If you want quality public services - you have to pay for them via taxes

No, we don't, Mike. Taxation - the fundamental reform of which I firmly support and at which the thrust of your article is mostly aimed - doesn't pay for anything. That doesn't mean tax is unimportant - it is critically important for managing inflation. Except at the top end - where the wealthy pay much much less tax than they should - from where much of our recent inflation has arisen. Proves the point, somewhat. Luxury goods - property, sports cars, racehorses, private jets and yachts - evade most tax and ensure that you and me pay more. It's only fair, they might claim. Unconvincing, I say. But seriously Mike, you, and Rachel from Accounts, really need to learn more about how money works. Don't ask the Bank of England - they did know the answer in Q1 2014 but have forgotten.

' Taxation is the price we pay for being part of a civilised society. Taxation exists to pay for the public services we all need and use '. You started badly and then it went down hill. Taxation in the UK [ and by extension Wales ] doesn't pay for public services. Taxation in the UK is a mess. You quote other economies, the UK raises less tax revenues than they. Income tax and VAT is about the average, National Insurance contributions are well below and according to the IFS this is the difference. Whereas their contributions go more directly to funding public services, the UK regarded it as general taxation. That aside, the UK taxation system is increasingly used to impose government policy. The so called sin taxes, alcohol, tobacco, gambling etc to change behaviour and policy taxes to persuade more savings or less savings, more investment or less investment according to changing government policy.. It has become so complex that tax laws run to some 3000 pages, 30 times more than criminal law. There are also 1100 areas of tax relief all costing the UK treasury revenue. The problem is, as discovered by a House of Commons committee, that HMRC have only costed one third of them, but that 105 have cost £195 billion. Further, there is so little scrutiny that it is unknown how much the reliefs have affected the policy to which they were meant for, if at all. The Institute of Chartered Accountants called the system ' unworkable '. You make reference to the high taxation of other nation. Those nations also have high wages and high disposable income and it is that that grows the economy. Consumer spending is the biggest contributor to GDP. A growing economy, more tax revenues. So instead of fiddling around finding a bit of NHS savings or education efficiencies, surely the answer is better use of the taxes that are raised. I am surprised you didn't emphasise that, you being a member of the Welsh Government Finance Committee.

Taxation is excessive and maldistributed in the UK. A major problem is the funding of the NHS which has become unsustainable. This is not a problem unique to the UK - other healthcare systems also have problems. VAT is 20% which means that the poorest pay a substantial amount of tax on daily living. Council Tax while somewhat better in Wales than in England is ludicrously badly organised. Charities receive tax relief which increases the tax burden on all especially the poorest. It should stop on all charities. This is aggravated by Cameron’s definition of organisations like the Canal and Rivers Trust and the GMC as charities which they are not. Some taxes smack of corruption like VAT added to fuel costs after excise duty - a tax on a tax. Profits made by shareholder companies are taxed with corporation tax then dividend tax then as income tax. This is not conducive to investment. It all needs rethinking…

Yes, but the issue is how much tax and for what? The UK already has the highest relative tax burden since WW2 and we must be at or near the point when government revenues start to decrease if tax increases further. There is scope for efficiency in education; but not by asking head teachers to do 2 or 3 jobs - get shot of the middle tier organisations instead and stop bringing forward unfunded legislation. As for Council Tax, Welsh Labour has had 26 years to reform it, but being scared of the consequences have repeatedly gone for the long grass, leaving many people with the equivalent of a second mortgage.

Great article, and good to see a politician putting their thoughts down on paper. Earlier this year, the FT compared tax increases over the past 50 years across developed countries. The UK ranked second lowest out of around 20 nations. Only the US had a smaller percentage increase in the tax burden. Unsurprisingly, ageing populations and healthcare have significantly affected all countries. The main reason the US saw a lower increase than the UK is because it relies on privately funded health insurance. Most other European nations experienced a 10–25% rise in tax burden, while the UK's increase was just a few percentage points over 50 years. Currently, we are sacrificing many public services to support a growing elderly population. In my view, taxes need to rise. Dividend taxation is an idea, but needs a deatiled discussion. Obiously, everyone thinks it's about millionaires. But measures are needed to protect pensions. The reason dividend tax is low is dividends are paid after tax profits, so you will be double taxing.  

I'd say we pay more than enough council tax. After a journalistic investigation last week, it turns out there are three Welsh councils that pay more than 30% of their council tax take straight into the staff pension funds. Blaenau Gwent at 39%, Flintshire & Neath Port Talbot at 35%.

Mike, you’re so close to striking gold, yet veer off at crucial moments. I agree with your broader point. If we want to expand public services, we must accept the need for higher taxes. However, far too much public money is squandered on quangos, vanity projects, and fleeting fads. Artificial Intelligence is one such fad, or at least, it's being treated as one by those who do not understand what it truly means. I urge you to look more deeply into the subject. We desperately need more programmers (software developers) and technologists (UX designers, web designers, database engineers, network technicians, and so on) in the public sector. Yet attracting them is virtually impossible for two key reasons: Job security — compared to clerical workers in "statutory posts", technologists face far less stability, despite the fact that many clerical roles could now be automated or streamlined.Pay — is oftentimes a fraction of what the private sector offers. (That's a discussion in itself, perhaps for another day.) To claim AI is some sort of silver bullet is utter folly. It's 90% marketing hype and 10% the work of highly skilled developers. National Labour's plan to replace junior civil servants with AI is absurd. When the senior officer retires, who will step up? AI? Of course not. Otherwise, we may as well replace politicians with AI! Please, check the facts. By promoting this narrative — that AI can replace staff rather than support them — we risk adding a third reason why capable technologists avoid public service: a sense of professional futility. Unless they're altruistic or already financially secure, why would they join an environment that undervalues expertise and overvalues the illusion of automation? If we're serious about saving money while preserving — even strengthening — public sector expertise, then the sensible route is this: merge clerical "statutory" roles into broader posts already managed by technologists and specialists. These are people who are often perfectly capable of handling both administrative and technical responsibilities, provided they're given the right tools and support. This approach does two things. First, it reduces unnecessary duplication and cost. Second, it safeguards and encourages real expertise within the system — rather than displacing it with gimmicks. In effect, the situation as it is right now should be a national security emergency. Far too many local authorities undervalue their go-to programmer guy or their wonderful network technician lady, yet also overvalue the person who does that one simple statutory task, only to find that the statutory post holder lacks sufficient technology expertise and ultimately leads to a data breach. Merging the two into one would tackle issue 1 - job security - for the technologist, and thereby encourage them to remain. It wasn't the developers at Marks and Spencers that messed up Mike, and AI can't fix stupid. The opportunities are there for the taking, yet so many have swallowed the AI hype uncritically. We need to investigate, learn, and understand that AI is not a silver bullet. What we truly need are experts — regardless of whether they hold degrees or speak Welsh — who understand their craft and can integrate tools like AI effectively. Project managers will mantra talk you to death over how they can use AI to enhance your business. Again, cool-aid. They're project managers, not experts. They juggle and hope you don't notice they're faking it. Individuals such as these are likely already working in local and national government departments — underpaid, underrecognised, and without protection. With the right support, they could use AI not to replace people, but to automate the mundane and empower the essential. Wouldn't it be far better if our tax revenue supported people who enjoy their work — statutory or not — because they're backed by genuine expertise focused on solving the real, repetitive problems? Or should we settle for the mundane and lose the expertise to the private sector overseas?

OK. But why are our taxes paying for war.

Or stop wasting money on fluff and get the basics right?