Tax is not bad – it’s how we afford and build a better, fairer society

When looking at how to fund social care and the NHS we should remember that our economy is built upon the low tax, low public services philosophy of Thatcherism that abandoned manufacturing and trade in favour of the casino economy of speculators and the right-wing view that tax is bad and must be cut. Tax is not bad, it’s how we afford and build a better, fairer society.

Thatcherism was a radical departure from a more inclusive and caring, but in no way faultless, post-war philosophy that started in 1948 with the foundation of the NHS by Labour, which was vehemently opposed at the time by Conservatives, who have never really embraced it.

It has left us with an economy where many businesses rely on the state subsidising workers’ wages through universal credit that enables owners and shareholders to pay themselves excessive salaries and dividends, often untaxed. And it’s not just multinationals; small businesses are established with plans based on paying workers less than they need to live, leaving the state to pick up the tab. This must be wrong, if not downright immoral.

This model has not been a success; when compared to our European neighbours, we have fewer hospital beds, particularly intensive care ones, we have lower pensions and lower minimum wage and we rely on foreign workers to get things done and keep things going.

Most people believe in a fairer, more equal society and are coming to realise that it has to be paid for and are prepared to look at ideas such as a wealth tax and a more progressive tax regime. Together with legislation to outlaw the cronyism that diverts so much of our nation’s wealth into the pockets of a tiny powerful elite.

I suspect Boris Johnson is aware that this is the way the wind is blowing and this is why he is trying to disenfranchise 3 million voters, many of whom lent him their votes at the last election and might be having second thoughts having witnessed the billions of pound handed to cronies with special access to the money tree, while all they get are empty words of jam tomorrow.

John Simpson

Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire

We once thought that vaccinated folk could not spread Covid-19. We now know that while the vaccine limits the harm and take-up should be encouraged, it does not stop people from catching or spreading it. What, then, is the point of Covid passports?

The threatened pointless passports create a two-tier system and are the thin edge of a Chinese government-style social credit system wedge. Meanwhile, no one has discussed a sunset clause on vaccine passports. When is the plan to discontinue them?

Barry Tighe

Address supplied

The payment of two separate taxes in this country – income tax and national insurance – is pointless, since the funds received by the government are not kept separate.

Why not combine both into a new tax? This would be simpler, and fairer, because people of “pensionable age” would continue to make payments towards the cost of the health service, pensions etc, and all payments would be tailored to individuals’ ability to pay. Thus a system fair to rich and poor, young and old, that could easily be adjusted to the country’s needs.

Tom Canham

Hereford

If the rumours are true then I say well done Boris Johnson for being bold and having the courage to raise national insurance to pay for a social and healthcare boost.

It may be breaking an election pledge, for which there will be no end of complaints from Labour, but the fact of the matter is we cannot allow the status quo to continue.

The issue of long-term health and social care was created by Labour, overlooked by David Cameron, bungled by appeaser Theresa May and is finally being fixed by Boris Johnson.

Now all Johnson has to do is scrap any plans for a £20 benefit cut for some of the same very people who are already part of these social and healthcare ticking time bombs, and any potential poverty it would cause can easily be averted.

Geoffrey Brooking

Hampshire

The government’s new five-year Autism Strategy for England promises to tackle some of the biggest challenges faced by autistic children and adults. But to really improve the lives of millions of people, it must be properly funded in the upcoming spending review. Currently, only the first year of the strategy has funding.

Without this, the mistakes from the previous strategy will be repeated and existing inequalities, already exacerbated by coronavirus, will become even more entrenched. The cost of inaction will be huge.

The chancellor must not renege on the government’s commitments to autistic people and their families.

Caroline Stevens Chief executive of the National Autistic Society

Jolanta Lasota Chief executive of Ambitious about Autism

Dr James Cusack Chief executive of Autistica

It is universally acknowledged that the NHS and social care are desperately in need of more funds. It makes sense to use a tax, such as national insurance, that is hypothecated for this purpose. But obviously, the injustice of increasing NI in its present form is that more would be collected from relatively poorly-paid workers while the wealthy retired and older workers contribute nothing.

Surely, it’s not beyond the wit of even this government to change the rules about national insurance so that, like general income tax, it’s paid by everyone who can afford it, regardless of age and employment status. And the rate could greatly increase for those with higher incomes.

Furthermore, we need to rid ourselves of the quaint notion that inheritance of the family home is a right. Inheritance is one of the main causes of social inequality. The children of wealthy parents already have health and educational advantages; do they actually deserve, or need, all the loot as well?

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire