Government mishandling of money

newnanny

The Tax Payers Alliance found the NHS employs 800 diversity and inclusion officers costing £40 million pounds each year. More money wasted on translating leaflets into many languages. Tax payers money should be spent on medical help for patients. Far too many managers get too high salaries rather than employing enough nurses. The NHS needs massive reform because ATM it's a massive money pit no one will tackle. Patients should buy their own food. There is no need for the NHS to provide food. Their food is awful anyway.

Agree with the majority of this - but gobsmacked at the thought of "patients should buy their own food". That is so obvious that of course they can't - if only because many haven't got family or the like nearby - or even family anywhere at all. Followed by - if they have got family nearby in the first place - it may well be that part of the reason for their illness is what they've been eating.

I could see a lot of patients having to phone to order a takeaway - and not getting given any help whatsoever in doing that and/or their not being any suitable takeaways nearby anyway. I'm not someone who gets takeaways more than once in a blue moon personally - but on my first night in the town I'm in after moving here and I thought I'd better phone for a takeaway = there was only a very limited choice and all looked awful and I picked the "least worst" as I was desperate - and then had to throw half of it away for being so awful. So - even if we could get past the obstacles and afford the food = a lot of places just don't have decent takeaways anyway. Now racking my brain to think of any places at all that do takeaway breakfasts and drinks for coffeebreak time and would deliver - errrrrm....this could take a while.....as they don't exist at all.

Their food is awful - but the answer to that is = it needs to get better/a lot better.

There IS no answer other than "Of course hospitals keep providing food - they've just got to improve it (a LOT)".

tanith

Successive governments ‘mishandle money’ depending on an individuals perspective in my opinion you can’t please all the people all the time and I know that’s a simplistic view but we can debate till the cows come home and not find an acceptable answer to all.

I'd say that much is true. Having been gobsmacked at how some people think on other matters - and feeling like going "How can't they see? Why won't they see? Very very puzzled...."

Elsi

Sarnia

It makes my blood boil to read that £15b has been spent on housing migrants. What other country puts them up in comfy hotels with free this, that and the other? No wonder so many of them beat a path to our door, forever open to all and sundry.

So what is the solution to this ?

Farage!

And I am only half kidding. At this point.

The Taxpayers Alliance wants the NHS abolished, newnanny. They're not the slightest bit interested in any 'taxpayers' apart from the very wealthy ones who fund them and who would dearly like to make lots of money through privatisation of the NHS.

Of course they are highly critical.

Thanks, Allira 😊

The Tax Payers Alliance found the NHS employs 800 diversity and inclusion officers costing £40 million pounds each year. More money wasted on translating leaflets into many languages. Tax payers money should be spent on medical help for patients. Far too many managers get too high salaries rather than employing enough nurses. The NHS needs massive reform because ATM it's a massive money pit no one will tackle. Patients should buy their own food. There is no need for the NHS to provide food. Their food is awful anyway.

I do get my NHS appointments by email, through the DrDoctor system. The one I've been attending recently seem to send their own appointments and confirmations out. Sometimes I get the reminder before the appointment itself, usually because it is a late booking I think, less than a week before the date.
At my husband's last hospital he used to get physical letters cancelling appointments that he had never received, so we got into the habit of always 'phoning to check exactly what was going on. That hospital used a contracted out service and it wasn't unusual to get an appointment letter after the due date. There must be so many missed appointments when the systems don't work properly.

Ir's great to know that someone else 'gets it'. It makes me feel less like a voice crying in the wilderness.

No you're not.
Perhaps many are trying to assimilate it but yes, I do understand that the economy is not like a household budget, and that cutting state spending curtails growth.

It's never too late to learn, David1949

There was something on Facebook today saying that NHS waiting times in Scotland had fallen, because of investment. Now, there is no point in asking me who, why etc, because, fessing up, most of the posts up thread are above my cranial capacity.
But one of you Money Masters, no I am not being cheeky, just in awe, might have a handle on this.

Sarnia

It makes my blood boil to read that £15b has been spent on housing migrants. What other country puts them up in comfy hotels with free this, that and the other? No wonder so many of them beat a path to our door, forever open to all and sundry.

