To think we should all just pay 1-2% income tax to help fix the nhs

[Ieatcake]

Lots of health professionals are saying it's like a third world country. We need more beds and more money for socialcare. Not many would even notice a tiny tax rise and it would help fix it ASAP.

Throwing money at the NHS isn't the problem. A number of posters have indicated some of the difficulties it faces so am not going to mention these again but added to that is an urgent need for departments to actually communicate a lot better with each other - both internally and with external agencies.

Everyone needs to take better care of their health. Exercise, eat well, don’t smoke anddrink moderately or not at all. That would help the Nhs. Its the people that have gone overboard with unhealthy lifestyles

Agreed sima74.

Everyone needs to take better care of their health. Exercise, eat well, don’t smoke anddrink moderately or not at all. That would help the Nhs. Its the people that have gone overboard with unhealthy lifestyles

Nope.

Longevity results from healthy lifestyles. The longer you live, the more treatment you need. Die of a heart attack at 47 and you cost the taxpayer massively less than dying at 94 after years of treatment, care, and state pension.

It's great to be healthy. It's what we all want for one another. But it doesn't save money.

NHS has been given to the wolves, corporations etc by Labour. They introducedthe competition and commercial aspect to our healthcare- most doctors and nurses are allowed to do more private work than for nhs and still claim so many things even full pension. Hospitals seem to take very VERY bad loans and pay gigantic prices for bank nurses and cleaners from companies nobody asked to have a competition for a price and service.
NHS is terribly mismanaged and gets robbed every single day. The level of healthcare we get is one of lowest in Europe. Even Eastern Europe has better healthcare (esp taking in the account their tiny healthcare budgets)
Throwing more cash at NHS is unlikely would help... but something will happen. I think NHS cant exist as it is as people MUST pay for their health, their lifestyle choices etc. Health is the most precious thing in this life not a house or clothes or car but people in UK forgot about it. The result- collapsing healthcare that fails so many every minute

Everyone needs to take better care of their health. Exercise, eat well, don’t smoke anddrink moderately or not at all. That would help the Nhs. Its the people that have gone overboard with unhealthy lifestyles

It's not just as simple as that imo. Medical advancements, and lifestyle changes mean people are living longer.

When the NHS first started the conditions two of my children have would likely have killed them. I firmly believe DD2 would have died of a major seizure young and DD4 (and probably me) wouldn't have survived her birth.

Instead they are 14.5 and 1 and on medication for life. So far in her 1 year life DD4 has had 3 operations and 12 hospital stays. That costs far more than dying at birth.

Hip replacements, heart bypass surgery, cancer treatment, cataract surgery - life is more expensive for the NHS now because we are living better and longer.

No I don't think any amount of money will fix the NHS. It should stop thinking of itself as some sort of beacon scheme. It is an antiquated out of date organisation not fit for purpose any more. Every single winter they act all surprised that people get winter illnesses. It's so inefficient it's an embarrassment. IMHO.

Everyone needs to take better care of their health. Exercise, eat well, don’t smoke anddrink moderately or not at all. That would help the Nhs. Its the people that have gone overboard with unhealthy lifestyles

@lalalalyra It's not just as simple as that imo. Medical advancements, and lifestyle changes mean people are living longer.

And all those healthy people doing exercise and living well are going to live even longer too, ultimately requiring more pension payouts and in all probability, more NHS funding (healthcare, free prescriptions, more general old-age ailments etc), more £200 fuel payments, more of all the myriad little things provided by the Government for the elderly. These do-gooders will cost us a fortune!

So again, I suggest perhaps we all take up heavy boozing and smoking immediately, overpay the NHS deficit by way of the VAT on those things and die early to boot. Winner:winner!

Apologies, I have not read the entire thread. But that was what NI was for.
At the top rate I pay 45% income tax and just over 4% National Insurance. I also don't use the NHS much (private health insurance).
I don't begrudge paying almost 50% tax at the top level, because let's face it, NI is another word for tax. But I would feel slightly hard done by to have to pay yet more. Where do we draw the line?

Ahhhhh - when I earned in that bracket, I paid 62% in tax (it's a bizarre situation where those earning between £100-120k pay more tax than those on £120,001 upwards, when the rate drops back down). And if it were up to corbyn and McDonnell, who knows? 90% probably!

Where do we draw the line?

Exactly. It's all well and good for people to want others to pay more tax, but it's usually not themselves!

If you earn over £100k, you pay a combined tax/nic of a whopping 62% of your earnings between £100k-£123k. Isn't that enough???

In fact, it's that 62% marginal tax rate which is helping cause the shortage of experience doctors and dentists, who would be earning that kind of money if working full time, so they cut their hours to reduce their earnings back under £100k without feeling much worse off. Even the medical journals have advocated reducing hours at low cost to get a better "work/life balance".

It's a classic example of unforeseen consequences of taxing people too much.

In my experience, everyone who clamours "raise taxes" means "raise taxes for other people" or "raise taxes substantially for some people and just a little bit for me".

