To wonder why the government don't increase taxes to fund the NHS better?

[Smolgoose]

From a lot of threads on here recently about lack of being able to access healthcare, and my own anecdotal experiences, it seems like the NHS is in a worse crisis than ever, and not able to cope with the demands upon it.

This thread is definately not about individual NHS staff, but about the whole system generally.

Why don't the government increase taxation to increase NHS funding? It wouldn't solve some issues such as the shortage of staff, but funding could be also funneled into increasing the number of people trained.

A lot of people think we are heading down a privitisation route, but as far as I know the government have not yet floated the idea of changing free at the point of service.

@SunshineSum

Pithy but inaccurate. It's no tax at all on the first £12.5k, 20% on the chunk between £12.5k and £50k, 40% on the chunk between £50k and £100k, and 50% on anything over that.

High earners categorically do not pay 40/50% of their income in tax. A person earning £62.5k only pays tax on 4/5ths of their income. And pays 20% on 4/5ths of that. Less, if they put into a pension.

You're ignoring NI, which is simply another income tax.

On £250k per year the income tax and NI is £101k which is 40%+

It's not "a fuck load of tax". It's 20% tax : the 40% portion being effectively reduced to 20% by the £12.5 k not subject to tax. Someone on £62.5k pays 20% tax, and pays less if they put into their pension instead.

NI isn't a tax.

@SunshineSum

NI isn't a tax.

WTF is it then???

From 'turn2us.org.uk'

What is national insurance ?

National insurance is a tax on your earnings that goes into the National Insurance Fund which pays for various benefits.

From 'which.co.uk'

What is National Insurance? National Insurance is a tax on earnings and self-employed profits. Your National Insurance contributions are paid into a fund, from which some state benefits are paid. This includes the state pension, statutory sick pay or maternity leave...

From moneyadviceservice.org.uk

National Insurance contributions are a tax on earnings paid by employees and employers...

I used to like having a tax problem, it meant i was earning alot of money.

250k p.a, still means a take home pay of almost 150k, or almost 8x the minimum wage or over 5 x what a nurse (on max) earns... so count yourself lucky, i always did, so quit moaning, no one is listening.

You've also ignored that the between 100k and £125k the tax rate is 60%, due to loss of personal allowance.

@SofiaMichelle

You've also ignored that the between 100k and £125k the tax rate is 60%, due to loss of personal allowance.

Boo hoo!

@jasjas1973

Well for some who's not listening you've rather bizarrely managed to reply.

By the way, in the UK we would use 'stop moaning' not 'quit' and 'alot' isn't a word here, so presumably you're in the US in which case our tax rates are irrelevant to you, surely.

@SunshineSum

It's not "a fuck load of tax". It's 20% tax : the 40% portion being effectively reduced to 20% by the £12.5 k not subject to tax. Someone on £62.5k pays 20% tax, and pays less if they put into their pension instead.

What? You're making zero sense

Lots of jealous people here

@diggingatrench sorry for any lack of clarity.

Think of the £62.5k as three chunks of money - two the same size at either end, and a bigger chunk in the middle.

The bottom portion - £12.5k - you don't pay tax on. The top portion - again, £12.5k, you pay 40% tax on. The bit in the middle, you pay 20% tax on. So you've got two equal portions, one on 40% , the other on 0%, so the average across those two portions is 20% tax. And the bit in the middle is 20% tax. So overall the person on £62.5k pays 20% tax.

If they make pension contributions, that money isn't taxed, so they won't pay tax on that. So they're potentially paying quite a bit less than 20% tax, and certainly nowhere near the 40% quoted.

And anyone on between £50k - £62.5 k will pay less than 20% of their income in income tax overall.

Not popular but I would rather that the NHS was heavily subsidised rather than free. £10 per GP appointment etc, £300 per operation. Of course those not on benefits would always pay and those in receipt wouldn't, as now for prescriptions. This does create a unfair division.

