What would you like to see in the budget.

ronib

Daisy Anne
Essential services from taxes are:
Defence
Education until 18
Nhs although with revised parameters
Transport
Housing

Non essential
Bureaucractic costs including allowances given to mps and members of the House of Lords. Halve pensions to former prime ministers. Public service to serve the public. Rethink refurbishment of palaces and the Palace of Westminster out of taxes.

Reduce foreign aid. Our more affluent allies could step in to bridge the gap?

Stop spending on vanity projects

Other measures
Two or five year work visas for skilled and required workers
Try to find new trading partners
Ensure London as a financial centre

Thank you for sharing ronib.

Insulin in the US.

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/01/insulin-diabetes-drugs-rationing

MaizieD

What do you know about the cost of insulin, growstuff?. Because there's been some publicity (twitter?) about it recently; it is apparently extremely cheap to manufacture but in the US it's charged at a massively higher price. I just wondered what it's like here.

And thanks for finding that link for me. I was being too idle to look it up myself...

I pay (in France) about 90 euros for two small flacons of caninsulin for my dog. They last about 3 weeks. The vet told me that it would be cheaper for me to buy human insulin but that I would have to get it from the pharmacy. A box of needles on top of that although he doesn't charge me for the actual consultation whenever she has a blood test.

What do you know about the cost of insulin, growstuff?. Because there's been some publicity (twitter?) about it recently; it is apparently extremely cheap to manufacture but in the US it's charged at a massively higher price. I just wondered what it's like here.

And thanks for finding that link for me. I was being too idle to look it up myself...

Maizie

Hope this explains who is responsible for procurement:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/nhs-procurement#:~:text=DHSC%20is%20responsible%20for%20setting,ultimately%20accountable%20for%20NHS%20procurement.

It depends what people mean by procurement. The NHS doesn't just buy in drugs and equipment, but healthcare itself, so individual commissioning groups (now ICSs) are responsible for commissioning healthcare from GPs, trusts and some other providers.

I had a conversation with a pharmacist about the high price of drugs, specifically aspirin. We all know that aspirin costs pence if bought from a supermarket, but appear on the NHS price list as costing over a pound.

Apparently, the NHS pays pence for aspirin too, but the bean counters include the cost of getting aspirin from prescription to patient, when they include it on the price list. The admin costs of prescribing are divided between all the drugs the NHS provides and appear high for aspirin because the drug itself is cheap.

Many people (like me) are prescribed aspirin, but apparently it wouldn't save very much if I bought my own because I already have a number of items on repeat prescription. If nearly everybody were to buy their own aspirin, all that would happen is that the costs of providing prescriptions would be divided amongst all the other prescription items. Hope that makes sense.

PS. The NHS does negotiate prices with drug companies, especially the high cost non-generic drugs. It was one of Trump's complaints that Pfizer sold its drugs more cheaply to the NHS than it does to American consumers.

Who is actually responsible for NHS procurement?

When I worked in the NHS 100 years ago 'procurement' was a complete hotch potch. Some was done by the Area team, some done at individual hospital level and I have no idea about some areas, such as drugs. Mind you, this was in the early days of the abolition of individual hospital boards, so it was bound to be a bit chaotic.

But when I look at the covid procurement it all seemed to be done at national level (crony contracts and all). That can't apply across the board, can it?

Good post, MaizieD.
So nice to see a genuine exchange of views on GN and no bickering!
Just wanted to say my earlier comment about the NHS was not meant to knock the medical staff who, I am sure, do a brilliant job and work long hours. Neither did I mean to suggest a further major re-organisation is required. However, I do think procurement should be looked at. A knowledgeable friend (ex NHS) told me recently that the NHS pays top whack for anything it purchases as it is well known that they will not quibble over price. They are powerful purchasers and really should quibble over price, in everything.

ronib

It’s the concept of debt being carried forward into the future which started with the aftermath of the Napoleonic war and obviously not the amount of debt incurred 400 years ago … of course that particular debt has gone. It’s only fairly recently that the debt from the 2nd World War has been repaid. Clearly the costs of the pandemic will be paid for in the years to come.