My dh earns 110k and doesn't pay 62%! Where are you getting that from? He lost his personal allowance and pays the tax rate of 40% on everything he earns over 45k plus ni which is about 9% I think?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect NHS investment as a percentage of GDP to match the average of G7 nations, myself. At the moment we are very much less than that average. If everyone else manages it, why can't we? We all benefit, directly and indirectly.

And doctors here are paid a lot less than they are elsewhere. Tax rates are not why the ones I know have left; conditions in terms of the service they are able to provide, and pay levels are. Which are both direct consequences of under-investment.

In my experience, everyone who clamours "raise taxes" means "raise taxes for other people" or "raise taxes substantially for some people and just a little bit for me".

Most of the people I went to university with are excellent earners. They almost all think taxes need to be raised to better support the NHS and welfare state, even though they would be hit.

It depends on the sort of people you befriend.

Here's an explanation titsy - it's not as black and white as 62% put on your payslip.

www.barnesroffe.com/are-you-paying-the-62-tax-rate/

"Excellent earners" is a subjective term. But I'll bite - how many of them have actually volunteered to pay more tax and how many of them just like to sound good around the dinner table?

A clue was found by a telegraph report which said that only 15 people volunteered to pay extra tax. I presume these 15 aren't all your friends from university...

Tax levels for everyone:

Personal Allowance Up to £11,500 0%
Basic rate £11,501 to £45,000 20%
Higher rate £45,001 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate over £150,000 45%

Higher earners don't get the personal allowance though.

National insurance rates actually drop for high earnings over a threshold.

£113 to £157 a week (£490 to £680 a month) and you don't contribute.
£157.01 to £866 a week (£680.01 to £3,750 a month) and you pay 12% on those earnings.
Then anything over £866 a week (£3,750 a month) is flat rate charged at 2%, because it's supposed to be national insurance, and your contributions have been met from the levels below.

In other words, as a percentage of overall income a high earner pays less of their salary towards national insurance than the average bod. Higher amount overall, of course... but a lower percentage.

Not sure how that gets to a 63% figure, really. Unless you're factoring in the employer's contributions to NI as well, which is, bluntly, disingenuous to the nth degree.

Here's another way of explaining it:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/crazy-tax-system-means-800000-people-pay-higher-tax-rate-someone/amp/

I went to Cambridge. I know a lot of high earners. And by that, I mean they fall into the highest pay bracket possible. I am also aware that it doesn't actually make them rich, if they are merely professionals, and not eg Magic Circle lawyers, or bankers. With London house prices, and costs of childcare and education, very few lead what most would regard as luxurious lives. In fact most lead the lives the Boomers managed on one income, and with far less educational achievement.

They vote for parties that levy higher taxation. Many campaign actively for them. They do not support austerity because they are intelligent adults who recognise the burden falls disproportionately on the most vulnerable. No, they don't volunteer more tax as far as I know, though it certainly isn't something I interrogate them over! But they do actively choose political parties that would charge them more, because they recognise their own good fortune. Do you?

I think we should make private healthcare illegal in this country so that everyone is invested in keeping the NHS working, for everyone. We could pay for it by taxing the rich a bit more, not paying for things like brexit, the DUP, nuclear weapons, wars etc.

I also agree that the NHS is badly organised and a lot of money gets wasted. The people who are responsible for this should be fired and replaced.

Of course, the Tories won't do any of this, they want it to fail so their friends can swoop in and start profiting from the misery of others.

Incidentally, we aren't higher earners, but do fall into higher rate brackets. We have a disabled child, so we are on one wage. We would be better off if we both worked and earned, overall, the same, because we'd have a lower tax burden and a greater entitlement to state allowances/help. That's perfectly true.

But we're still massively better off than people on the average wage, in our situation. I meet plenty via parent groups, and via volunteering. I don't know how many of them manage, to be honest. And I think we could stand to lose a bit of tax better than they can the services.

So they say that they would pay more tax, but they don't? Hot air, sorry. Anyone can talk and campaign and vote labour. It doesn't actually mean they are doing anything practical.

Perhaps next time they raise it, you could mention it to them, as many people don't actually realise you can volunteer to pay more tax? Some of them might think it's a great idea.

But in fact, i think you've described exactly the sort of people I meant. Your friends aren't really talking about sacrificing 90% of their top whack, are they? They're talking about a few more % for them, whilst expecting the government to go after people like Philip green and the magic circle lawyers and bankers you refer to.

namechanger

That won't work. We would lose an absolute fortune from people travelling to the UK for private care.
The UK is seen as one of the best places in the world to see specialists, and many of them are treated in private wings of NHS hospitals, earning the NHS a fortune. And even patients seem in Harley Street are contributing huge amounts to the economy.

But if you make private healthcare illegal, what do you do about people who need IVF?
Or physio to treat a niggling running injury so they can knock a few mins of their marathon time?
Or someone who wants to lose weight and see a dietician?
Or wants to get their teeth whitened by a dentist?

You want all that banned? Or you want the NHS to provide it?

Plus it won't force the rich to use the NHS. They'll just travel elsewhere to get the operations they need

Why not an NHS lottery?