Why all taxes must rise by 16%!

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 03 May 2012  |  Comments 53 comments

For the UK to balance its books, all taxes would need to rise by 16%. Which would you raise?

Why all taxes must rise by 16%!

Have you ever wondered where the UK Government gets its money from and where this huge sum is spent?

Well, wonder no more, because here are the projected figures for the 2012/13 tax year, as forecast by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Let's start with taxes...

Your £12,000-a-year tax bill!

Tax

Amount

(£bn)

Income tax

155

National Insurance

106

VAT

102

Excise duties

48

Corporation Tax

45

Business rates

26

Council Tax

26

Other

84

Total

592

As you can see, taxes on earnings -- income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) -- are the biggest contributors to HM Treasury's coffers. Together, these will raise £261 billion in 2012/13, which is nearly half (44%) of the total of £592 billion.

The Government's third-biggest revenue-raiser is Value Added Tax (VAT), a tax on spending which should raise £102 billion this tax year.After VAT come excise duties: the 'sin taxes' the Government levies on alcohol, tobacco, gambling and the like, accounting for £48 billion.

The overall total is £592 billion, which averages out at more than £12,000 for each of the UK's 49 million adults. Ouch!

£91 billion short

Next, here's how various Government departments splash our cash:

Expenditure

Spend

(£bn)

Social protection

207

Health

130

Education

91

Debt interest

46

Defence

39

Personal social services

33

Public order and safety

32

Transport

22

Housing and environment

21

Industry, agriculture, employment and training

19

Other (culture, sport, international development)

43

Total

683

The number one bill we Brits pay is £207 billion for 'social protection', which includes welfare benefits, tax credits, State Pensions and so on. Welfare spending alone accounts for more than £3 in every £10 (30%) of Government spending.

After social welfare, our second-biggest bill is for the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare, with health spending expected to be £130 billion in 2012/13. After this comes education (£91 billion) and then interest on our national debt (more than £1 trillion and growing), expected to cost £46 billion this year.

In total, Government spending this year will be £683 billion, versus total income of £592 billion. In other words, the UK will go a further £91 billion into the red this year, because it is spending £1.16 for every £1 it collects in taxes.

Deeper into the red

Although our Government's financial 'black hole' will be £91 billion this year, this is still a great improvement on 2011/12, when we went £126 billion into the red. Even so, the Government has no plans to balance the UK's books in the immediate financial future.

Indeed, the OBR reckons that the UK's public sector net borrowing will be over £21 billion in 2016/17. This means that our national debt will continue to rise every year for at least the next four years. In effect, our national overdraft will keep climbing, though at a slower rate than during the depression of 2008/09.

As our national debt heads from £1 trillion towards £1.2 trillion, this extra £200 billion of borrowing is going to jack up our interest bill. This year, debt interest will be £46 billion. As our debt relentlessly rises, the UK's creditworthiness declines and interest rates climb, this bill will continue to mount up for many years to come.

Raise all taxes by 16%

One way to solve this deficit would be to increase all taxes by 16%, thus balancing our nation's books at a stroke. Alas, this would be disastrous, because the extra tax burden would force our economy to its knees.

Of course, adding £91 billion to an already-rising tax bill would put enormous pressure on British households. In fact, this works out an extra £3,500 a year for each of the UK's 26 million households.

Faced with nearly £300 a month of extra taxes per household, millions of us would rein in our spending. Thanks to the 'Paradox of Thrift', this would cause a deep slump in consumer spending.

In effect, by cutting back, we would collectively make our economy even weaker. This reduced spending would depress tax revenues and therefore inhibit our recovery.

Which taxes would you put up?

So, with the UK's national finances facing at least four more years of decline, what would you do to stop the rot? What steps would you take to balance the books faster?

Would you merge income tax and NICs into a single tax on earned income, to be raised gradually over time? Would you lift VAT, so that big spenders would contribute more to the tax take? Would you leave personal taxes alone and, instead, place a heavier burden on British businesses? Would you drive up taxes on alcohol and tobacco, to help pay for NHS spending?

Personally, I would like to see our entire tax system overhauled, so as to simplify the taxes levied on income from working. Also, the taxes on earned income are much higher than those on unearned income and gains (from interest, share dividends, property rent, capital gains, and so on). 

But one thing is for sure. With years or weak growth and a rising national debt ahead, British taxes are sure to rise. The only question is which ones?

