Is tax a burden? Is the welfare state too big? Myths?

[mercalia]

The Guardian has an interesting article that claims by comparison with other EU countries the proportion we spend on welfare is much lower and taxes should not be regarded as a burden just as just as a sub to Netflix isnt?

"If tax really were a pure burden, all rich individuals and companies would move to Paraguay or Bulgaria, where the top rate of income tax is 10%. Of course, this does not happen because, in those countries, in return for low tax you get poor public services. Conversely, most rich Swedes don’t go into tax exile because of their 60% top income tax rate, because they get a good welfare state and excellent education in return. Japanese and German companies don’t move out of their countries in droves despite some of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world (31% and 30% respectively) because they get good infrastructure, well-educated workers, strong public support for research and development, and well-functioning administrative and legal systems."

"The reality is the UK welfare state is not large at all. As of 2016, the British welfare state (measured by public social spending) was, at 21.5% of GDP, barely three-quarters of welfare spending in comparably rich countries in Europe – France’s is 31.5% and Denmark’s is 28.7%, for example. The UK welfare state is barely larger than the OECD average (21%), which includes a dozen or so countries such as Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Estonia, which are much poorer and/or have less need for public welfare provision. They have younger populations and stronger extended family networks."


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/myths-money-british-voters-economy-britain-welfare?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=228772&subid=7646217&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

[reohn2]

I'd agree,you gets what you pays for.
The UK is a rich country but wealth is in the wrong hands that's why our infrastructure is rundown or expensive to use.People would rather look through their window at the shiny new car which costs them a fortune to buy and run and that they have sit in in endless traffic jams polluting the air and costing them extra time whilst daily commuting,than have the convenience of joined up clean and reliable public transport.
We also have crises in our social system,health and education systems due lack of funding.

All because we'd rather have tax cuts than services and a better country to live in.

[Abradable Chin]

Have you seen charts like this?

There are several along the same theme on the Internet.
In short, when governments reduce spending, private sector spending rises. The two are inverse of each other. The killer point is that governments can borrow more cheaply (& struggle to go bankrupt) than individuals and businesses can, so by and large, they are in a better position than us to borrow and invest in the future.

[drossall]

All because we'd rather have tax cuts than services and a better country to live in.

Definitely. The idea that tax is wrong in principle is quite objectionable. By all means have debates about appropriate levels of tax, how to apportion it, and how to spend it. However, tax is how we together pay for the roads, NHS, education and other things that we all want, and we should be happy to pay it.

[reohn2]

All because we'd rather have tax cuts than services and a better country to live in.

Definitely. The idea that tax is wrong in principle is quite objectionable. By all means have debates about appropriate levels of tax, how to apportion it, and how to spend it. However, tax is how we together pay for the roads, NHS, education and other things that we all want, and we should be happy to pay it.

And happy to track down those who don't and evade paying their correct amount.
It's often stated how complex our tax laws are,they've been made complex so weasels can be employed by those who can afford to,to get them out of paying their fair whack,successive governments have refused to put right this anomaly.
I wonder why

[meic]

and other things that we all want,

Plenty of things that we seriously dont want as well though.

[reohn2]

and other things that we all want,

Plenty of things that we seriously dont want as well though.

I think he meant "need" rather than "want"

[meic]

I can see that they are not the same things but it applies for both need and want.

Taxation pays for plenty of things that we dont want and plenty of things that we dont need and sometimes they are the same things. As we dont agree on which items are valid to be funded through tax we have to defer the choice to our elected representatives, even if we dont trust them, it is compromise we must accept.

Though we do have the freedom to contribute voluntarily to causes which we believe in. If you extend that logic, you can arrive at the perfectly logical conclusion that we all voluntarily only pay the "tax" for the causes we believe in. The Conservative "small government" theory.
What could go wrong?

Something I discovered on my travels abroad is that sort of thing does happen unofficially in other countries. I met many middle class muslims who took their 10% alms responsibility very seriously and saw Africans exercising charity through ostentatious largesse.