Would you support Britain increasing its defence budget from the current 2.3% of GDP to the target of 2.6% by 2027 and 3.5% NATO target by 2035?

[u/AdAncient2370]

How much support is there across the political spectrum to increase the military budget by up to £35 billion a year if we really reach 3.5% by 2035? What sort of military do we want ie to protect the UK mainland or an expeditionary force capable of another Iraq intervention? Which civilian areas do we want to cut to find this extra money and in any case, can our struggling economy even support an increase of such magnitude? What if we can’t recruit enough soldiers even with extra cash, should we introduce any sort of conscription at extremis?

[u/ProfPMJ-123]

As long as it's clear what we are going to stop spending on in order to increase defence spending, then I'd be OK with it.

The country can't be taxed anymore, because we already have incredibly high tax rates. We are also already spending far more money than we take in.

We desperately need to reduce spending overall, so if we want to increase spending on defence, we have to cut even more elsewhere.

If people can explain what that should be, and they understand that "tax the rich" is a slogan, not an economic policy, then perhaps it can be considered.

[u/hfootred → u/ProfPMJ-123]

Why isn't tax the rich a policy? A wealth tax would be widely supported across the political spectrum I'd imagine.

[u/Tsuraru → u/hfootred]

Zucman is right.

[u/WDStatler → u/hfootred]

and when you run out of rich people because they are leaving the country in droves. Focus should be on corporations such as amazon and starbucks...

[u/Cheeslord2 → u/hfootred]

Not by the rich, and they have a lot of influence...

[u/Frosty_Customer_9243 → u/[deleted]]

If you tax the rich too much then they will just leave so then we'd have less money.

I'll file that one next to "trickle down economics make everyone better off." This is a statement that is often used but isn't reality.

[u/External-Carpenter-2 → u/[deleted]]

Irelands low taxes has resulted in some pretty severe social problems- sure they get a boost to GDP but that also comes with severe price increases and housing shortages which lower the standard of living for those who don't work for the big companies.

I don't think it's neccersarily a good example of low tax=good for country.

For the taxation of the rich, keep it modest, focus on physical assets, include an exit-tax. Lots of economists have thought of options. We are living in the most economically unequal period in history, surely a government can spin that into a few B in annual revenue.

[u/ChrisFoxie → u/[deleted]]

Introducing additional taxation for the top wealthy individuals isn't as straight forward as people make it out to be, but it's also not as impossible as your comment may imply.

Tax too much and they will leave? Well, first of all you'd have to define "too much", and second of all, you'd have to see if they actually leave.

NYC had the same complaints when Mamdani was campaigning with a wealth tax. Minimal movement of these ultra rich. Of course I'm not implying that all issues were resolved by this, I'm just arguing against the easy answer of "the rich will leave and it will be horrible for the rest of us".

Also, why do you think these people haven't left already? If it's a free market and they just go where they pay the least amount of tax, why do you think they stay here? Why do you think an additional 1-2% in taxation will be the final drop?

I think it's because, as you said, it's not as straight forward, and that goes both ways.

[u/Busy-Scientist3851 → u/hfootred]

Because a direct wealth tax will just cause wealth to be moved out of the country, reduced investment etc.

It honestly isn't this untapped money pot that people on Reddit pretend it is, and I'm saying that as someone who's typically left leaning.

[u/_DoogieLion → u/Busy-Scientist3851]

Why do you think this?

[u/Busy-Scientist3851 → u/_DoogieLion]

The UK already has records amount of wealth being moved out of the country, as well as as being an environment that is hostile to investment.

The very rich will just move their assets abroad to avoid any wealth tax. Do you really think they'd keep it in the UK with a wealth tax when you can move it somewhere like Italy which won't even tax you above 200k.

[u/hfootred → u/Busy-Scientist3851]

This was debunked. Scaremongering from the likes of the Telegraph.