More on tax:

Tax amnesty for eBay traders and electricians

Save our Savouries: ‘pasty tax’ protestors take to Westminster

Ten ways to avoid Capital Gains Tax

New PAYE system to ensure you ALWAYS pay the right tax

Organise your paperwork for the new tax year

 

Finally, these figures make one thing very obvious: faced with years of weak growth and a rising national debt, British taxes are sure to rise.

That's why I urge all savers and investors to make full use of tax shelters to maximise the returns from their spare cash. Start with a tax-free ISA (Individual Savings Account), which is used by 20 million Brits to (legally) dodge tax!

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (53)

  • teafoo
    Love rating 47
    teafoo said

    Tell us why shouldn't we approach this from the other direction, please.

    Why do you only talk of increasing taxes ... why not reduce spending?

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  8 loves
  • tsykes
    Love rating 6
    tsykes said

    I work for international business, what I am seeing is a massive transfer of tax out of the UK to Switzerland (and elsewhere). Corporation tax rates there are negotiable down from 13%, here the government is excited when we drop them to 28%..... If you can't beat them, join them, we should aggressively cut taxes on business, filling the gap by taxes on consumption (VAT). Will be painful for consumers but it would help to rebalance the economy from consumption to job creation and would facilitate retaining more of the business tax take in the UK.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Nikgee
    Love rating 22
    Nikgee said

    I disagree, if the corporate companies were to pay the taxes owed and the loop holes the rich, who employ accountants, take advantage of then we would not be in this mess. The poor are bailing out the country at this time - and the poor have no more money any more... So Mr Osbourne - look towards yourselves (the rich) to help bail out the country.... I suppose we could engage a Labour party supporters tax as it was Labour who put us in this mess!

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Hengist
    Love rating 22
    Hengist said

    Why should taxes invariably rise when there are so many other routes to be followed. Take the example of Canada where they re-evaluated what government should provide and removed whole sectors from government control. We could leave the EU as we are net contributors so that would produce savings. We could have a real go at Quango's this time not the pathetic progress shown thus far. Update the British bill of rights and dispense with the ECHR and save legal costs, fines and costs associated with deportation prison and social security payments. Budget cap on welfare payments. Return local government services to sanity and stop paying local councillors like we did pre 1970. The list is endless, we just have to stop financing beyond our means and stay within the envelope of tax collection and not mortgage tomorrow.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  11 loves
  • BarraFamily
    Love rating 5
    BarraFamily said

    We need to reform the tax system so that everyone is on PAYE, including contractors to directors. Any income earned (inc bonuses) is then taxed like the rest of us.

    Everyone needs to realise we are in this together and it's our duty to pay taxes, not dodge them.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • easygoing
    Love rating 156
    easygoing said

    By the end of its term this government will have borrowed more than Gordon Brown did in the whole 13 years of labour government.

    The suggestion of punishing the poor even more is positively feudal.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    It's a myth that closing "loopholes" will get anywhere near filling this gap. Why not just reduce spending by 16%? This would just wipe out the excessive increases implemented by the last Socialist crowd who didn't seem to understand basic money management.

    If we can lose the Liberals at the next election maybe we'll get a Conservative Government that is able to implement the changes we need. Increasing personal allowances so that even more people pay nothing isn't the answer when we're in this mess.

    Reduce benefits to encourage people back to work (and tax paying) should be the first step.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  8 loves
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    There should be a government voter tax. Whatever debts a government one votes for runs up, the voter should be personally liable for. This was the case in the 18th century when the franchise was limited and the Commons was full of Businessmen. Guess what? Britain became prosperous. Today the voter has limited liability and the Commons is full of professional politicians. Today Britain is in decline. Go figure.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • LiamT
    Love rating 45
    LiamT said

    wow, this is a hard one...

    how about stopping giving india £300million a year. if they can afford a space program and nuclear weapons program why do they need our cash?

    stop big companies paying no tax. this would probably fix everything.

    stop the war for oil in the middle east. we are a small country - we cant afford to spend billions on silly wars. its not like oil is any chaper for us now. this seems to be a war to help the USA sell stuff and get themself cheaper oil.

    try to get some cash back from the banks. you know, the ones not helping anyone who have been funded by us so they can give billions in bonuses.

    its an easy one to fix. if our governments for the last 50 years hadnt been useless incompetant gits who couldnt run a corner shop we might have been a bit better off and doing ok.

    maybe re-apply the 50% tax band? but this time stop all the rich actually avoiding it. oh, silly me the Tories are in. lets just tax the poor even more. then moan when they refuse to work

    @"Reduce benefits to encourage people back to work (and tax paying) should be the first step." how would we do this when we have many more unemployed than available jobs?

