Southerners and Northerners are paying higher taxes, but only the Southerners are benefiting.

Surely everyone is kept in the same way unless they’re very rich and can afford a very superior home which doesn’t accept people paid for by the state, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t do that if they can afford it. Same as private medical treatment, which helps the NHS waiting lists.

I disagree. The issue is available staff, the number of which won't increase even if people fund themselves.

PS. Private healthcare doesn't cut NHS waiting lists.

See the post above about the poster’s self funding relative and the man who had seemingly spent his life on benefits in a council house. No difference in their treatment.

Milest0ne

When is the country going to realise that the prime ministers
EATONOMICS only works for those blinkered individuals who attended Eaton.

That was a decent joke. Spoilt a bit because the word is Eton. Not Eaton.

I really do not think it is a North/South divide issue it is a rich/poor divide.

If you can afford to pay you should pay, if you cannot the state should be there offering a safety net.

I liken it to the weekly food shop, the percentage of income spent by someone on a low income will be much more than the percentage of a high income earner. Both have to eat.

Quite true GG13. They both get to eat (essential) but the rich do get to play with more toys. The poor do not own say, a boat, an SUV or a horse. They do however have recourse to ‘shank’s pony’.

Urmstongran

Quite true GG13. They both get to eat (essential) but the rich do get to play with more toys. The poor do not own say, a boat, an SUV or a horse. They do however have recourse to ‘shank’s pony’.

Unfortunately Urmstongran that’s life.

There is no such thing as everyone earning equally. Which is where the State comes in to help those who need it.

Rising wages should help the lowest paid.

Remember the squeezed middle who do not earn enough to invest off shore but still get hit by higher rate tax (this includes train drivers, some teachers and many others)

I really do not think it is a North/South divide issue it is a rich/poor divide.

This so true GrannyGravy - we have a lot of poor people in London.

Who do you think cleans the gleaming offices, works in shops & West End restaurants, cares for the vulnerable and other minimum-wage jobs, and pays very high accommodation costs.

Plenty of comfortably-off in the North.

Divide and Rule.

As the CBI chap yesterday.

Rising wages, rising tax and rising costs all incomparable.

Not going to happen.

Incompatible

Whitewavemark2

As the CBI chap yesterday.

Rising wages, rising tax and rising costs all incomparable.

Not going to happen.

Are you suggesting that the lower paid do not have their wages increased?

It was not that long ago that folks on GN were advocating for higher taxes, sighting high tax Scandinavian countries.

Some increases will no doubt be passed on to the end user, not all.

I think you’ve over-personalised this growstuff. I’m sure nobody thinks that there aren’t poor people in rich areas and vice versa. But, as a generalisation, rather than as an individual circumstances issue it does hold - proportionately home owners in the north will lose out more than their counterparts in the south.

The difference between north and south is, with regard to this thread, the average cost of housing. But as has been said there are rich and poor everywhere. I live in a beautiful area which attracts holidaymakers, second home owners and retired people like me but there is also dreadful poverty and considerable reliance on food banks. And no public transport. I really don’t see how the vast gulf between the haves and the have nots can be bridged. It was I fear ever thus but at least those with little or nothing are guaranteed state funding if they go into care, and the same standard of care as those who can pay for it.

I cant help but think that those who can afford it will pay for their own care will stay well away from means tested care. It strikes me that those who live in the north but get a similar salary to those in the south - ie police, teachers, local authority employees etc must be a lot better off with the lower house prices as salaries do not reduce the further north you go.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

As the CBI chap yesterday.

Rising wages, rising tax and rising costs all incomparable.

Not going to happen.

Are you suggesting that the lower paid do not have their wages increased?

It was not that long ago that folks on GN were advocating for higher taxes, sighting high tax Scandinavian countries.

Some increases will no doubt be passed on to the end user, not all.

I’m not suggesting anything it was the CBI chairman.

It was not that long ago that folks on GN were advocating for higher taxes, sighting high tax Scandinavian countries.

