we’ve already had that.

growstuff for some, the USA is seen as first world! Certainly in economic clout, it’s way ahead of the UK.

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

ronib It would make sense if you found yourself a job because you'd probably only pay 20% tax and your husband could work less. It's up to you how you divide the work in your household, but Doodledog is correct. Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure.

The term "first world" as originally developed is outdated. What's your definition of "first world" in the modern world?

What does ‘apparently, according to some’ mean in real terms, please?

I am still waiting for some sort of explanation as to why it is acceptable for some to expect a free ride whilst others are supposed to be taxed on the money they provide for the society we all live in. Anyone?

Doodledog This country is not a first world country, that is a myth. Apparently according to some, each person here has £25k per head annually less than American citizens.
Also there are many people who still work past their retirement age. At the moment, my DH is losing half his company pension in tax because of it. However I am acting as an unpaid housekeeper- is this fair?
When our children were very small, my DH went to work for a rest. I still don’t seem to have that privilege at the end of my life.

There are clearly different schools of thought and people will never agree (which is fine) but it is not just tax that 'working people' contribute, but the goods and/or services that their working provides.

Those who use money that someone else has earned to go to museums or whatever are not contributing goods, services or 'new money', but are still getting education, healthcare, defence, infrastructure and so on. It's very much a free ride, if they are able to work but simply choose not to. I'm not talking about pensioners who are living on pensions based on contributions made when they did work (and yes, I know there is no 'pot' ), or about those who are sick or disabled, or caring for those who are sick or disabled. A decent society should, of course, provide for them, and anyone else who has a genuine reason not to contribute in their own right. Nor am I saying that women who stayed at home when their children were babies should have done anything differently. As I have said repeatedly, we do what is right at the time, and times change.

Whether the breadwinner in a household contributing one lot of tax to cover everyone in it pays the museum entry from his or her pocket or it is paid by his or her spouse/partner is irrelevant, however - it is the same money being circulated, not 'new money'. The spouse is not 'contributing to the tax take', whether they hand over the money or not.

I don't think a citizen tax is likely, but nor do I think that it should be income tax that props up the system, which is why I am pleased with the government's wish to avoid targeting working people in the budget.

I realise that hardly anyone on here agrees with me, but I have yet to hear a convincing reason why I am wrong (as opposed to calling me names or questioning my love for my children). I am happy to listen if anyone can explain (preferably civilly) why it is fair for people to take the benefits of living in a first world society but not contribute to the cost of providing them. If none of us worked, what sort of society do people think we would have, and on what grounds do they think some should be able to opt out and others not?

MaizieD

^There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.^

And the 'other ways' include direct spending into the economy (viewed by some as 'money printing'). Which is cheaper all round, but disliked those who use interest on government bonds as part of their income. And by the banks, which create a great deal of the money in the economy, because they can't make any profit on direct state spending...

Yes, but it needs to be very carefully managed, a balancing act.

madalene

Exactly. I don’t agree with a citizen tax either. Everyone contributes to the tax take, whether or not they work. That’s my point.

The point I was making is that people who don't work do contribute to services. The Treasury doesn't know whether money has come from income tax or some other tax. It all goes into the same pot.

Yes to both.

Exactly. I don’t agree with a citizen tax either. Everyone contributes to the tax take, whether or not they work. That’s my point.

MaizieD

^There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.^

And the 'other ways' include direct spending into the economy (viewed by some as 'money printing'). Which is cheaper all round, but disliked those who use interest on government bonds as part of their income. And by the banks, which create a great deal of the money in the economy, because they can't make any profit on direct state spending...

Exactly! So whatever is announced in the budget will not be easily comprehensible to people who only look at 'headline' figures of tax rates, etc.

I'm still hopeful that Reeves does understand that and has something up her sleeve to mitigate some of the cuts we've already seen.

Sorry, I can see that. The point I was making is that people who don't work do contribute to services. The Treasury doesn't know whether money has come from income tax or some other tax. It all goes into the same pot.

I can't see that any government would ever ask people to pay some kind of citizen tax, but in some cases the public is already paying for services, for example museum entries, extra fees for taking away garden rubbish and large items, prescription charges, school transport for 16-18 year olds. Some people feel forced to pay for private medical care.

There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.

And the 'other ways' include direct spending into the economy (viewed by some as 'money printing'). Which is cheaper all round, but disliked those who use interest on government bonds as part of their income. And by the banks, which create a great deal of the money in the economy, because they can't make any profit on direct state spending...

I agree with you growstuff.

That’s exactly what I was saying growstuff.

madalene Less than half of the money raised by the government comes from income tax and National Insurance, so of course non-working people contribute in some way, imcluding VAT, council tax, fuel duty, tobacco and alcohol duties, etc. VAT raises almost as much as National Insurance.

There are other ways that a government can raise money other than by tinkering around with income tax and NICs.