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    Our European cousins seem quite able to find work here.. Perhaps because they're not entitled to the benefits that make unemployment a lifestyle choice for many Brits?

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  7 loves
  • Hengist
    Love rating 22
    Hengist said

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100155299/europes-crisis-is-about-to-get-a-whole-lot-worse/

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • deanrobinson78
    Love rating 13
    deanrobinson78 said

    I can't help feeling that the government (any government) simply ploughs on knowing the books can't be balanced.....they approach this with the same view people who spend more than they earn - hand to mouth.

    As above points out this is certainly a challenge - espeically when you have 7 million "mouths to feed". I don't have an answer, but as we move more and more into Services surely tax needs to be on those companies providing the services.....but then they just move to other countries. It seems like an unsolvable problem.

    I think most people agree though that we should concentrate on our own house and people first and foremost before splashing cash on others.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rbgos
    Love rating 81
    rbgos said

    Simplifying the system and merging Income Tax and NI makes sense (and I say this as a freelancer who would suffer as a consequence!). But this will hit pensioners, who currently don't pay NI, so there would be calls for special treatment for them, and once they get exemption everyone else will plead that they are a special case too, and thus the nice simple new system will become just as complex as the old...

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • rbgos
    Love rating 81
    rbgos said

    I wouldn't raise taxes by 16%; I'd cut spending by 13.5%.

    Transport spending can go. Buses and trains can be paid for entirely by those who ride on them, no more subsidy. Roads can become self-financing, funded from car tax and fuel duty.

    Defence - the nuclear deterrent can go. I've always been in favour of maintaining it in the past, but right now we have to accept that we simply can't afford to renew our membership to the nuclear club.

    Housing - why does this cost us money? The councils build houses, they rent them out. Surely the basic rent should be enough to cover the cost of building and maintaining the house??? If the household is in financial hardship, any rent subsidy is already there in the massive Social Protection budget.

    I could go on...

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • grelly
    Love rating 27
    grelly said

    Slash sending.

    Eliminate waste.

    Every business in the UK has had to do just that. The Government should do the same.

    Oh, and I didn't see an entry in the spending table on cost of belonging to Europe. Which budget pays for that?

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  7 loves
  • coversure
    Love rating 10
    coversure said

    Reduce spending. and REDUCE taxes. Let the people spend their own money, they will be more careful with it which will stop the waste.

    Cut social welfare to the bone. Cruel? but then people who are not now productive will find a way to become so.

    Aren't we all right wing?

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • stretched_to_the_limit
    Love rating 1
    stretched_to_the_limit said

    I have been receiving lovemoney emails now for quite a while and this morning when I seen raise taxes by 16%, my coffee hadn't kicked in yet so it took a while to register...

    Scrolling through as you do, I immediately stopped at the government expenditure table.

    Straight away social protection, pondered a minute thinking fancy name whats this include, quick Google and surprise surprise WELFARE!!!!

    This makes me sick to the core, I average 80 hour weeks over 2 jobs 7 days a week and sometimes find it hard to compute why people can't at least do one job.

    People are suggesting how to reduce the deficit in many different ways and I suppose there are pro's and con's for everything. But in sort the way I see it is the government can't make any more cuts, and even Houdini wouldn't be able to make £207billion disappear that we spend on this so called 'Social Protection'. In business, standing still is the same as going backwards!!!! A business that provides the cheapest product will always triumph and how do we cut costs....reduce labor costs and how do we do that..... think of it as the work force is already paid for by the government i.e. with the benefit money. So in short if the government goes to the companies that we have left and armed with the details of all individuals on the benefits and what they are capable of, ta da, free labor here you go....hopefully now this could lead to increased profits and more tax money with some sort of trigger margins to make the individuals permanent employees.

    I know there are so many influencing factors, limitations and load of other nonsense which some jobsworth will stand up and say that they need £100million to set up a panel to look into it but long and short do something quick.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • moniker
    Love rating 3
    moniker said

    Increasing taxes doesn't work. It gives people less incentive to work and less incentive to spend. Also, give the Government more money, and they'll come up with new ways of spending it rather than using it to pay off debt. The only sensible thing to do is to force the Government to cut spending, and by that I mean cut spending on the unnecessary thing. However the Government will always maintain spending on the unnecessary things (as that's what got them elected) and instead cut spending on necessities. That has to be stopped.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act (leave the EU). Saving?

