NHS

What are your qualifications to be more expert than him?

That's the wrong question.
"What are the qualifications of the experts who criticise him" is the question to ask.

You can validate them here

www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/faculty-research/tax

and here

www.ifs.org.uk/

If I criticise some dodgy theory about the world being made of orange jelly and Stephen Hawking thinks the guy who calls himself a 'science expert' is worthy of criticism too, my physics exam results are not really that relevant to the debate, are they?

My post asking for an answer was not in response to me having to wait. It was in response to you making 3 previous posts that didn't answer the questions I've asked. You were avoiding answering my questions, which is disrespectful. You make assumptions without looking for a rather obvious explanation that isn't confrontational.

Any chance of some answers now, as I've had the courtesy to answer your questions?

Your links have no criticism of Richard Murphy. No results, even, when the name searched on the first one.

You still haven't said what makes you qualified to say what you do about Richard Murphy. That was the question I asked, not the question you wanted me to ask.
You ask as many questions as you like. I will just say I believe the experts, particularly Richard Murphy, however much you nag.

They're not provided to show the criticism. This conversation is like pulling teeth. You didn't ask about the actual criticism, that doesn't interest you. You asked about qualifications.

All this because you can't answer simple questions.
I'm not nagging, I'm challenging the opinions you've posted.
If tax is not used to fund the NHS, why do you want to raise tax to pay for the NHS?

At least let's get it back onto topic a bit. We're talking about the NHS here and the ideas on this thread, not the people.

Instead of visiting only Tory constituencies I believe that Mrs May should go out in to the big wide world, beyond the Home Counties and see what is happening there in NHS hospitals. If she stays in wealthy areas most of the people living there will have private health care, so it follows that their hospitals will be in better shape than they are down south. She is living in a bubble and thinks everything is hunky dory which it certainly is not. People are laying on trollies down corridors for hours on end. Nurses and doctors are reaching the end of their tether and giving up. For God's sake woman wake up. Or is it a deliberate move to put pressure on the NHS so that it can be claimed as 'not up to purpose' and privatised? I think so. Yes, there is a need for better management of resources but if you do not have the resources in the first place how can you manage them better?

Just want to add that the NHS is NOT free! We all pay NI don't we? Where has the money gone? Is it being used for other things that take priority for the Tory Party? Maybe we should make hospitals accountable for what is being spent? I have heard about cases of NHS nurses going sick for a couple of days so that they can work as Agency nurses and so make up their pay to a liveable standard. Can you blame them?

Why are we short of doctors and nurses? Ask Mrs May about tuition fees and universities filling up with overseas students. Ask her about the tax she has allowed her Chancellor to slap on the student loan debt. Ask her about university staff fees especially for those at the top of the ladder.

Yorkshiregel - all of the money paid for NI just about covers the cost of the NHS. That's personal and employers contributions too. You're quite right that it's not free - the NHS spend this financial year is £126,000,000,000.
One problem is that we think NI pays for the NHS, for our pensions and benefits, but it doesn't.

Only free at the point of delivery YorkshireG if you are a NI payer.
Don’t imagine that ‘most of the people will have private healthcare’ in the Home Counties.....far from it!

Primrose it’s fruitless asking durhamjen anything ( about Richard Murphy) I know because I tried a few times ages ago.He is considered a godlike figure, a guru, and anything he pronounces must be so!

Sorry, primrose. I have been teaching my grandson all day, so not been online.
That question is simple to answer.
I do not want to RAISE taxes to pay for the NHS.
IF all those people who are avoiding/evading tax in tax havens actually paid their taxes as they should, then taxes would NOT need to be raised.

It's people who say that doesn't matter who want the poorest to pay more in tax for the NHS, not me.

Lemon, I never thought of you as being more of a tax expert than Richard Murphy. Have I been getting you wrong all this time?
At least Primrose has done/ is doing an MSC in business or economics or something similar, which is why she knows the questions to ask.

I've been reading A Christmas Carol, and looking at Malthusian economics for GCSE.
It's amazing how many times my grandson said it sounded just like today.
How many times have you heard people say that if you give poor people more money it will just make them lazy?
Poor people shouldn't have lots of children as they can't feed them.
Poverty is inevitable.
Poor laws are too charitable; we need to reduce the financial help that is available to the poor.
We haven't got the workhouses back yet, but I am sure that will just be a matter of time with this government.

So how can all these people pay more tax to the NHS?

If I thought it would go straight to the people who needed the money I would have not objection to paying more tax. The problem is it will not. It will probably be spent on some project the Government wants to make their mark with...Academies for one example. Or even sent in payments for 'overseas aid'. What about the poor people in this country are they less worthy?

That question is simple to answer. I do not want to RAISE taxes to pay for the NHS.

How about an extra property tax on houses over £5 million?
Another very easy way to put more money into the NHS is to stop the cap on NI. All working people should pay NI at the same rate no matter how much they earn. Why should someone who earns over £866 a week only pay 2% on that?

Sorry Jen, but you've gone full Richard Murphy here! You absolutely did say raise taxes.

Yorkshiregel - I agree with you there, I don't have a problem paying for a decent NHS service and if it costs more, then fair enough. That's one reason why I'd like the money kept totally separate from other taxes. I don't want it spent on a new pet project.

If necessary, primrose.
Those are just alternatives to getting back the tax owed by rich people who have committed tax fraud.

What's wrong with wanting to tax the rich to pay for the NHS?

What have you got against Richard Murphy?
You have not told me anyone who thinks like you about him.

How about 'poor people' or 'not really rich and not really poor' people who've committed tax fraud?
Tax fraud is totally different to tax evasion, which is different to tax avoidance.
I certainly don't advocate anyone doing anything illegal and think everyone should pay the taxes that they owe.

