Would you rather have an approach where you pay say 5% more income tax and therefore get better services, less crime, less poverty, more chances in life and greater equality.

or Cut the Welfare State and have a system of health Insurance, lower taxes, greater chances to earn money, little benefits for the poor and the ability to make it rich more easily.

Basically the Scandinavian model Vs the US model of society (very basically)?

I personally have no wish to ever own my own home. I am quite content to rent. I don't see any stigma in renting. Many countries have low levels of home ownership (German for one) and think we are slicghtly crackers that we mortgage ourselves to the hilt to achieve this.

I'd love to have the Scandinavian model where our services are clean, efficient and reliable. I don't mind paying more taxes if my environment is nicer.

I'd go for the Scandinavian model.

I'd for like keep the taxes as they are but get services in return rather than just giving money away for ministers and PM to get free brunches and work cars...

Originally posted by robbie
Would you rather have an approach where you pay say 5% more income tax and therefore get better services, less crime, less poverty, more chances in life and greater equality.

or Cut the Welfare State and have a system of health Insurance, lower taxes, greater chances to earn money, little benefits for the poor and the ability to make it rich more easily.

Basically the Scandinavian model Vs the US model of society (very basically)?

I personally have no wish to ever own my own home. I am quite content to rent. I don't see any stigma in renting. Many countries have low levels of home ownership (German for one) and think we are slicghtly crackers that we mortgage ourselves to the hilt to achieve this.

I'd love to have the Scandinavian model where our services are clean, efficient and reliable. I don't mind paying more taxes if my environment is nicer. Nice to dream....every year we tend to pay more taxes yet never get better services or better anything for that matter.
I don't mind paying tax if I can see something being done but lets face it.....our money is given away to other countries and since labour came to power they have employed more than a million extra people that need paying out of our taxes.

I would like to see the benefits system scrapped where people that have kids have to look after them and provide themselves.
As far as home ownership...I bought my home as an investment for my pension.......when the time comes I will be selling it so that the tax man can get stuffed charging inheritance tax to my kids

I used to be a great believer in the traditional Welfare State.

However, as the years go by it is obvious that there are fewer people paying in to the system and more people needing it to help them. By the time I get to retirement age, I doubt there will be a pension available from the state, anyway, and yet I will have paid in all my working life.

So, US Model with a good safety net.

Child Support for the first two kids (the traditional heir and spare so beloved of the royals).
Keep tax rates the same but move the 'break points' so that people can earn more before moving up to the top rates of tax. Also make the amount you can earn before paying tax higher.

There are other changes I'd like to see, particularly around long term disability and 'means testing' of various benefits. I don't see why people who have money should be able to claim money form teh state that is earmarked for the poor.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP


There are other changes I'd like to see, particularly around long term disability and 'means testing' of various benefits. I don't see why people who have money should be able to claim money form teh state that is earmarked for the poor.

Joe

I disagree with you on that statement because if you pay into a system you should be entitled to some benefit even though you may have plenty of money.

You could say that if a person has worked hard all his life to save money shouldnt have to pay into a system that he is not entitled to benefit from.

Originally posted by Delboy3
I disagree with you on that statement because if you pay into a system you should be entitled to some benefit even though you may have plenty of money.

You could say that if a person has worked hard all his life to save money shouldnt have to pay into a system that he is not entitled to benefit from.

I don't know.....by reducing taxes, ec. the well off would be paying less in anyway.

The corollary of this is that a professional couple who are both at work and getting a pre-tax pay of potentially 50 or 60k a year - not at all unusual - would be entitled to teh same level of benefits as a couple on 10k a year.

Doesn't seem fair, somehow.

But I do see your point.

Joe

I think there should be a major overhaul of the tax system. A flat rate of tax of 10% of all income with no exceptions. The system as it stands now means that those at the lower end of the income scale pay little or no tax (don't have a problem with that) while those at the top end who can afford tax accountants generally pay little or no tax too. The tax burden, inevitably, falls on the middle income bracket which, as Joe has pointed out, is reducing year on year.

I have no problem with paying people not to work as I would not relish the idea of a train being driven by someone who didn't want to be a train driver and was forced into the role or starve.

Originally posted by max


I have no problem with paying people not to work as I would not relish the idea of a train being driven by someone who didn't want to be a train driver and was forced into the role or starve.
This month I paid over 700 pounds in PAYE alone.....I do not like paying taxes for someone else not to work and feel that the people that have scrounged for many years have not been fair to the working population that has to strive to have a comfortable life.

I don't particulary like having to go to work 5 days a week so would you like to pay for me to sit on my rear end just because I, like everybody else is forced to go to work to pay for a decent lifestyle?

If we all had the attitude that its ok for anyone to sit on their rear ends all their life at someone elses expence because they dont want to work, no one would.

Then, where would the money come from to support this freeloading culture?

BTW...£700 doesnt even pay for 1 person being on disability/incapacity

Originally posted by max

I have no problem with paying people not to work as I would not relish the idea of a train being driven by someone who didn't want to be a train driver and was forced into the role or starve.

Which is why I won't eat in restaurants or use take-aways. The rates they pay the poor sods who work there aren't going to make them care very much about hygene or the customer getting food poisoning. :gag:

The flat-rate tax system seems to have taken hold in eastern Europe and I think I read that the Tories are looking at the idea.

Was reading too that the book accountants use to try and keep track of the UK tax system has doubled in thickness since Nulabour came to power :o

Originally posted by JoeP

There are other changes I'd like to see, particularly around long term disability and 'means testing' of various benefits. I don't see why people who have money should be able to claim money form teh state that is earmarked for the poor.

Joe

I'd go along with means testing if the savings were used to increase benefits for the really needy and if the govt. used an honest and independent assessment of living costs.

I don't however see any flying pigs :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Delboy3

BTW...£700 doesnt even pay for 1 person being on disability/incapacity

How much does it cost ?

I'm happy with what we've got to be honest - a few 'tweaks' and it would be fair as it could be - and no system will ever be perfect. But if I had to choose then I'd go for the Scandinavian ideal. It's fair enough expecting people to be responsible for themselves but often they just aren't, and you have to factor in that employers are only in it for the profits and they can fire staff when they see fit. So some end up jobless either because they are hapless souls or because they lose a job through no fault of their own.

It could happen to anyone so I'd like to think there was a safety net for all. So some exploit the system - I'd rather that happen than deserving people go without or have to suffer. And the bottom line is that when there are kids involved, it's not their fault what their parent/s work ethic is, so why should they suffer?

I often wonder how some can just allow people like me to go out and earn and pay tax so they can sit around all day but then I remember that as I'm earning I also have a lot more opportunity than they do, more money, more chance of earning even more money, and so on.

How about - nothing costs anything, and we work for no wages when we want to that is? Should cut down the population and lead to some interesting arguments.

I like Britain. Always have. Always will.

Dragon

Originally posted by Greybeard
How much does it cost ?

Incapacity plus disability paid at the higher rate is around £300 every fortnight. Add to this council tax and rent etc....it works out to be quite a tidy sum.

Originally posted by robbie
I'd love to have the Scandinavian model where our services are clean, efficient and reliable. I don't mind paying more taxes if my environment is nicer.
That's one of the biggest IFs in the world. Would you pay higher taxes *IF* we had better hospitals, schools and services.

I would answer yes but I have no faith in our politicians to deliver VALUE FOR MONEY!!!! I fear that the extra money wouldn't result in a better country to live in.

I'd prefer the US model. It rewards success and encourages people into working and contributing to society as opposed to sponging.