    Net contribution - Somewhere between £20 & 40 Bn. Total savings – much higher.

    Any suggestion that UK jobs would be at risk is equine fertiliser. European companies buy from UK companies because it is their commercial choice not because we are in the EU and anyway, we buy more from the EU than we sell to the EU. Who would be the loser if there was a trade war?

    Sodit – It's not true to say that the bank bail-outs helped nobody. It helped the bankers.

    A “voter tax” seems attractive until you realise that voters have no real say in what the government any government do. The worst feature of elections is that we always end up with politicians running the country.

    What we should do is to make the people running public bodies personally responsible for the waste of money and the c**k-ups. That would concentrate their minds and might reduce the incidence of the brush-off we so often hear “We will learn lessons from this and . . . . “. Problem is they never learn because, unlike the rest of us there are no consequences for them to suffer.

    A recent comment on the present Culture and Sport Secretary on “Have I Got News For You”

    “ The Secretary of State for Culture and Sport, or if you are watching a repeat, the Ex-Secretary Of State for Culture and Sport, or if you are watching this on “Dave” in 3 Years time, the Non-Executive Director of BSkyB, said . . . . . “

    I have no idea of the specifics of the present political “scalp hunt” but it rather says it all really.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    It seems to me that "teefoo" and "stretched to the limit" have the right direction. Our "Social Protection" works out to £567 million A DAY. Where on earth is it going? If the state pension scheme had been set up properly (as Bevan intended), we would all have our own pension pot and it would not be much of a drain on current account. That will have to be done one day otherwise we will all have to go private to have enough to retire on, so the government that realises that and acts on it will be doing us all a favour. It will now take about 40 years to fully implement. If my arithmetic is correct, a 4.5% reduction in the"Social Protection" budget will balance the books. We can also get out and stay out of other unproductive things like Europe and the Arab countries. None of this will happen while we have ministers (and hangers-on) who personally get a great deal out of Europe after they leave office in the UK. So what do we need? A government that is going to represent the interests of the UK. My guess is that this would come from the business sector - people who can balance a housekeeping budget!

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    Sorry: correction: should be 45% above. Typo!!

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bnick
    Love rating 6
    bnick said

    As I see it the real problems are:

    1) Too many people making money without actually contributing anything.

    How is it for instance that if I bet money on a horse I get taxed but if I speculatively exchange currencies there is no tax.

    2) We are all enemies of tax because we know the richest pay the least and tax money is often wasted through incompetence and corruption.

    3) It is very difficult to apply any policy which disadvantages the rich and powerful.

    You can't for instance close loopholes because there are 300,000 plus accountants who live by finding them, along of course with their mates in the treasury who make sure there are plenty to find.

    Incidentally, it is strange that there has been a massive reduction in bank staff due to computerisation but numbers of accountants (see 1)) continue to rise.

    Since tax returns filled out by accountants cost more to audit we should charge the cost by the tax department of doing this work back to the company or person filing the return.

    If you keep your return simple, you just pay the tax, if you have holding companies and offshore funds etc. you pay an additional levy.

    4) It is absolutely immoral for the poor to pay a higher tax rate than the rich.

    If the top tax rate is 45% then if you are entitled to £8,000 a year in benefits for not working then you should always get to keep 55% of any money you do earn.

    This means there is always an incentive to do some work, however little, if you can.

    We need global action G8 G20 to stop international tax avoidance but little hope (see 3)).

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • silkycat
    Love rating 37
    silkycat said

    Regardless of the size of the Social Protection budget by definition most of it goes to people who have very little money. They in turn spend it in order to live and that helps to keep a struggling economy running during a recession. In addition it is widely documented that people on such incomes pay a disproportionate amount of VAT, not to mention p***ing it up the wall on booze and fags. So government get a fair bit of that money back in tax. So be careful before you make wholesale cuts here.

    'stretched to the limit' suggests putting welfare benefit recipients to work as they are being payed anyway. That works OK until people such as himself find themselves out of a job as a result. Is it ethical in times of high unemployment to have two jobs anyway?

