Surely we must pay more taxes!?

The whole principle of the welfare state is based on equal benefits for all and taxation increasing with the amount of money you have

What you are preaching David is communism where everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of what they do. This did not work when it was tried in Russia and it will not work now.

As w saw in Russia and its satellites, it ends up with some people being equal to more than others, with no incentive for anyone to really work hard because there was nothing to make it worth their while.

I suggest you read 'Animal Farm by George Orwell, you have clearly not read it, or if you did, did not understand it.

Rich or poor all pay their taxes to the state and should have equal access. It is the government that set the rules for taxation, not the tax payers.

Equality comes from improving the conditions of those least advantaged in society, not from trying to make everyone else as poor as they are.

What you are preaching David is communism where everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of what they do.

I'm very puzzled as to understand how you came to that conclusion, MOnica. I'd say that David was anything but a communist... He certainly sometimes posts things socialist in tone, but never communist...

From David's post at 0.945

The key is “wholesale” it’s a fact that a disproportionate amount of wealth is held by a small proportion of the population, possibly only 10% have wealth over £1m, during their lifetime, that gets reduced to 4% when IHT becomes due, by the many legal avoidance devices that are available.

He is right, though I think his figures are a bit odd. I have been reading Thomas Pikety's seminal 2011 book 'Capital in the 21st Century' which is extensively and comprehensively researched on data going back to the 18th C. His conclusions are much the same as David's. When I have time I'll find some appropriate quotations.

growstuff

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

Speed of service, (say TKR) is what is needed, and sadly lacking.

People save for their choices.

Barleyfields

If someone has made the requisite NI contributions they are entitled to a state pension and we are all entitled to NHS care. I have worked for my entire adult life, was a 45% taxpayer and I still in retirement pay a chunk of income and capital gains taxes. Kindly don’t tell me that my (old) state pension should be means tested and that I should receive no healthcare on the NHS David.

There are not, btw, ‘many’ legal IHT avoidance schemes.

The problem is the contributions we make are not enough, the UK now spends 11% of GDP on health care the system has got to change and reduce that

I live in hope that the NHS will be run efficiently, economically and that waste will be considerably reduced. The individual Trusts don’t take advantage of the huge purchasing power that the NHS as a whole would have and the proliferation of highly paid managers is ridiculous. It is not that we need to make larger contributions so much as the vast sums handed to the NHS each year are used properly and effectively.

What about using the impounded Russian assets?

MaizieD

^What you are preaching David is communism where everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of what they do.^

I'm very puzzled as to understand how you came to that conclusion, MOnica. I'd say that David was anything but a communist... He certainly sometimes posts things socialist in tone, but never communist...

It’s not socialism it’s purely capitalist, we have to support those that can’t support themselves, above that level the population should make their own provision. Our children and Grandchildren simply cannot afford to subsidize us in retirement

Other countries vary, most don’t pay a pension to everyone, most don’t have free health care for all regardless how wealthy they are. I wouldn’t want the US system, there are plenty of other health systems more affordable than the UK

Norah

growstuff

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

Speed of service, (say TKR) is what is needed, and sadly lacking.

People save for their choices.

But some people just don't have the money to save. Private healthcare is a choice, but only for those who can afford it. In my opinion, needs are what are necessary to stay alive - air, food/water, means to keep warm. Just about everything else is a choice.

Universal Credit is currently £393.45 a month. The government thinks that's enough to pay for essential needs. I doubt there are many choices for people only receiving that amount every month. 50% of the population receives (after tax) less than £2000 a month. Most of them won't be eligible for any benefits, so will have to pay all housing costs out of that amount. They will have some choices, but not that many. Most of them won't have enough to save for private healthcare, or some of the things some people deem as essential.

MOnica I don't want to live in a society without choice. I agree with Doodledog's post @ 08.37.06.

What I'm saying is that, as a society, we should be ensuring that everybody is able to afford absolute essentials (at the moment, they're not). Most of the money we spend is a choice - and I'm not begrudging any of it. What sticks in my craw is when people bleat on about needing certain things. They don't. They've made a choice to spend money in a certain way (fine by me). I'm disputing the concept of need when many people don't have that choice, so it can't possibly be a need.

If everybody did have the means to pay for essential needs, it would be fine, but they don't.

No Governnent is going to increase tax for the wealthy for 2 reasons.
Most of the MPs are in that bracket themselves and then all the wealthy will just move to a different country where they don't pay as much tax. What they should do I'd get the private companies to pay up instead of finding ways to avoid it.

David49

“I don’t believe for a minute that private medicine reduces NHS queues,”

It NEVER will, because demand is unlimited, ever more advanced treatment available for free can never be met, NICE does its best to regulate cost but unless it works to an absolute budget it will fail.

I realise that, of course.

The selective part of my post that you quoted was in response to the idea that those going private are doing so to help those who rely on the NHS. Regardless of future advances in treatment (unless they eradicate the need for many operations) that is nonsense - private medicine adds to queues for those restricted to NHS treatment, and comes out of the budget paid for by everyone who contributes to the training of medics via their taxes.

