I agree with you in spirit, but national economics isn't the same as household economics you can't just tighten your belt for a few months or years and right the ship that way - spending is tied to income.
It's a very complex problem - if you think you can offer a solution in a few paragraphs, you've not even scratched the surface.
Fully understand - I have no qualification in economics, so don't know specifics of how to make it work. Plenty of people smarter than me probably can figure something out though.
I am however fairly sure that with the current deficit things are only going to get worse unless some fairly drastic measures are taken.
Problem is cuts hurt those who are already very vulnerable.
Yes, i agree, and its horrible, but the alternative is the section of pie we can consume getting smaller and smaller, and ultimately reducing our ability to help the vulnerable.
Yep, tax should be increased - the 40% tax should be raised as anyone on 40% can afford 2% more.
Out of interest, how so? Why's that?
I'm not disagreeing with a tax increase (or agreeing, for that matter), but just wondering what the basis of that statement is.
DrP
Time to close the tax loop holes that multinationals exploit and for higher rate income tax rise. Most important though to take a holistic approach to the problems which are connected. NHS can't solve our health issues alone, poor diet and lack of exercise are major factors. Folk often choose unhealthy options because of perceived low prices or time saving convenience food. Low pay and long working hours are also an issue for many people. We should at least look at a universal basic income. We should continue to invest in education and in developing skills. (Edit)
es, i agree, and its horrible, but the alternative is the section of pie we can consume getting smaller and smaller, and ultimately reducing our ability to help the vulnerable.
Or we could cut from or tax those who CAN afford to pay and not put the burden on those who can't.
I have no qualification in economics
Basic theory then - there are two ways to get rid of a deficit. Either cut spending, or boost income. Income can be boosted without raising taxes by increasing GDP. So you can borrow a bit more money to invest which then pays back the extra and more by growing the economy and therefore increasing total tax take.
Or, you can cut spending, but this tends to hinder economic growth which then reduces your tax take.
It only takes a small amount of GDP growth to produce a shitload of extra money. And it was alleged when the austerity debate was raging that no economy had ever successfully managed to cut its way out of a deficit - only grow.
Basic theory then..............
I said I had no qualifications, not that I was a complete idiot - geez 🙄
Basic theory then - there are two ways to get rid of a deficit. Either cut spending, or boost income. Income can be boosted without raising taxes by increasing GDP. So you can borrow a bit more money to invest which then pays back the extra and more by growing the economy and therefore increasing total tax take.
That's the theory reality is a bit different. For instance borrowed money isn't infinite and needs servicing.
"And it was alleged when the austerity debate was raging that no economy had ever successfully managed to cut its way out of a deficit - only grow."
I bet Greece wish they'd tried!
BTW: Laffer curve.
I'd happily pay more tax if I was confident it wouldn't go towards buying pensioners votes and keeping the banks in business.
First bit I agree with, second but makes me roll my eyes. People seem to forget what an utter shitstorm would have ensued if RBS and Lloyds, major, major retail banks, had gone bust and every account holder had lost all their money, overnight. And the sole traders, small businesses and enormous corporations that held accounts with them that would have gone bust, overnight. And the business who traded with those businesses that would have gone bust, overnight.
The bank bail outs were not about doing favours for chums in the city, they were about avoiding financial catastrophe (and it's a wholly appropriate word) for millions of people, and the collapse, as in it would cease functioning, of the entire economy of the country.
Without numbers one can't be sure but some small increases in income could be made. Is there a good reason why luxuries shouldn't have a whopping tax leveied. Might I suggest, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, take away foodetc.
In fact anything that isn't actually a help to our society. I could add electrical entertainment even. These are things that people don't need but enjoy yet they add to our burden. I am talking sticking a zero or two on. Yes , in the long run that may damage some industries but a short term influx of cash won't do any harm. Things like traffic fines could be increased. Add a zero or two and the policing would be funded. All little things.
Socialist I'm not but possibly we need some more socialist actions. Maybe one shouldn't benefit without contributions. Directed labour for those fit and able to work. Avoiding contributions deliberately could mean missing out on the benefits of society.
Also can we really afford luxuries such as the arts, funded sports, National parks etc? Some would say that we can't afford not to have them but to me a hospital bed is more important than a new set of footpath signs.
I actually see roads as a low priority. We could get from a to b on gravel tracks.