You clearly have good memory, GG13. I haven't; I don't remember this. Can you perhaps point us at a particular discussion thread to jog elderly memories?

Yes, I was!
And another Gransnetter but I can't remember who it was now (elderly memory).

Was this to be ringfenced for the NHS? Not as high as Scandinavian countries but higher than we pay here.
Don't ask me which thread please! It could be more than one.

In all of these discussions I say the same thing, so sorry if you've heard this before, but IMO nobody should be paying for care, as we should all pay more tax. Every adult should pay, and get back when they need it. Those who choose not to pay should still be provided for, but only if they need it, and then they should be means-tested on their household income, or whatever it was that paid for them not to have to work (a trust fund or other financial provision).

I am not talking about those who don't work because they are caring for a disabled child, or a sick partner, or those who are themselves ill, disabled or otherwise unable to work; but those who choose not to do so, either because they have a partner who 'supports' them (so one partner pays one lot of tax for two adults and their children), or because they are rich enough not to need a salary to get by. Anyone unable to work should be credited for as long as necessary, but those who benefit from an education, a health service and all the other things paid for by tax and NI, but opt not to contribute should, IMO, have also opted out of the benefits, such as a pension and social care, unless the source of their support is no longer available.

Under that system, it wouldn't matter whether someone has a house or not, whether it is more or less valuable or how much they have saved. Everyone would get the care they need, and a decent pension in older age.

But it’s also the inequity of those who need social care vs those who need care that is deemed medical, the latter would get their care paid for. It’s a mess which BJ claimed he had an oven ready plan isn’t it?

MaizieD

^It was not that long ago that folks on GN were advocating for higher taxes, sighting high tax Scandinavian countries.^

You clearly have good memory, GG13. I haven't; I don't remember this. Can you perhaps point us at a particular discussion thread to jog elderly memories?

Not one thread in particular MaizieD just posters sighting high tax Countries having better social care on threads pertaining to tax/social care/NHS. As in our taxes pay for it

(I have you to thank for my knowledge regarding Country economics versus household, I cannot understand why journalists both print, tv and radio hardly ever highlight this)

Also better economic education in schools.

The horrible division is between those who have the right sort of illness and those who have the wrong sort. And between the sort who always rented and spent every penny on going to the grand prix, a trip to Aussie etc - and now have no resources so everything is paid - and the rest of us.

We live in the South and really had to struggle to save a deposit to buy our first home, working two jobs (9-5 and 6pm- 10pm) never going out, just to afford a one bed room flat. If we had lived in the North, we could have afforded to buy a detached house for what we had to pay for a small flat. There wasn't the big outcry then about the differences in affordability. The cost of living in the South is far greater.

I won’t be voting Tory again either. BUT Labour need a strong leader in order to succeed the last few leaders haven’t been good. I suggest everyone write to their local MP, as I have done, and mine is labour, to complain about the scaling down of the North for the last TEN years. At least they will learn how individuals in the North feel, or maybe you can’t be bothered?

Calistemon

Yes, I was!
And another Gransnetter but I can't remember who it was now (elderly memory).

Was this to be ringfenced for the NHS? Not as high as Scandinavian countries but higher than we pay here.
Don't ask me which thread please! It could be more than one.

Thanks, Calistemon.

I think I would have argued against it. In fact, I recall a thread where I did because of this, from GG13's post:

^(I have you to thank for my knowledge regarding Country economics versus household, I cannot understand why journalists both print, tv and radio hardly ever highlight this)*

Thanks for that, too, GG13.

I couldn't subscribe to the view that taxation doesn't fund spending and at the same time call for higher taxation to fund the NHS!

OTOH, I would call for higher taxation of those who try to gain as much of the the nation's money as they can for themselves, and then don't recirculate their 'wealth' by spending it into the 'real' economy, but squirrel it away into tax havens where it lies unused. So I'm talking about the super rich, not people like GG13, relatively 'small' business owners who pay their taxes and spend their profits into the economy. In other words, who contribute to the circulation of money which keeps people in jobs and keeps the economy moving. They add value. Money in tax havens adds nothing.