The 'cost' of the pandemic was raised by Quantitative Easing. That is when the Bank of England buys bonds, usually bonds newly issued by the Treasury, with money it has created and the money the Treasury receives is either spent by the government, or, in the case of the 2008 QE, is used to enlarge the commercial banks' reserve accounts, the accounts through which all interbank transactions are conducted. The reserves are very big now because the government promised to guarantee all bank deposits (i.e. customers' bank accounts) up to a maximum of £85,000 in the case of bank failure.

As the QE money was 'created' by the BoE it isn't owed to anyone. Technically the Treasury owes it to the BoE but as the BoE is owned by the state and the state can't owe itself money, it isn't going to be paid back at any time.

Some £900billion of QE has been created since 2008. It is counted in the government's borrowing figures, which makes the 'debt' look excessive, but it is a fictional loan, nothing to worry about. The rest of the government's 'debt' is money from the sale of bonds and National Savings accounts. These are savings and investments (notably investment by pension funds. People have been buying government bonds to provide an investment income for centuries.

They don't usually want their money back unless they are short of money, or, like the pension funds after the Truss/Kwarteng budget, which needed money to cover their financial commitments because the fall in sterling had caused some of their other, more risky investments to fall in value.

If the £900billion were to be taken off the 'debt' figure, the 'black hole' wouldn't look nearly as black...

As Dinahmo said, government debt didn't start with the Napoleopnic Wars, it had been in existence before that because that's how the country financed its wars...And we've had a good many wars to finance over the centuries...

Interestingly, in WW1, the government war bonds weren't selling very well so the BoE instructed one of their staff to buy a large quantity and put the money into his account for him to buy them with! An early instance of QE, I think.

ronib

It’s the concept of debt being carried forward into the future which started with the aftermath of the Napoleonic war and obviously not the amount of debt incurred 400 years ago … of course that particular debt has gone. It’s only fairly recently that the debt from the 2nd World War has been repaid. Clearly the costs of the pandemic will be paid for in the years to come.

The debt has built up and been repaid ever since it's existence. It enabled John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough to be paid sufficiently to aid the building of Blenheim Palace.

Maizie

Please don't give up because each time you post I'm sure that you get through to another person.

I don't understand why people don't check their "facts" on the internet. It's easy enough to find supporting documents from reliable sources but then maybe they don't want to be contradicted.

It’s the concept of debt being carried forward into the future which started with the aftermath of the Napoleonic war and obviously not the amount of debt incurred 400 years ago … of course that particular debt has gone. It’s only fairly recently that the debt from the 2nd World War has been repaid. Clearly the costs of the pandemic will be paid for in the years to come.

ronib

According to the website Immigrant invest, the UK is definitely not the 6th
wealthiest country in the world. In fact it doesn’t get a mention. GDP per head of population is the yardstick.

Have a look at this:

www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/list-of-richest-countries-in-the-world-1637214709-1

You can find these figures quoted elsewhere.

Doodledog

PS Yes, a lot of benefits claimants are in work, and you are right that that is often forgotten; but most of those who both work and claim are likely to be paying income tax, surely?

Yes, if their combined income is above the personal allowance

According to the website Immigrant invest, the UK is definitely not the 6th
wealthiest country in the world. In fact it doesn’t get a mention. GDP per head of population is the yardstick.

ronib

Unfortunately I was made to take a first year undergraduate module in economics back in 1971. I begged to switch to English which was allowed. To me economic theory then seemed based on fictitious economic models which failed to engage me.

On reflection, I don’t understand why my children and grandchildren are being made to pay for a debt which has been around since the Napoleonic war and which continues to grow. As an aside, I think Putin is deliberately putting pressure on weakened Western economies to undermine them through the war in Ukraine.

That's a fallacy. The debt following the Napoleonic wars was repaid. The next major debt was for the first world war - repaid and the subsequent one was for WW2 - since repaid.

Doodledog

"There are things that I don't understand, such as why all parties collude in presenting budgets using the household model if it is a lie. I can understand one lot using it as an analogy (erroneously or otherwise) as it is easy for people to grasp, but why don't the other side just rubbish it and explain the reality equally simple terms if there is such a thing as reality? "

Brought in by Thatcher, the idea of running a country's economy is like running a household is nonsense. Thousands of people have a mortgage with which they purchased an asset. Over the years they pay interest on their loan and gradually repay the capital until they own the house lock, stock and barrel.