    There may be advantages in making people work longer for their pensions, but this puts a 'log jam' in the jobs market for younger people starting out. Which is cheaper benefits for the young or pensions for the old? If people start off their working lives on benefits they tend to get into a benefits 'rut'. That can be very expensive over a lifetime.

    Given that we have the most expensive public transport in Europe I doubt that there is much to be saved by cutting subsidies. It has been said that public transport could make efficiencies of up to 30%, and who's running that, oh yes the super efficient private sector!

    Why don't we just cancel elections and have a dictatorship? That would save a fortune on elections and politicians.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    I can only see 17 comments; what's gone wrong, Admin?

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LiamT
    Love rating 45
    LiamT said

    i currently work a 4 day week (thanks recession) but it got me thinking.

    if everyone did a 3/4 day week. how would that affect us? more jobs... less social payment.... less tax.... more to spend... would it actually mean we all would be just as well off and work 1 less day a week. i love my 3 day weekend with my son. im not sure i could go back to a 5 day week.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    The real problem is that the government seem to see our money as theirs and forget that it isn't acceptable to take the lot and then give us back a small allowance. Reduce to the absolute bare minimum what is done by government (no 5-a-day advisors, no recycling enforcement officers etc.) and take no more in tax than is absolutely necessary to do as little as possible. This would remove the structural deficit at a stroke and allow the draconian taxes to be reduced to an acceptable level.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 308
    Iamcoldsteve said

    Silkycat,

    You seem to have a downer on the private sector for some reason - eg "It has been said that public transport could make efficiencies of up to 30%, and who's running that, oh yes the super efficient private sector!"

    It is FAR more efficient than it ever was under the 'public sector' management before deregulation.

    But back to topic.

    3 big ways to reduce Gov't costs, instead of increasing the already very large tax burden.

    CUT PUBLIC WASTE, on stupid, irrelevant things that the public DON'T actually want.

    REDUCE THE WELFARE BILL, I am all for a safety net when the unexpected happens. However, this should not be (and was never intended) as a permanent place of residence. No incentive to work = won't work.

    DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY from our elected politicians. They work for us, and we should remind them of this as often as possible.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    From the article:

    "Also, the taxes on earned income are much higher than those on unearned income and gains (from interest, share dividends, property rent, capital gains, and so on)."

    (My emphasis)

    And herein lies the problem. The tax system is seriously skewed towards favoring unearned income.

    I should also point out that rent from property is almost entirely parasitic - tenants and others work and create the wealth while landlords keep the profit from it. And just like the above it leads to major dis-balancing of the economy as capital favors easier and more profitable sources of income over those which create wealth but require work and/or are more heavily taxed.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    @LandOfConfusion

    Tax creates NO wealth, it just removes wealth from those who do create it, if you don't want private landlords then who is going to provide people with somewhere to live? Income, whether earned or as you describe it 'unearned' is just income and should be as lightly taxed as possible to provide the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 'public services'. The public sector is entirely parasitic, it creates NO wealth at all and should be as small as possible.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    @ nosbort

    You miss my point. Tax distorts both markets and capital flows. For example if you smoke and tended to smoke cigarettes would you not change to roll-ups if the government massively increased the tax on cigarettes and nil-rated the tax on loose tobacco?

    "If you don't want private landlords then who is going to provide people with somewhere to live?"

    Simple, with substantially less competition they would, just like in the past, be able to buy their own home.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    @ LandOfConfusion

    No I didn't miss that point, however you seem to have missed mine, what is taxed is neither here-nor-there and can be used for social engineering, however, tax in general is the problem and should be reduced to the minimum necessary to provide what is needed and not what is desired (by those who benefit from the tax). Don't forget that every public sector job requires 3 jobs (on average) in the real, wealth creating, economy to pay for it. Get rid of as much of the public sector as possible and the need for tax will be reduced to a level where avoidance is pointless and evasion undesirable.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    I don't agree with this:

    "what is taxed is neither here-nor-there"

    Because:

    "[it] can be used for social engineering"

    It's important that we favor wealth creation over unearned and usually parasitic capital gains.

    "however, tax in general is the problem and should be reduced to the minimum necessary to provide what is needed"

    Absolutely.

    "Get rid of as much of the public sector as possible and the need for tax will be reduced to a level where avoidance is pointless and evasion undesirable."

    While I'm not a statist I would say that a 'nice' country requires a a minimum level of taxation and unfortunately this is high enough to encourage both tax avoidance and evasion.

    The other problem we have at the moment is that gains from unearned income are favored over income from wealth creating activities. This doesn't make sense and is harming the economy.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • tuttogallo
    Love rating 75
    tuttogallo said

    It is a fundamental weakness of democratic governments that, in order to get re-elected, they keep taxes down whilst increasing spending. The inevitable result is ballooning debt.

    A real campaign to reduce the annual deficit and the National Debt would require action on a 15 to 20 year time scale and this just won't happen.

    Also, what if we as a nation are simply not rich enough to afford large state benefits and the NHS (there is of course no "right" to any of these government freebies). They have to paid for, and not with borrowed money!

    Taxes must go up or spending must come down or both. The small cuts made so far are not enough.

    Increasing spending to stimulate growth is not an option, because the money to finance that was frittered away when times were good (it was different that time! Boom and bust abolished!).

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    I quite agree tullogallo. I propose a 100% tax on all income, however or wherever earned, over £250k and anyone earning over £250k has to pay for all government provided services they use.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I don't mind paying tax to support the society I take for granted, but I do begrudge paying tax so that MPs can squander it on whatever hair brained schemes they conceive.

    Mind you, sometimes dropping tax can have a beneficial effect, such as lowering fuel duty, which would encourage people back on to the roads (those who have been priced off the roads in the first place, which is around 1,000,000 drivers, according to the AA).

    Also, while some things are VAT exempt, the majority of our spending has VAT applied. This means that the majority of the £207 billion given out as Social Spending, or Welfare, will qualify for VAT at 20%, which means that the State will get it back again.

    In fact, spending on the NHS involve paying PAYE staff (doctors, nurses, porters, ambulance drivers etc), so they get about 20% of that back as well, before those who pay TAX on their earnings spend their money on goods that are subject to VAT.

    If you think about it, TAX is perpetual, and the government can claim TAX over and over again. When I earn my pay, I pay TAX. When I fill my tank up, I pay DUTY and VAT. Of the money the petrol retailer make from me, they pay their staff wages, which is TAXed again, then when they pay for goods, they pay VAT.

    You can see that money eventually dwindles down to nothing, because as it passes from hand to hand, it becomes less and less, until eventually the TAX man has taken it all.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    There are lies, damn lies and statistics. There is now mention in the article of the $325 billion of quantitative easing. That devalued money and cost many people their retirement who have saved all their lives. There is also no mention in the article of government assets and liabilities. After they have put the price of stamps up to a ridiculously high level, they intend to sell off the Post Office.The best investment you can buy now is a 1,000 second class stamps; that sums up this country; second class.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • wisdomseeker
    Love rating 0
    wisdomseeker said

    To attack the deficit, why not extend VAT to ALL goods and services and then use any excess revenue to cut taxes, and increase spending power, for the greatest number of people? When VAT was first conceived, it was imagined it would gradually replace income tax, leaving people with more money in their pockets to spend as they pleased. Instead, it became just another tax. However, it remains our most efficient and cost effective method of tax collection, unlike the bureaucratic and cumbersome PAYE.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mambach
    Love rating 33
    mambach said

    Am I the only person in shouting distance who did GCSE Modern History?

    Last time the banks crashed the State flapped its hands and sold everything it owned (like water, power and coal). This only works once, since we have nothing left to sell.

    The time before, in the States; this chap Roosevelt thought that maybe if people earned some money, by working on stuff the Government needed, they could spend it, on things the country produced. Amongst other things this 'New Deal' built the Hoover Dam. And turned the US into the economic powerhouse that enabled them to pay for WW2.

    What could we not acheive if we actually built something? Unfortunately, the current government couldn't build a house of cards if we handed them glue.

    Immediate money - lets start with cutting £6million a year on MP booze.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • This_is_me
    Love rating 24
    This_is_me said

    We need to halve benefits to the long term out of work.

    Report on 03 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    @This is me, then they could do something useful like housebreaking and mugging... The country is already turning into a nation of pornographers and prostitutes.

    Report on 04 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    @LandOfConfusion

    I don't quite know where you get this from:

    'The other problem we have at the moment is that gains from unearned income are favored over income from wealth creating activities. This doesn't make sense and is harming the economy.'

