OK, a major point emerging so far seems to be that public spending is too wasteful for taxation to be rehabilitated as a social responsibility/good rather than a burden. But that could be fixed (in the long term of course) with better implementation, better oversight, better regulation. As one poster correctly pointed out, the state is us. Surely that is within the realm of the possible? Difficult of course - decades of entrenched wasteful practices to reverse, but not inconceivable.
It would take political will, and political reforms to encourage politicians to work in the public interest rather than the interests of their constituencies or other supporters.
I don't think it's self evident that spending efficiency is only possible within the private sector. We are talking about observable human behaviour here, not some sort of black box where public money just 'disappears'. Inefficiencies within any system are exploitable but also fixable, surely?
But even if that wasn't a major issue, we'd have to address the second major point emerging, which is that people act rationally to maximise their own interest, extracting as many services as possible while paying as little as possible (and the nursing home fair deal example suggests that the wealthy are as likely to do this as the poor). I suppose education plays a large part here - maybe it's possible to convince people that the public interest, in theory at least, is superior to personal interest. Or at least that we can have a better combination of the two.
The question of personal responsibility inevitably emerges - people should just look after themselves. But take that to its extreme conclusion and there is no medical care or social care or education provided from public funds at all (assuming all the private, efficiently run hospitals and nursing homes and schools and universities and prisons and psychological services have a heart and provide a system of pro bono or reduced fees for those who genuinely can't afford it). Is that what we want? Personally I don't want to always have to choose services that are run on the most productive and profitable methods, thank you very much.
Is it not inevitable that our system of economic organisation, whatever we want to call it, benefits some people more than others, and maybe it's OK for those people to give back more - in real terms, not the marginal tax rates that everyone likes to quote. If a significant chunk of your salary is taxable at the top rate, you probably have plenty of opportunities to mitigate that, and there are certainly plenty of financial professionals willing to help. For example, the opportunity for (perfectly legal) tax avoidance in order to give your children a leg up (the inheritance tax issue that prompted the OP) - a natural, loving, protective instinct towards your own family, but inherently unfair - your offspring are now advantaged, inheriting as an accident of birth, nothing to do with personal responsibility and looking after yourself.
Personal responsibility is great, but not everyone is as fortunate as everyone else, and a good society has a duty of care towards others.
It would take political will, and political reforms to encourage politicians to work in the public interest rather than the interests of their constituencies or other supporters.
I don't think it's self evident that spending efficiency is only possible within the private sector. We are talking about observable human behaviour here, not some sort of black box where public money just 'disappears'. Inefficiencies within any system are exploitable but also fixable, surely?
But even if that wasn't a major issue, we'd have to address the second major point emerging, which is that people act rationally to maximise their own interest, extracting as many services as possible while paying as little as possible (and the nursing home fair deal example suggests that the wealthy are as likely to do this as the poor). I suppose education plays a large part here - maybe it's possible to convince people that the public interest, in theory at least, is superior to personal interest. Or at least that we can have a better combination of the two.
The question of personal responsibility inevitably emerges - people should just look after themselves. But take that to its extreme conclusion and there is no medical care or social care or education provided from public funds at all (assuming all the private, efficiently run hospitals and nursing homes and schools and universities and prisons and psychological services have a heart and provide a system of pro bono or reduced fees for those who genuinely can't afford it). Is that what we want? Personally I don't want to always have to choose services that are run on the most productive and profitable methods, thank you very much.
Is it not inevitable that our system of economic organisation, whatever we want to call it, benefits some people more than others, and maybe it's OK for those people to give back more - in real terms, not the marginal tax rates that everyone likes to quote. If a significant chunk of your salary is taxable at the top rate, you probably have plenty of opportunities to mitigate that, and there are certainly plenty of financial professionals willing to help. For example, the opportunity for (perfectly legal) tax avoidance in order to give your children a leg up (the inheritance tax issue that prompted the OP) - a natural, loving, protective instinct towards your own family, but inherently unfair - your offspring are now advantaged, inheriting as an accident of birth, nothing to do with personal responsibility and looking after yourself.
Personal responsibility is great, but not everyone is as fortunate as everyone else, and a good society has a duty of care towards others.