Countries have to provide infrastructure, schools, hospitals, defence, police etc etc. As individuals we contribute towards those things but we are not required to make decisions about how and when.

GrannyGravy13

I didn’t study economics at school might be time to hit the library…

If everyone hid their savings under the mattress the UK would be in a far worse state - no money available for investment for starters.

ronib

Farzanah

Thinking that we should reduce foreign aid shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why we pay foreign aid. There is an argument that more wealthy countries, such as ours, should pay more in foreign aid to reduce the need for refugees to flee their own country seeking a better/safer life here.

We are not wealthy

The UK is or was the 6th? richest country in the world.

swampy1961

Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.
Set the pension age to 65 and free up more jobs for those who are unemployed.
Stop Foreign Aid until we can actually afford it - can't see the point in giving our money away when we are facing austerity measures.

Some benefits are taxable, the largest expenditure being on the state pension which is taxable, depending upon the level of one's other income. Also Bereavement allowance, widowed parent's allowance, JSA, carers allowance, ESA and incapacity benefit.

As with the State pension, taxation depends upon the level of other income.

The state retirement age is increasing because we are living longer.

Many people over the age of 65 continue to work, maybe because the state pension is insufficient and maybe because they want to work.

At the moment the UK is in need of workers - the unemployment rate at 33.5% is the lowest since 1974.

Not everyone who is unemployed is in receipt of benefits. The 16-24 age group is large but they many of them are in education or chosing not to work. Increasing numbers of older people are also chosing not to work.

For those who want to see the NHS restructured. It is of course the Tories have have done the most tinkering since thwy have been in power for longer than the LP since the inception of the NHS.

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/health-and-social-care-explained/nhs-reform-timeline

PS Yes, a lot of benefits claimants are in work, and you are right that that is often forgotten; but most of those who both work and claim are likely to be paying income tax, surely?

What I said, in response to a comment from growstuff about benefit claimants paying tax was:
I can't see how giving money (however it's done) and then counting tax on spending as contributions makes sense.

I have looked for any ambiguity in that, and am struggling. If there is a collective 'pot' (which I know you dispute) then benefits claimants, along with others who don't pay tax, are not contributing to that, and spending/recirculating the money they have is not the same as paying money in. That says nothing about whether I see claimants as 'scroungers' (I don't), or that I am 'rather encouraging' others to do or think anything. I see what I said as a statement of fact, or at least as a statement of how I see the economy working, and I did acknowledge that I could be wrong in that.

I understand that it must be frustrating to keep making a point and finding that others don't engage; but that comes back to what I was saying. There is an underlying current in your posts that anyone who doesn't agree must either not understand what you are saying or have rather unpleasant political views. I do understand what you are saying. It is just that I remain to be convinced that your perspective is the only one, or that it is necessarily right. If I gain a better understanding of the subject in the round (which I would prefer to do by seeing all perspectives discussed) then I will be in a better position to decide what I think, which is what I am trying to get across. Who knows, I may end up being in complete agreement .

growstuff

swampy1961

MaizieD

Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.

What, exactly, would be the point of taxing benefits, swampy1961?

Daft I know!
But if even those on benefits paid a degree of tax then they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.
If your benefits exceed the tax allowance for a single person or whatever then why shouldn't you pay tax? Everyone else does!!
The original question asks what would we like to see in the budget - I would also like all kids of school age to have free meals at school regardless of age or circumstances but we can dream on but it won't happen!!

But but but people receiving benefits do pay tax!!

Sorry, but your argument falls at the first hurdle.

I'm pretty sure that swampy1961 thinks that there's only one tax and that's income tax.

^ they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.^

Also doesn't seem to realise that some people who receive benefits are actually in work. Or that it's possible that they may have been employed at a time before they had to claim benefits.

swampy1961

MaizieD

Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.

What, exactly, would be the point of taxing benefits, swampy1961?

Daft I know!
But if even those on benefits paid a degree of tax then they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.
If your benefits exceed the tax allowance for a single person or whatever then why shouldn't you pay tax? Everyone else does!!
The original question asks what would we like to see in the budget - I would also like all kids of school age to have free meals at school regardless of age or circumstances but we can dream on but it won't happen!!

But but but people receiving benefits do pay tax!!

Sorry, but your argument falls at the first hurdle.

Found one on Youtube. May have a look, although I am up to the eyes with other study commitments at present.