I wonder what the long term costs of reversing Beeching would be? The network of long flat spaces is there, just a case of the rails maybe. Things do not need to be so expensive. The stations for the railways could be sheds not fancy places with lounges with wifi. They would be used if there was no alternative. Remove modern standards to. So much of our life is overdone, be it luxury or safety. We don't have street lights in the country so why on motorways.
Ultimately I would say balls to peoples selfish needs and hi to the essentials.
None of my ideas are gong to solve the problem but even a little helps.
I feel that what we should be doing as a country is finding out what makes some countries with no natural resources better off, then copying them. Tax havens, maybe?
Increasing the higher tax rate is just a knee jerk reaction by those who don't pay it. A bit of spiteful jealousy really. Its not fair. Fair is treating us all the same not penalising some, ultimately those who can best afford to actually do something about avoiding paying to much. It creates social unhappiness and injustice.
[quote=IHN ]
First bit I agree with, second but makes me roll my eyes. People seem to forget what an utter shitstorm would have ensued if RBS and Lloyds, major, major retail banks, had gone bust and every account holder had lost all their money, overnight. And the sole traders, small businesses and enormous corporations that held accounts with them that would have gone bust, overnight. And the business who traded with those businesses that would have gone bust, overnight.
The bank bail outs were not about doing favours for chums in the city, they were about avoiding financial catastrophe (and it's a wholly appropriate word) for millions of people, and the collapse, as in it would cease functioning, of the entire economy of the country.
so where did the money go then.
because it looks from the outside that the rich got richer and joe public picked up the tab...
joe public picked up the tab
Joe public got to continue living in the homes they couldn't afford the mortgage payments on.
The other alternative to IHN's scenario was mass repossessions and hundreds of thousands of people being kicked out onto the streets.
because it looks from the outside that the rich got richer and joe public picked up the tab...
The rich will always get richer, but that's a different discussion.
Joe public did pick up the tab, but was left with a method of paying it, when the alternative was to be left with nothing.
I'm not saying it's fair, because it's not, and [b]much [/b]more should have been done to hold those who caused the mess accountable, but the act itself of bailing the banks out had to be done. It was a choice between a long term but manageable (and, again, the method of management can be debated) hit to the economy, or it's total collapse.
Increasing the higher tax rate is just a knee jerk reaction by those who don't pay it. A bit of spiteful jealousy really. Its not fair. Fair is treating us all the same not penalising some, ultimately those who can best afford to actually do something about avoiding paying to much. It creates social unhappiness and injustice.
It's not a knee jerk reaction or spiteful jealousy. It's a necessary result of the huge income and wealth disparities.
Otherwise, people on lower incomes pay more tax than everyone else.
Stop thinking ONLY of income tax.
Poorer a people spend almost everything they earn each month and have nothing left. That means all their money is subject to 20% VAT, or 70% tax when they buy fuel etc... It makes up a far greater [b]proportion[/b] of their spending than it does for richer people.
I was surprised the NHS didn't colle3ct money from foreign patients not entitled to NHS treatment.
Argh, stuff like this drives me mad.
The rules, for years, have been that the NHS charges non-uk residents for non-A&E treatment. No, patients don't always pay, sometimes because they leave the country without paying*, sometimes because the hospitals don't know that they're non-resident. It could be a white, british born person who's spent most of their life living abroad. They 'look British', they sound British, they've given a UK address (maybe they're back here visiting relatives, so give their aunty Ethel's address), so how is a nurse supposed to know that they aren't a UK resident?
The NHS website says
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/uk-visitors/visiting-england/Pages/visitors-from-outside-the-eea.aspxIf you are visiting England from a non-EEA country, even if you are a former UK resident, you need to ensure you are covered for healthcare through personal medical or travel insurance for the duration of your visit. If you need NHS treatment and you have not arranged insurance, you will be charged at 150% of the standard NHS rate, unless an exemption category applies to either you or the treatment.
If you are a non-EEA national, failure to pay this charge may have an effect on any future immigration application you make, and you risk being turned down
The NHS [b]DOES[/b] charge foreign patients and has done for years, those patients pay significantly more than the hospital gets paid for treating a UK resident! IF a hospital has it's overseas patient detection and processing sorting then the non-UK patients are subsidising the care (under)paid for by the local commissioners for 'local people'.
If someone is here from the EU it's even better. There's a portal that the hospital goes on to to log the EHIC details of the patient and then they get paid for the treatment provided, nice and easy, no haggling with insurers or chasing people who've gone back to the other side of the world. Good job we've not done anything to jeopardise that...