Tax avoidance is never an easy subject. I do understand that there are ways to use the current laws to your advantage. That's a problem with the law, in my opinion.
If there was a law that said everything in the supermarket was free on Tuesdays, would you change the law or moan about people who took things for free on a Tuesday and call them a thief? Personally, I'd change the law, not blame people for taking advantage of it.

You do seem to think 'the rich' are the answer to any problem with government spending but I really have no idea what you mean by 'rich'. Someone who earns above a certain amount? Someone who has a certain level of assets? It's easier for me to chat about sensibly it if I understand what you mean.

Give up, primrose.
You should know by now what I think about the NHS, and what I think about tax fraud.
You obviously don't think the same as me. So what!

durhamjen it’s about time you let your DGS know that nothing today in the UK is just like Dickens.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-ambulance-waiting-times-marion-nash-broken-back-lancashire-a8251451.html

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-dup-alliance-under-fire-as-theresa-may-protects-northern-ireland-from-free-school-meal-cuts-set-to-hit-england-universal-credit-angela-rayner-vote_uk_5aa3f347e4b086698a9e1f30?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Taking meals away from poor children.

As far as I can see with Primrose's assertion that the government putting more money into the NHS will lead to inflation she is missing the fact that the money put in is spent and will be taxed back by the government. Wages are taxed, businesses supplying the NHS are taxed (and the wages of their employees, paid for by producing goods/services for the NHS are taxed), any purchases made by the wage earner will be taxed by way of taxation of profit of the company that supplies the goods purchased. The only way that the money the government initially invests isn't taxed is if it is saved. So, ultimately the money returns to the government through taxation.

The question I don't think that Primrose has ever answered for me is why £345billion of quantitative easing since 2008 has not been inflationary? Same principle; government 'creating' money.

Also note that current increase in inflation is caused by devaluation of pound and resultant increase in the price of imports. Nothing to do with too much money in the economy.

As far as I can see with Primrose's assertion that the government putting more money into the NHS will lead to inflation

It depends where the money from that's the issue.

The QE/inflation is answered by lots of people much better at explaining this than me. It was done to stop a huge deflation.

It is the same principle, you're quite right, except that printing the money for the NHS would 3.5 times bigger than QE and it's against a different financial backdrop and for a different reason. Investopedia has a good explanation.

The tax would claw back less than 20% in your 'print billions for the NHS' model. That's still £100billion every year.

There's a good reason why no other government in the developed world just prints money to provide services for citizens. I'm hardly radical or unique in my opinion.

The tax would claw back less than 20% in your 'print billions for the NHS' model.

I don't see how you reach that conclusion as every spending transaction carried out with the injected money will attract taxation in some form or another. The only time that it won't yield a return in tax is if it removed from the economy by being 'saved'. And 'saved' in a mattress under the bed at that, because most savings attract interest or dividends which are taxed.

And, your 'model' seems to be based on a constant outflow of money to the NHS with no return. Which is illogical; there is a 'return' in the tax take which is then reinvested in the NHS. The tax take is also higher because there is more money around to be taxed.

Try tracing the progress of £100 through the economy. As tax removes part of it every time it's used for a transaction the amount available for 'use' becomes smaller and smaller until it is eventually all, or nearly all (let's not forget savings) returned to the government as tax.

Although MMT has differences from it a good deal of it is classic Keynes. To call it a 'theory' is also a misnomer. It is a description of how money 'works'. And, of course, Richard Murphy is not its only exponent, he's just easy to read on the topic. There a plenty of reputable economists who support it.

It's also worth remembering that economics is not a science, it has a strong sociological element to it. How people behave with money has to be factored into economists' theory.

P.S QE did cause inflation; it caused inflation in the investment markets; which, of course, have very little connection with the 'real', day to day economy.

durhamjen, one of many horror stories in the press just lately, there are many more. However, you cannot blame the ambulance drivers either. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they are 'shared' across counties, and that means if a person has to be taken to X for specialist treatment he could find himself driving hundreds of miles. When he gets there he offloads his patient....if he can. He may have to wait in a queue! Also, while he is in this county and any emergencies occur then he has to take his ambulance to the new patient. He could be away from his station ALL DAY! The system is broken. The NHS is forced to share their ambulances and staff and there just are not enough of them. Mrs May needs to admit the fact that she will not deal with the NHS shortages because it is a hot potato and a vote loser. The whole system is at breaking point and this Government is in denial. No wonder staff are leaving in droves, they have had enough. What with having to cope with huge increases in patients, due to immigration as well but she is not admitting that either, cuts in their pay and increases in their working hours can you blame them? All they get is complaints no matter how hard or how long they work and they are exhausted.

Of course all of this might be deliberate so that the Government can PRIVATISE the NHS and hand it over to BIG BUSINESSES who will carry on dodging the tax man wherever they can. The Government DO NOT want the responsibility (not on my watch) of a failed NHS and they will not deal with the problem themselves, better to slope shoulders and pass the problem on to someone else.

I think you have not worked it through Maizie. I did a quick calculation and made it just under 20% clawed back as tax. What figure did you come up with? We can compare the maths.

I have read about MMT and Thaler, Kahneman on the behavioural economics side.

If you read what I posted, I said there are plenty of explanations about QE and inflation. That's not me saying if didn't cause inflation. It didn't cause an increase in M2, which is a bit of a boring topic and nothing to do with the NHS.

Exactly, Yorkshiregel, and just how Hunt wants it.
Where's the £350 million a week it was promised?
Surely they could use QE to get it out of the fix it was in if the will was there.

Richard Murphy is one of those experts whose name Primrose dare not state.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/06/john-redwood-admits-it-there-never-was-a-reason-for-austerity/