So what is the solution to this ?

MaizieD

Thanks for those posts, Luckygirl13

Ir's great to know that someone else 'gets it'. It makes me feel less like a voice crying in the wilderness.

The essential difference between a household and a national economy is that a state can create its money, something which neither a household or a business can do.

Great post. ~puts it so clearly and understandably. Tho it doesn't mean we have to go full on JM Keynes. There can be degrees of borrowing to kick start our economy.

And thank you for the oh so obvious but needing saying post by Tanith

"Successive governments ‘mishandle money’ depending on an individuals perspective in my opinion you can’t please all the people all the time and I know that’s a simplistic view but we can debate till the cows come home and not find an acceptable answer to all".

Have the massive effects of years of austerity really been forgotten so very quickly and easily that the O\P can opine about the present government and forget all else

When the NHS was set up Aneurin Bevan thought expenditure on it would fall oveer the years because the population overall would be in better health because any health problem could be picked up and dealt with before it became chronic or fatal.

He hadn't factored in improvements in health technologyy and pharmacology.

From Maisies post “most NHS workers are on mid level wages”,

Why are you arguing this, David? It was AI's conclusion not mine.

I think that you're just using this to ignore the purpose of the AI findings, which was to establish that NHS spending has a multiplier of about 3.

AI finds that median (midpoint) earnings in the NHS are £55.5k and that mean (average) earnings are £41,15k.

Luckygirl3

I am not sure that anyone ever thought the NHS would not need tax revenue ...

I’m pretty sure that nobody imagined in their wildest dreams that it would become the behemoth it is today

I am not sure that anyone ever thought the NHS would not need tax revenue ...

DaisyAnneReturns

Have a look at "The influence of NHS spending on economic growth" David49

Do you really believe the NHS Confederation projection?, they are a lobby group wanting increased spending, of course the would say that.
The NHS spends £200 billion /yr they say that can be multiplied 4 times, if that was true we would not have a deficit at all. The reality is that they are using notional figures that predict the improvement due to increased spending will reduce cost in the future.

Currently the opposite is happening, increased obesity, diabetes and poor mental health, maybe the salvation of the NHS will be Mounjaro which is making a real difference for many.

From Maisies post “most NHS workers are on mid level wages”, not true most are service or support workers close to minimum wage, junior nurses and other professionals are not much better. Most low earners spend the bulk of their wages on housing, food, childcare and other non revenue earning spending.

Keynes promotes government spending with the aim of producing a product that can be sold and/ or generate tax revenue. The NHS was conceive that individual contributions would pay for treatment, that didn’t last long because demand was so great that general taxation was needed to pay the cost, now even that is struggling to keep up.

I do understand how hard all this is to grasp if you are not an economist. We think in terms of household budgets because that is what we are familiar with.

Logically we think that if billions are put into the NHS that money is dead and gone and lost to the national budget - but as all the above shows this is not the case.

I do wish some basic economics was taught in schools as a core subject - I would certainly have found that helpful.

Have a look at "The influence of NHS spending on economic growth" David49

David49

Do you not understand that all the money spent in the NHS has a multiplier effect of about 3 in economic activity?

OK, justify that not with flannel with actual figures

Well David, my short answer is that I can't because I'm not an economist or a mathematician. I repeat what economists say about the multiplier.

So I went to that useful tool, Chatgpc and asked how it was worked out.

Reply was this:

Let’s go step by step through how economists reach the conclusion that government spending on the NHS can have a multiplier of about 3.

🧩 1. Start from the theory: the Keynesian multiplier

The Keynesian spending multiplier measures how much total national income (GDP) changes when autonomous spending — such as government spending — changes.

The theoretical formula is:

𝑘
=
1
1
−
𝑀
𝑃
𝐶
(
1
−
𝑡
)
+
𝑀
𝑃
𝑀
k=
1−MPC(1−t)+MPM
1
​

where:

MPC = marginal propensity to consume

t = marginal tax rate

MPM = marginal propensity to import

The intuition:
Each time someone receives new income, they spend part of it (MPC) → that spending becomes someone else’s income → repeat.
But part of the income is lost each round through savings, taxes, and imports.