*In those situations the Border Agency get involved and will stop people on the way in if they return and potentially refuse entry if they have outstanding NHS debts.
so how is a nurse supposed to know that they aren't a UK resident?
has a passport and or NI number?
[quote=bails ] so how is a nurse supposed to know that they aren't a UK resident?By checking their ID card (and don't think that's not on the way)
Is there a good reason why luxuries shouldn't have a whopping tax leveied. Might I suggest, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, take away food etc.
Already been done on alcohol and tobacco. With tobacco it's reached the point of diminishing returns. Higher taxes - more smuggling. Also more people give up smoking. Higher tax on beer - I'd go back to home brewing.
From the tax/benefit point of view it's best if people drink heavily, smoke like chimneys, then die at 60 before pensions kick in and health care costs ramp up.
Yep, tax should be increased - the 40% tax should be raised as anyone on 40% can afford 2% more.
bear in mind that in future, most people who qualify for the 40% tax rate will effectively be paying 49% as they also pay for their student loan for 30-ish years. (ie anyone who is currently about 23 or under)...
Has the time come for 2-5p increase in base rate income tax?
Nah, getting fed up with paying for others chuff ups and lack of moral fibre.
Tax property - massively.
Avoid taxing earned income, it disincentivises labour and wealth creation from actual work.
Maybe tax consumption - that way the wealthier will tend to pay more
Tax property - there are literally millions of people who're hundreds of thousands of pounds richer than they were three years ago, let alone ten or twenty years ago and ALL of it was unearned so they won't mind giving some of it back to pay for schools, hospitals etc*
Most of this 'wealth' has been created by forcing younger generations into crippling amounts of debt so taxing it is likely reduce the incentive for homeowners to do everything they can to inflate house prices which will free up post-tax income for broader economy. WIN WIN.
Land Value Tax is well discussed in the FT and Economist but so far, no sign of a response from the government sadly
* they probably will but that's more a sign of our new national character rather than any sense of care for anyone else...
3 anecdotes
land value tax is the missing bit from the planning system in 1946 (edit: we nationalised development rights but not the uplift in value), we are still paying for it. the last two labour governments (70,s and 00s) at the fag end of their terms have tried half heartedly to introduce something along those lines but its been quickly binned by the incoming conservatives
my anecdotal experience of the NHS is that its much worse than it was, say, 10 years ago. As are most other public services.
heard yesterday that after the autumn statement we now have the highest tax burden for 30 years which surprised me. Means all this talk of tax raising is coming from an already high base relative to recent times.
heard yesterday that after the autumn statement we now have the highest tax burden for 30 years which surprised me
No surprise. Income tax, national insurance, VAT, fuel tax, alcohol duty, council tax, insurance tax, stamp duty, flight tax, vehicle excise duty, etc ......
No need - Brexit will make us all richer. Oh wait...
No - crazy idea
Under the nasties the UK tax take is already rising and will be the highest it's been since the 80s
Increaseing the MRT does not guarantee more tax revenue - we are at/close to the optimium peak. Only those looking to make cheap political stunts would increase it.
We should be reducing the tax burden not increasing it.
If your a lifestyle problem, smoke, obese, then you should pay.
Where do you stop that logic, though? My cycling makes me fit and 'healthy' but it's also been the cause of my only demands on the NHS, with injuries which have often required surgery. What about rugby players, equestrians? Who gets to decide on who's lifestyle choices deserve to be charged or excluded from free treatment?
Totally agree, it should be universal.
Almost all sports carry injury risk, charge them for being reckless?
Or charge them when they don't exercise and get fat and have obesity related health costs?
Complete nonsense.
If your a lifestyle problem, smoke, obese, then you should pay.
We've done this before... lots of unhealthy stuffed is already taxed to take this into account, like alcohol and cigarettes.
It's all got that horrible smell of PR stunts and being played TBH.
No. Increasing the basic rate of income tax would be counter-productive given the efforts to increase the tax free allowance to try and bring people out of poverty and into work. The yield would be puny compared to looking at other tax options or increased fiscal efficiency in government. Increasing the higher rates of tax would possibly increase the enthusiasm for avoidance and reduce national productivity as folks try to reduce the amount of income at the higher rate.
Having said this, I'd rather see the basic rate of income tax increase if that meant a removal of the evil, regressive VAT.
This [url= https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf ]IFS report[/url] might provide some more substance to the discussion.