    Try earning (tax rate 20%) and renting out a house (tax rate 40%) as I'm a basic rate taxpayer. Where is the incentive to go for unearned there? Providing accommodation for people who can't afford to/don't want to buy doesn't seem parasitic and before you start criticising parasitic landlords, it is a house that was rented out due to 2 households becoming 1 and the house being worth less than the mortgage.

    Report on 04 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bobmattfran
    Love rating 58
    bobmattfran said

    Absolute puerile nonsense. A 0.05% transaction tax on share dealings, and financial sector dealings would sort out the problem in less than 12 months and in the following year would pay for the NHS, a public transport system. new schools and a house building program. We all know why the government won't do that because it would effect the huge profits of their friends. Wait and see when Hollande wins in France he is considering implementing such a scheme. I expect howls of anguish from the Tories over this com ment.

    Report on 04 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Vern54
    Love rating 12
    Vern54 said

    If I can't afford something I either don't get it, get something cheaper (and perhaps inferior) or I save up for it. What sort of example is set by Governments whose only solution is to spend more than they earn. The labour Government introduced so many taxe= raising initiatives I wouldn't have thought it possible to raise any more, but the coalition have thought of such wheezes as the pasty tax and the Granny tax which will lose them the next election. These taxes impose unnecessary hardship on ordinary people who are always an easy target, but we will remember. Like M Thatcher's poll tax, these taxes will be their undoing. Unlike the poll tax which was a good idea but very badly presented, and obviously Labour shot themselves in the foot because they were too successful in opposing it. Just pend less and stay in budget. Was it really the banks who got us into this mess? They seem to have recovered quite nicely. A bit of a ramble for which I make no apology. Just stay within your budget, and think about reducing it. We have to live within our means.

    Report on 05 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tuttogallo
    Love rating 75
    tuttogallo said

    Hi MK22

    a 100% tax on all income over 250K pa would probably be self defeating.

    Because these high income earners are such a small proportion of the population, the income produced tends to be dissapointingly small. Also a judgement has to be made as to how many of theses people are entrepreneurs who would take their job creation skills abroad.

    Attempts to squeeze the rich tend to be shot full of unintended consequences and must be very carefully considered. Opposition people do not have to make these judgements, but for the party in power, these considerations weigh heavily.

    Report on 06 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supasap
    Love rating 19
    supasap said

    good article, what would be useful is an international dimension, are there any countries that are successful with high tax rates (Hong Kong?) and countries with low tax rates (Scandinavia?) - can we have the comparisons in life chances so we can develop the debate eg look at state debt, deficits, unemployment, longevity, educational achievement, levels of imprisonment, homicide, social cohesion, social equality........ it seems that the right always cite "loss of incentive" as a great problem and the left always cite lack of a safety net as a great issue, but what are the facts? how does the scandinavian system manage to incentivise and is it true that if you lose your job in low tax societies you end up on streets? what is the truth about the extremes?

    Report on 06 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supasap
    Love rating 19
    supasap said

    yes I meant high and low for scandinavia and hong kong respectively.....

    Report on 06 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    @bobmattfran: There is already a 0.5% stamp duty on share purchases so I don't think that by increasing that by just 10% to 0.55% will make a lot of difference to the economy.

    @mambach: I don't think the Government should be running any business - they can't properly run what they are supposed to anyway . . such as the HMRC, for example. Keynesian economics just don't work when there is no money left!

    @vern54: I think you are pretty well spot-on. The Banks ran amok because Givernments (in the form of the B of E) released the control on how much credit they could produce. Started by the Conservatives and exacerbated by 13 years of Labour with none of them having the wisdom or foresight to see what was happenning. For goodness sake, these politicians are suppposed to be professional people. The highly simplified answer is that we need a Government that will balance SPENDING and INCOME.

    If we can't afford wars all over the world, if we can't afford to be the world's policeman (with America), if we can't afford the EU, if we can't afford unlimited immigration . . . then we don't pay for it and don't do it. I can't see any of the current parties being capable of organising this (possibly UKIP if they could wake up) - I think it is time for a "silent revolution" to create a government of sensible people, probably businessmen, who can balance a housekeeping budget.

    r.

    Report on 07 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    nosbort said

    "Try earning (tax rate 20%) and renting out a house (tax rate 40%) as I'm a basic rate taxpayer. Where is the incentive to go for unearned there?"

    You must aquire a lot of money from your BTL if it pushes you into the 40% bracket. And that tax only applies after deduction of mortgage interest!

