High taxes for public services — discuss both views

Few subjects divide opinion as sharply as taxation. One side maintains that governments must take a large share of earnings in order to fund roads, schools and hospitals, while the other insists that heavy taxes do more harm than good. I sympathise with the first position, though only where public money is demonstrably well spent.

Those who defend high taxation point out that essential services cannot realistically be bought individually. No household can build a motorway or run a hospital, yet almost everyone depends on both. Progressive taxation also narrows the gap between rich and poor: when education is funded collectively, a child's prospects depend less on their parents' income. Countries that fund healthcare and universities through taxation tend to produce workforces that are healthier and better qualified, which ultimately benefits employers too.

The opposing argument deserves a fair hearing. If a large proportion of any additional income disappears in tax, some people will see little point in working longer hours, and entrepreneurs may take their businesses elsewhere. There is also the question of competence: taxpayers who watch money being squandered on poorly managed projects understandably resent handing over more of their salary, and this resentment can undermine trust in government for a generation.

In my opinion, the strength of the second argument lies in how taxes are used rather than in their level. A high rate is justified when citizens can see the results in clean hospitals, reliable trains and well-equipped classrooms, and when spending is open to independent scrutiny. Where that accountability is missing, resistance to taxation is entirely reasonable. I would therefore support substantial public funding of essential services, coupled with strict transparency about where every pound or dong actually goes.