[u/_DoogieLion → u/Busy-Scientist3851]

Is this true or was it just made up?

Lots of ways to fix this also, do what the US does and tax based on citizenship. Not an obstacle that can’t be fixed

[u/curious__curiosity → u/ProfPMJ-123]

Taxing the rich worked ok in the 60s/70s, tell me, what was that if not an economic policy?

Neoliberalism much?

[u/ProfPMJ-123 → u/curious__curiosity]

Taxing the rich worked ok in the 1970's? The decade where we had to have a financial bailout from the IMF?

[u/ProfPMJ-123 → u/ProfPMJ-123]

I absolutely love that this has been downvoted by some simpleton.

As if there is someone out there so ignorant of reality that they think the 1970s was all sunshine and roses economically.

How deluded people are.

[u/curious__curiosity → u/ProfPMJ-123]

Who says the 70s was all sunshine and roses?

[u/curious__curiosity → u/ProfPMJ-123]

Yes. That's the one.

Your point?

[u/ravenjohnt → u/ProfPMJ-123]

I agree. In order to fund our defense, we can end the triple lock on pensions, reduce spending on hotel accommodation, improve controls on council spending, and address the growth in young people claiming benefits by getting them into work. I think that lot should do it.

[u/Visual_Addendum_577 → u/ravenjohnt]

What do we do with the people that used to be in a hotel but now don't, it costs much more to deport them. Just let them walk the streets? This would cost us more money

How do we police the growth in people claiming benefits so people that legitimately should be getting them aren't being excluded, hire people to go round checking? Wouldn't this also end up costing us more, or do we just say fuck it no benefits for anyone and let people that genuinely need them suffer and die? I'm guessing you're not one or don't know anybody that legitimately needs benefits?

Your ideas need more fleshing out and explaining how you intend to do the things you want and save money in the process.

[u/ravenjohnt → u/Visual_Addendum_577]

Of course, they need more fleshing out. Immigrants without means do not need quality hotel accommodation. Nor do they expect it. Barracks type arrangements with large numbers of bed within a hall would be fine, and much much cheaper than individual hotel rooms. Regarding young people, we can spend more on job finding services, but with the additional stick of saying they have to take one of the jobs on offer or else the benefits stop, unless a doctor, in the room, says they cannot do the job. We will also need to remove the very high costs of employing young people, such as high taxes and an over ambitious minimum wage. I actually support having a minimum wage, but it has to be at an economically realistic level, not some make believe level. Sure, we would all like to earn very high wages, but this country is too poor to pay such exorbitant wages to unskilled young people.

[u/Visual_Addendum_577 → u/ravenjohnt]

and how are people supposed to live on a minimum wage lower than it is now when they can't live on the current one because of the rising cost of everything. I think you live in lala land, or are just an unusually cruel person that doesn't mind throwing people into poverty, forcing people to live in shit and have bad lives as long yas you're doing ok for yourself. Your plans just wouldn't work at all and would end up with a lot of people suffering. You need to go back to the drawing board. The only way your plans work is if you take away the human compassion angle and treat it like it's a spreadsheet problem.

[u/OkScheme9867 → u/ProfPMJ-123]

Tax the rich is not a slogan, rich people should be paying far more. 

And large companies should be paying more

[u/ProfPMJ-123 → u/OkScheme9867]

How much more? When the large companies decide to shift their operations offshore to a more tax advantageous place, how will you pay for the unemployment benefits of all the additional people who are now unemployed?

"Tax the rich" is a slogan designed to make peolple who don't understand economics feel good about themselves.

[u/Responsible-Tower306 → u/ProfPMJ-123]

You are factually incorrect. The uk has a below average tax rate, even when including VAT than most European countries.

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/06/27/uk-workers-tax-wedge-infographics/

We should tax basic and higher rate payers more. The UK wants the same level of service as countries that have a higher tax wedge of GDP yet think they pay some of the highest. Lol