|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 11, 2019 15:26:48 GMT
You're not Alan. To be honest I miss the fella, this place hasn't been quite the same since he took off with that Thai ladyboy. I just hope their happy, cruising the North Yorkshire Moors in his mum's Hyundai Getz. I thought (s)he was a Kazakh and the flounce-wagon was a Rover 100? Don't spoil the dream.
|
|
|
Post by Andy C on Jan 11, 2019 18:34:30 GMT
Thanks, coming from someone who does not know me that means something. Or nothing. I know enough about you from what I’ve read above ^
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 12, 2019 8:47:18 GMT
Unfortunately it is not possible to have a sensible debate about taxation levels, NHS funding or benefits as the hard liners pop up and derail reasoned discussion at any level up to parliamentary debate.
Tax policy is needlessly complex in many countries and it causes so many economic wobbles as we all try our best to avoid getting stiffed.
If you are PAYE on the Uk average salary, when you add in every tax you are exposed to, I believe your total tax burden is equivalent to 5 months salary. Anyone in the 40% tax bracket and it’s getting closer to 6 months +.
Ignoring whether this is fair and reasonable for the moment, I find it astounding that I have half of what I earn taken off me, yet it is still not enough. If people in general cannot get their heads around this simple fact then I don’t see how any reforms can begin to take place.
In other words, if half of the western world countries have huge deficits and inadequate public services as it stands, why do we think extracting another 10 or 20% is going to make any difference ?
I believe the question is not “ how much more can we squeeze from those who cannot avoid it”, instead it must surely be, “ what in shite’s name are we spending it on “ ?
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 12, 2019 9:44:38 GMT
I believe the question is not “ how much more can we squeeze from those who cannot avoid it”, instead it must surely be, “ what in shite’s name are we spending it on “ ? That, sir, is one of the most succinct summaries of taxation policy I have heard in a long time
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 12, 2019 9:57:26 GMT
I believe the question is not “ how much more can we squeeze from those who cannot avoid it”, instead it must surely be, “ what in shite’s name are we spending it on “ ? That, sir, is one of the most succinct summaries of taxation policy I have heard in a long time +1. That’s the issue right there.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 12, 2019 11:20:34 GMT
Indeed, so much waste.
It was worse under Brown/Blair as you had all the unnecessary public sector jobs that kept unemployment artificially low.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 12, 2019 13:01:15 GMT
I believe the question is not “ how much more can we squeeze from those who cannot avoid it”, instead it must surely be, “ what in shite’s name are we spending it on “ ? That, sir, is one of the most succinct summaries of taxation policy I have heard in a long time Bingo. Common sense. Something in short supply across the political spectrum. Indeed, so much waste. It was worse under Brown/Blair as you had all the unnecessary public sector jobs that kept unemployment artificially low. 99% of which still exist I bet. Or even 110% of them more likely. How else is it that in 1997 we could afford libraries, a bigger police force, larger armed services, a reasonable NHS and so on. Because in the interim 20 years, we've grown public expenditure hugely and yet we are told that everything is now in crisis because the money is said not to be available for front line services. It is madness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 16:35:29 GMT
Thanks, coming from someone who does not know me that means something. Or nothing. I know enough about you from what I’ve read above ^ No, actually you just don't. But if that floats your boat you are welcome to it.
|
|
|
Post by Sav on Jan 12, 2019 18:31:29 GMT
I think one area which is overlooked is the impact of automation, and what that will do to the economy and society as a whole. It’s a great opportunity for the UK. We already have a thriving tech sector. Unfortunately, from what I see, we aren’t producing enough youngsters who understand AI, machine-learning etc. If we don’t produce a workforce that can do the jobs of tomorrow, the current issues around debt levels and public-spending will be non-existent compared to tomorrow’s challenges.
