Regarding tax, benefits and just maintaining a functioning society, it seems to me to be a relatively simple decision for governments to make.
If the jobs that need doing in order for society to function in a civilised manner are considered essential, then government needs to ensure that people who do these jobs can actually afford to live in the country that they are providing their labour for. If those jobs are as previously mentioned, tending towards low pay, then government needs to supplement those low wages with a benefit system that fills the shortfall.
If members of the population need support because they don't have the tools to be able improve their economic situation - either for physical or mental reasons, then again the government needs to step up. Otherwise we are admitting as a nation that we don't care about a significant proportion of our population. That part of the population might well have an economic cost to the country but they are also a resource: provider of future generations if nothing else, and we all know that people are worth more than just their financial worth.
If people get to an age where they can't work anymore, then a state pension of some kind needs to be paid, as that is the 'contract' that people agree to when they pay taxes during their working lives.
Medical care, education and all the other services we rely on also need to be centrally funded because the majority of the working class would struggle to pay for these things if they had to fund everything privately.
All of these things are socialist ideas, which some might think is giving handouts to the ubdeserving, whereas others believe that all people need the opportunity to live comfortably in our very wealthy country and should be supported by government.
The thing to remember is that if funding were reduced or removed for those that need it, then life would get pretty uncomfortable for those who can afford it because the essential jobs wouldn't get done and the starving masses would be kicking in doors up and down the country. When people are left in a position where they cannot afford to feed and house themselves and their families, then it becomes an easy step to consider taking what you need if it is beyond their reach. Then we have anarchy and a completely ****ed society.
Yes, all the things we rely on could be present in an entirely capitalist free market economy but if half the population can't have those things because they cost too much, then the other half of the population had better start looking over their shoulders.
Taxation, if applied to everybody could easily provide all the money our economy needs. Problem is that wealthy people hoard money and property and resent paying tax on significant parts of their wealth. The idea that being slightly less wealthy because you've paid a large tax bill does not fill me with sympathy and I don't really care if someone has already paid what they think is enough - that's just their opinion and is obviously going to be a biased opinion.
Hoarding of resources causes conflict - if somebody did it with all the wheat in the country then it would be a short brutal reaction that would see the wheat...redistributed. I don't see money or property being any different to wheat tbh.
Corporations and very high wealth individuals are the main culprits for not paying enough tax, and that's why the economy is on its knees, not because people claim universal credit to top their wages up so that they can live in a house, not because we pay a state pension to the elderly and certainly not because we support the sick and disabled amongst us.
You must log in or register to see images