🧮 2. Use realistic values for NHS-type spending

Empirical research and UK data suggest the following rough values for lower- and middle-income earners (like many NHS workers):

ParameterTypical valueReason
MPC0.8–0.9NHS staff spend most of their disposable income
Tax rate (t)≈ 0.2Including income tax and NI
MPM0.05–0.1Most NHS-related spending is domestic (food, housing, services)

Plugging these into the formula:

𝑘
=
1
1
−
0.85
(
1
−
0.2
)
+
0.05
=
1
1
−
0.68
+
0.05
=
1
0.37
≈
2.7
k=
1−0.85(1−0.2)+0.05
1
​

=
1−0.68+0.05
1
​

=
0.37
1
​

≈2.7

That’s very close to 3.

So — in simple terms — each £1 of NHS spending could generate roughly £2.7–£3 in total GDP, depending on the leakages.

📚 3. Use empirical and policy evidence

Economists don’t rely only on theory — they look at real-world data and studies.

Some research findings:

IMF (2014, 2020): Fiscal multipliers are larger (2–3×) during recessions or when monetary policy is loose.

UK Treasury and OBR studies: Public sector wages, healthcare, and education spending tend to have higher multipliers than infrastructure or tax cuts.

OECD studies: Labour-intensive, domestically focused sectors (like health) retain most of the spending within the national economy.

This supports the empirical claim that health spending can have a multiplier in the region of 2.5–3.

🧠 4. Apply logical reasoning to the NHS case

Here’s the reasoning chain:

Government injects £1bn into NHS (no offsetting cuts).

NHS spends this almost entirely within the UK economy (high domestic content).

NHS employees are mainly middle and lower earners → high MPC.

Their spending circulates in local communities (shops, services, housing).

Little leaks out through imports or savings → the process continues through many rounds.

Cumulative GDP impact ≈ 3× the original injection.

⚖️ 5. Important assumptions

The economy has spare capacity (so output can rise rather than prices).

The spending is additional, not offset by tax rises or cuts elsewhere.

Interest rates don’t rise to “crowd out” private spending.

When these hold — as they often do during sluggish growth or high unemployment — multipliers are largest.

✅ Conclusion:
Economists reach the conclusion of a multiplier of about 3 for NHS spending by combining:

Theoretical multiplier formula (with realistic parameters),

Empirical studies showing high health-sector multipliers, and

Reasoned analysis of spending patterns and leakages.

Apologies to all that it's so long but the equations don't reproduce well.

Sarnia

It makes my blood boil to read that £15b has been spent on housing migrants. What other country puts them up in comfy hotels with free this, that and the other? No wonder so many of them beat a path to our door, forever open to all and sundry.

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Casdon

What you’re saying there David49 if I understand you correctly, is that treatments that are currently available should no longer be provided. Do you appreciate that by far the highest cost treatments tend to be for cancer patients and people with serious and unusual long term conditions, and people would die without them? If I’ve misinterpreted, can you clarify what you mean otherwise?

There are a lot of drugs that are not available on NHS, other services are that are free could be chargeable, yes, means tested, free to those on low income chargeable to higher income.

Do you not understand that all the money spent in the NHS has a multiplier effect of about 3 in economic activity?

OK, justify that not with flannel with actual figures

What is wrong with satisfying demand, David?

Do you not understand that all the money spent in the NHS has a multiplier effect of about 3 in economic activity?

And that the NHS purchasing supports all the private sector businesses which supply everything that the NHS needs, from high tech diagnostic machines to paperclips. This contributes to the magic growth that Reeves and Starmer keep banging on about.

Cutting state spending curtails growth.

What you’re saying there David49 if I understand you correctly, is that treatments that are currently available should no longer be provided. Do you appreciate that by far the highest cost treatments tend to be for cancer patients and people with serious and unusual long term conditions, and people would die without them? If I’ve misinterpreted, can you clarify what you mean otherwise?

“I agree that the NHS is shambolic in some ways, but it has been starved of funds for so long that it is inevitable because they can't afford to modernise or update systems. Breaking it into 'competitive. units hasn't helped, either.”

The NHS will NEVER meet demand, it can’t because demand is unlimited, there needs to be much more control of treatments available