Imo, we obsess too much about losing mass manufacturing and retail jobs. Retail will continue to shed jobs, and manufacturing in this country is always challenging considering how much it costs compared to cheaper countries. Sad for the workers in these industries, but both are highly automatable – precisely why we need to act now in order to minimise the negative impacts that AI will inevitably have. Leave fights over manufacturing jobs to other parts of Europe, which are heavily unionised and resistant to change.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 12, 2019 18:42:33 GMT
That, sir, is one of the most succinct summaries of taxation policy I have heard in a long time +1. That’s the issue right there. + another one. Additionally it seems that every developed county has a large National Debt...... so who's got (or had) all the money in the first place, that they have leant to all these countries?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 18:45:34 GMT
Like France which is facing its own conflicts. Pretty much how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 12, 2019 19:46:42 GMT
How else is it that in 1997 we could afford libraries, a bigger police force, larger armed services, a reasonable NHS and so on. Because in the interim 20 years, we've grown public expenditure hugely and yet we are told that everything is now in crisis because the money is said not to be available for front line services. It is madness. Labour inherited an economy in good shape with finances on an improving trajectory. Rather than continue to fix the roof Labour went on a splurge in addition to racking up off sheet debt in the form of PFI. The Tories have learnt from this and are now spending their good work rather than let Corbyn get his hands on it. The extra money for the NHS that has been announced will make no difference at all. Thr NHS gobbles up money than ever before and is a massive choke on the economy, if that could be reformed into an insurance based model this country could not only be one of the richest on earth but feel like it for more people, too. In addition to that we have an aged population and rampant benefits culture that we waste far too much on.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 13, 2019 8:48:06 GMT
How else is it that in 1997 we could afford libraries, a bigger police force, larger armed services, a reasonable NHS and so on. Because in the interim 20 years, we've grown public expenditure hugely and yet we are told that everything is now in crisis because the money is said not to be available for front line services. It is madness. Labour inherited an economy in good shape with finances on an improving trajectory. Rather than continue to fix the roof Labour went on a splurge in addition to racking up off sheet debt in the form of PFI. The Tories have learnt from this and are now spending their good work rather than let Corbyn get his hands on it. The extra money for the NHS that has been announced will make no difference at all. Thr NHS gobbles up money than ever before and is a massive choke on the economy, if that could be reformed into an insurance based model this country could not only be one of the richest on earth but feel like it for more people, too. In addition to that we have an aged population and rampant benefits culture that we waste far too much on. I’m sure that when I started working it was explained that NI was supposed to be this insurance for NHS and state pension. If it isn’t, why the hell not and why is it still separate to income tax? The NHS could save a lot of money if it cut down on wastage and if we used it better. If people were charged for missed doctors appointments or going to A&E with minor non emergencies it would certainly be a good start. I’m no expert so I’m not going to pretend that I know the full extent of NHS wastage or how to solve it, but the nor is a jobbing politician who happens to land the job of Health Secretary during a cabinet re-shuffle so we don’t we employ someone with the necessary skills and knowledge to actually sort it out?
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 13, 2019 13:37:05 GMT
I’m sure that when I started working it was explained that NI was supposed to be this insurance for NHS and state pension. If it isn’t, why the hell not and why is it still separate to income tax? The NHS could save a lot of money if it cut down on wastage and if we used it better. If people were charged for missed doctors appointments or going to A&E with minor non emergencies it would certainly be a good start. I’m no expert so I’m not going to pretend that I know the full extent of NHS wastage or how to solve it, but the nor is a jobbing politician who happens to land the job of Health Secretary during a cabinet re-shuffle so we don’t we employ someone with the necessary skills and knowledge to actually sort it out? This graphic shows that NI is just tax. It is from 2013-14 but is still valid in principle and scale. NI (and that is employee + employer taxes) yielded £110 Bn The NHS cost £140 Bn and that surely increased since then Total welfare costs £253 (£222 Bn welfare + £31 Bn social services) of which according to the ONS, pension is was £111 BN in 2016-17 So NHS + Pension = say £250 Bn and rising as we demand more health and have an ageing and living longer population. NI would need to go up 2.25 x to cover that. And that would be all NI, so employers too. Talk about a tax on jobs. Yes, we really should employ somebody to fix the NHS. They would be told to think the unthinkable. Which they would do and be promptly be fired for thinking it, either through government fear that this will never wash with people who expect everything to be free for ever or paralysis as the unions (including that union the BMA) would go straight on strike.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jan 13, 2019 14:11:20 GMT
Note that NI income is only 2/3 that of income tax.
Yes, the problem is having thin majority governments for so long means no one will bite the bullet on any subject because it means they’ll be out of power for a long period after. In my own sphere modern ticket systems (ie account based so you just arrive at a gate and show an identifier such as a bank card, Rail-based card, your phone NFC) are fully available COTS products but to introduce them requires fundamental change to the current ticket structure with 100million ticket and journey types. No DfT SoS will ever have the bollocks (or pussy, dependent on sex) to fully implement it in my lifetime and maybe not even my children’s. Politics in the current arena (past 30 years) is not about the longer term good of the people it’s about staying in power by appeasing your majority and the soft middle bit.
Basically we need a seven year dictatorship with martial law then start again.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 13, 2019 14:15:56 GMT
I'd have no problem paying, say £5 to see a doctor but no doubt anyone on benefits would get it free and also to pay for subscriptions which I don't given that I live in Scotland (although I pay an extra £900 in tax this year than my English doppelganger). I remember one of the arguments for dropping the charge was that more than 70% or those receiving prescriptions get them free anyway, so it saves a massive amount of admin. That might be the case but the statistic that says 70+% of people needing medication also receive benefits needs looking at. What causes the correlation, is there any way to break the connection?
That chart though shows that something is going to have to give because that situation is unsustainable especially when the expenditure side is going to get larger just by doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jan 13, 2019 16:34:37 GMT
I'd have no problem paying, say £5 to see a doctor but no doubt anyone on benefits would get it free and also to pay for subscriptions which I don't given that I live in Scotland (although I pay an extra £900 in tax this year than my English doppelganger). I remember one of the arguments for dropping the charge was that more than 70% or those receiving prescriptions get them free anyway, so it saves a massive amount of admin. That might be the case but the statistic that says 70+% of people needing medication also receive benefits needs looking at. What causes the correlation, is there any way to break the connection? That chart though shows that something is going to have to give because that situation is unsustainable especially when the expenditure side is going to get larger just by doing nothing. To the first point, I'm not sure the admin burden is markedly less; AFAIK you, the patient, still require a paper prescription, all of which require balanced/audited in the same way they always have been, Second, most calculations seem to incorporate (state) pensions as a benefit; given the number of SOP recipients there are, they must constitute a significant number of the Daily Mail's fabled benefit scroungers!