As I also said (but you didn't quote) to be fair to everyone I would prefer private medicine to be abolished - at least until/unless there are no queues - but as long as both it and queues exist I can't blame people who are in pain or at risk of their condition worsening for using it. I do blame those who claim unselfish motives for their disingenuousness, however. It's a bugbear of mine.

growstuff

Norah

growstuff

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

Speed of service, (say TKR) is what is needed, and sadly lacking.

People save for their choices.

But some people just don't have the money to save. Private healthcare is a choice, but only for those who can afford it. In my opinion, needs are what are necessary to stay alive - air, food/water, means to keep warm. Just about everything else is a choice.

Universal Credit is currently £393.45 a month. The government thinks that's enough to pay for essential needs. I doubt there are many choices for people only receiving that amount every month. 50% of the population receives (after tax) less than £2000 a month. Most of them won't be eligible for any benefits, so will have to pay all housing costs out of that amount. They will have some choices, but not that many. Most of them won't have enough to save for private healthcare, or some of the things some people deem as essential.

Of course not everyone has the money to save. Spending savings on heath care and critical needs (TKR bone on bone for example) is a choice.

Many of the 50% of the population in receipt of (after tax) less than £2000 a month will be couples, I'd assume housing is affordable for those who combine at £4000 a month. I'll wait to be told I'm wrong, again.

MaggsMcG

No Governnent is going to increase tax for the wealthy for 2 reasons.
Most of the MPs are in that bracket themselves and then all the wealthy will just move to a different country where they don't pay as much tax. What they should do I'd get the private companies to pay up instead of finding ways to avoid it.

What nonsense.

What evidence do you have that most MPs are wealthy? Some are, most certainly are not. An MP’s salary is just over £91k plus expenses. That may be a reasonable salary but it doesn’t equate with wealth.

‘All the wealthy’ will move to a different country - really? A mass exodus of what you deem to be wealthy people - do you seriously think so?

What are these ‘private companies’ which are avoiding paying tax? Please provide some examples.

“As I also said (but you didn't quote) to be fair to everyone I would prefer private medicine to be abolished - at least until/unless there are no queues - but as long as both it and queues exist I can't blame people who are in pain or at risk of their condition worsening for using it. I do blame those who claim unselfish motives for their disingenuousness, however. It's a bugbear of mine.”

David49

“As I also said (but you didn't quote) to be fair to everyone I would prefer private medicine to be abolished - at least until/unless there are no queues - but as long as both it and queues exist I can't blame people who are in pain or at risk of their condition worsening for using it. I do blame those who claim unselfish motives for their disingenuousness, however. It's a bugbear of mine.”

Then we disagree and the NHS will stay in the same state it is today, those that can afford it won’t pay, the majority don’t pay enough.

I'm not disagreeing with your last point (that we all need to pay more tax). In fact I believe I said so in my earlier post.

Big Corporations use Private Medicare to facilitate the workforce. My son had a minor shoulder op. within a week of diagnosis to get him back to work; six months to a yr. wait on NHS.
Private is very good for the small things. But you will still need NHS for the big things, I believe.

those that can afford it won’t pay, the majority don’t pay enough.

You keep saying this David, but it just isn't true, Many wealthy people are more than happy to pay the tax they are due - and you still do not define wealthy, either in income or capital terms. So we do not even know exactlywho are the group that you claim will do anything to avoid tax.

Exactly MOnica. Asking for a definition of wealth brings forth no personal opinions, merely the views of HMRC or a bank. If people aren’t willing to offer their definition I wish they would stop talking about it.

I had privat medical teatment recentky because a young very clever NHS doctor misdiagnosed my problem and once that wrong diagnosis was pinned on me, no one wanted to take any notice of all the other symptoms that pointed to a completely different diagnosis.

In the end, in despair I saw a private consultant who confirmed that the first diagnosis was wrong and he treated the problem I really had. I knew what the problem was because I had had it before.

I understand why people go private. I just object to the suggestion that they are doing it out of altruism.

M0nica

I had privat medical teatment recentky because a young very clever NHS doctor misdiagnosed my problem and once that wrong diagnosis was pinned on me, no one wanted to take any notice of all the other symptoms that pointed to a completely different diagnosis.

In the end, in despair I saw a private consultant who confirmed that the first diagnosis was wrong and he treated the problem I really had. I knew what the problem was because I had had it before.

I am glad you got sorted. Its so important that we should have a choice. Its immaterial whether I can personally afford something or not, I certainly do not envy those who can, whether its private healthcare, bigger houses, cars, holidays etc. its rather sad that some on here seem to want to see those with money get it taken off them and given to the government to waste.

Has anyone suggested that they opt for private medical treatment out of altruism Doodledog? People have said that it takes pressure off the NHS and that’s one person fewer on a waiting list but I haven’t noticed anyone claiming that that was the reason they did it.

Spot on, BevSec.

For the record, I don't envy anyone either. I could afford basic private medicine - few could afford things like transplants even if they were available, so it's the routine stuff that has queues that get jumped. I'm not even saying I would never do it. I have arthritis in my knees, and was offered a transplant but then Covid hit and since then I haven't gone back on the list as I can manage and the physio suggested I put off as long as possible so I don't need a second one in older age. I'm not in constant agony, and if I were, who knows what I would do?

The assumption that all objection to unfairness is based on envy says more about those making the assumptions than the objectors, IMO.