    "Providing accommodation for people who can't afford to"

    Because they're priced out by parasites such as yourself?

    "/don't want to buy"

    Ahh yes. Just like the yeti it's the mysterious people who don't want to buy and who are quite happy to pay another's mortgage.

    "it is a house that was rented out due to 2 households becoming 1 and the house being worth less than the mortgage."

    I can't say I have any sympathy for you. Why did the two households merge? Was it because one re-mortgaged to the hilt and then couldn't afford the repayments? House prices have increased massively and this is largely because of BTL. It allowed many people to re-mortgage beyond their means - and end up in BTL accommodation.

    And the house is worth less than the mortgage? They maybe you should have done your homework? Or maybe somehow forced the community to improve the area a bit so that you can charge more in rent?

    Report on 08 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    bobmattfran said

    "A 0.05% transaction tax on share dealings, and financial sector dealings would sort out the problem in less than 12 months"

    I can avoid paying share transaction taxes (stamp duty) by using an ETF listed in Ireland. And that's even though the shares are of UK listed companies...

    If we were to tax land values on the other hand then avoidance would be almost impossible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

    http://realestate4ransom.com/

    Report on 08 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • charles125
    Love rating 53
    charles125 said

    NOT A CHANCE OF THIS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE!

    Millions of people in the UK are already desperately, as in very desperately in debt, and I really can't see the very wealthy forking up an extra however many, as in any extra per cent as things stand either!

    Perhaps one day we will see a government that recognizes that high petrol and diesel prices CAUSE inflation, as do high energy costs!!!!!!!!

    Shops have to be lit and heated, as do offices, factories, warehouses, garages or wherever, and all physical products including food have mostly to be transported very considerable distances - enough said!!!!!!

    - WAKE UP DAVID CAMERON!

    Report on 09 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ronat42
    Love rating 62
    ronat42 said

    easygoing said

    "By the end of its term this government will have borrowed more than Gordon Brown did in the whole 13 years of labour government "

    This is an interesting point. What Labour did was to spend money they didn't have to increase peoples expectations and make commitments to continue spending at an increasing rate. This left the next government with an overdraft, together with interest payments and firm commitments to maintain this new standard of living which the country simply can't afford. It's the equivalent of a family maxing out on every available credit card, handing over the burden and then criticising the recipient for not being able to cope.

    They have done this just about every time they've been in office and people still keep voting for them. Borrowing money to buy votes is something that comes naturally.

    As far as the working man having to pay for it, it goes without saying that if someone on the breadline loses 25% of his income he's in serious trouble but a millionaire will probably not lose as much in terms of percentage and will probably find a way of getting is back and guess who pays for that. It's just the way the system works and has done for thousands of years and no government is going to be able to fix that in one term in office.

    It isn't going to fix itself and we can't continue to borrow. It's taken more than Labour's 13 years to get in this mess and even if it is possible to balance the budget in another 13 years we've still got to pay it all back. There are those who have made a lot of money out of all of this mismanagement but I doubt they will be prepared to pay any of it back.

    Use your vote responsibly.

    Any other sensible suggestions anyone?

    Report on 10 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • eLJay
    Love rating 76
    eLJay said

    Thing is they borrowed (and no doubt paid to their mates in big business) an absolute fortune and nobody has investigated their gross fraud. Track the money and start taking those who profited to Court no matter who they are.

    About time we removed the rulers from their high horses and started running this country using some sense.

    Report on 15 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    ronat42; eLJay;

    So true! "It isn't going to fix itself and we can't continue to borrow". The simple and ONLY answer is to live within our means; we won't get this while we have "true blue" and "true red" voters in the country who vote the same way regardless of their party's performance. I see a similarity to shareholders of a big company (eg. a bank) allowing massive bonus payments at the top when it is in their collective power to stop it.

    We need a new look at politics; we need a party that will look after the country. The "true blue" and "true red" voters need to wake up and see that we have been taken for an almighty ride! Certainly, we need to look after our needy and low paid but we should be asking why the low paid are so low paid. We need to get rid of the "hanger's on" in our society but, above all, we need to get our accounts right. We are a rich country compared with the rest of the world . . . so, where is the cash going?

    None of this will happen while we have ministers who personally get a great deal out of Europe after they leave office in the UK. So what do we need? A government that is going to represent the interests of the UK. My guess is that this would come from the business sector - people who can balance a housekeeping budget!

    r.

    Report on 15 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3