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 13, 2019 16:53:03 GMT
The pensioners being included would explain such a large number in themselves. Makes me all the more sure that we should pay for our prescriptions.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 13, 2019 20:00:33 GMT
The pensioners being included would explain such a large number in themselves. Makes me all the more sure that we should pay for our prescriptions. Who get free prescriptions is a pretty long list - www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/get-help-with-prescription-costs/I'm shocked you get them at 60 - when the retirement age has gone up a lot since that was introduced. Well, that's one generous tax payer funded savings for me and Mrs PG in the next couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 13, 2019 20:04:07 GMT
The pensioners being included would explain such a large number in themselves. Makes me all the more sure that we should pay for our prescriptions. Who get free prescriptions is a pretty long list - www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/get-help-with-prescription-costs/I'm shocked you get them at 60 - when the retirement age has gone up a lot since that was introduced. Well, that's one generous tax payer funded savings for me and Mrs PG in the next couple of years. When those over 60 are more likely to vote than those under 60, you’d have to be a pretty stupid politician to bring free prescriptions in line with current retirement ages.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 14, 2019 7:41:13 GMT
To quote Ron Swanson
“ The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a tax payer’s teet until they have sore, chapped nipples “
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 14, 2019 8:57:45 GMT
To quote Ron Swanson “ The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a tax payer’s teet until they have sore, chapped nipples “ But if Jeremy gets in, it will be a constant stream of piglets who keep sucking even when they are drawing blood.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 14, 2019 9:14:38 GMT
Thr NHS gobbles up money than ever before and is a massive choke on the economy, if that could be reformed into an insurance based model this country could not only be one of the richest on earth but feel like it for more people, too. In addition to that we have an aged population and rampant benefits culture that we waste far too much on. We spend less as a percentage of GDP on health than other countries who have an insurance based model e.g Germany which suggests to me that wouldn't be the case and maybe the NHS isn't as wasteful as people portray. It certainly seems to make the money it does receive go further than other countries. Everything can be improved though.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 14, 2019 9:31:52 GMT
Thr NHS gobbles up money than ever before and is a massive choke on the economy, if that could be reformed into an insurance based model this country could not only be one of the richest on earth but feel like it for more people, too. In addition to that we have an aged population and rampant benefits culture that we waste far too much on. We spend less as a percentage of GDP on health than other countries who have an insurance based model e.g Germany which suggests to me that wouldn't be the case and maybe the NHS isn't as wasteful as people portray. It certainly seems to make the money it does receive go further than other countries. Everything can be improved though. We do spend less as a % of GDP but that's not the whole story. German healthcare is between 5-10% centrally funded, France is in the same ballpark, the NHS is over 80% centrally funded. My point is that by making those fund available to spend on other things the country can feel richer.
As you say everything can be improved and the NHS badly needs it. Outcomes within the NHS are often worse than most other developed economies health systems. With cancer, for example, you're more likely to die as an NHS customer.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 14, 2019 9:46:38 GMT
With cancer, for example, you're more likely to die as an NHS customer. We are,marginally, but that is often due to the fact we don't present early enough and therefore don't get diagnosed early enough.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 14, 2019 9:50:06 GMT
Partly, but the reason for that is the inadequacy of screening programmes. There are many other examples but the key problem with a badly funded system is you need to introduce rationing to make it work. We see this in waiting lists which also affect cancer survival rates.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 14, 2019 9:54:53 GMT
Partly, but the reason for that is the inadequacy of screening programmes. There are many other examples but the key problem with a badly funded system is you need to introduce rationing to make it work. We see this in waiting lists which also affect cancer survival rates. It's not the inadequacy of screening programmes - it's the lack of uptake. The percentage of women taking up breast cancer screening is at the lowest for a decade - only 71% and 25% of eligible women don't take up the offer of cervical screening. Men are even worse.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 14, 2019 9:59:08 GMT
A girl in the office went for a hospital appointment and the traffic was much lighter than she expected so she was there 20 minutes early. She was taken immediately and when she expressed surprise she was told there had been 10 no shows that day. That which people get for free they do not value.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 14, 2019 9:59:39 GMT
And why do you think that is?
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jan 14, 2019 10:05:42 GMT
Partly, but the reason for that is the inadequacy of screening programmes. There are many other examples but the key problem with a badly funded system is you need to introduce rationing to make it work. We see this in waiting lists which also affect cancer survival rates. It's not the inadequacy of screening programmes - it's the lack of uptake. The percentage of women taking up breast cancer screening is at the lowest for a decade - only 71% and 25% of eligible women don't take up the offer of cervical screening. Men are even worse. And yet some in the NHS think that they have to invite male to female transsexual's to cervical screening to avoid being 'discriminatory'. Part of the problem of public sector 'non-jobs' I suppose.
|
|