The NHS was restructured three times in the time I worked for it. The last time it cost £1.5 billion. Imagine what that amount of money could have done for patients instead of moving deckchairs on the Titanic.

Considering the annual NHS budget is 212 billion, I imagine 1.5 billion extra would not have much for patients.

@RandomLondoner

The NHS was restructured three times in the time I worked for it. The last time it cost £1.5 billion. Imagine what that amount of money could have done for patients instead of moving deckchairs on the Titanic.

Considering the annual NHS budget is 212 billion, I imagine 1.5 billion extra would not have much for patients.

Actually that’s quite a few nurses...

[quote SunshineSum]@diggingatrench sorry for any lack of clarity.

Think of the £62.5k as three chunks of money - two the same size at either end, and a bigger chunk in the middle.

The bottom portion - £12.5k - you don't pay tax on. The top portion - again, £12.5k, you pay 40% tax on. The bit in the middle, you pay 20% tax on. So you've got two equal portions, one on 40% , the other on 0%, so the average across those two portions is 20% tax. And the bit in the middle is 20% tax. So overall the person on £62.5k pays 20% tax.

If they make pension contributions, that money isn't taxed, so they won't pay tax on that. So they're potentially paying quite a bit less than 20% tax, and certainly nowhere near the 40% quoted.

And anyone on between £50k - £62.5 k will pay less than 20% of their income in income tax overall.[/quote]
Yeeees, but they're still paying far more tax than someone earning £31k.

So what's your point?

That 20%, or less than 20%, isn't 40%. And that as a proportion of income it isn't "a fuck load".

Or, to address the froth/bleat about NI upthread, let's look at two wages and how they work out after the three major statutory deductions:

Earnings : 18000
Income tax : 1012
NI : 1084
Council Tax : 1500
Total paid : 3696
Which is a contribution of 19.9%

Earnings : 62500
Income tax : 12428
NI : 5129
Council Tax : 1500
Total deductions : 19008
Which is a contribution of 27.2%

So a person earning £42500 more than minimum wage pays in 7.3% more than someone on it.

By the time they salt a bit into their pension - and it would be a very unusual person indeed who earnt that and put in less than 10% - the percentage gap is even smaller, more like about 5%.

But no one is paying in 40%.

Sorry, that should read "earning £44500 more than minimum wage" .

That's almost 250% more btw.

[quote SofiaMichelle]@jasjas1973

Well for some who's not listening you've rather bizarrely managed to reply.

By the way, in the UK we would use 'stop moaning' not 'quit' and 'alot' isn't a word here, so presumably you're in the US in which case our tax rates are irrelevant to you, surely.[/quote]
Nope raining miserable Cornwall bud.

But i have lived and worked abroad and in London, paid a shed load of tax and never minded, i'd rather pay more tax and not have a day out ruined by a smashed wheel caused by a pot hole or if in an accident have to wait 16 hours for AE.

People who moan on an on about hard done by they are whilst earning 2 or 300k p.a really do need to stop and consider how very lucky they are.
the best schools, private health care, hols, new cars, nice houses but still you guys find something to complain about.

@SunshineSum

That 20%, or less than 20%, isn't 40%. And that as a proportion of income it isn't "a fuck load".

In real money terms, higher earners pay loads more tax than lower earners. Why should we be penalised for earning more?

You're not. People who earn 250% more than minimum wage contribute 7% more.

No one's being penalised. Or paying 40%.

@RandomLondoner

The NHS was restructured three times in the time I worked for it. The last time it cost £1.5 billion. Imagine what that amount of money could have done for patients instead of moving deckchairs on the Titanic.

Considering the annual NHS budget is 212 billion, I imagine 1.5 billion extra would not have much for patients.

No idea where you got that figure from - it’s £133 billion now in England, which was where the deckchairs were shuffled. In 2013 when it happened it was £112 billion. 1% of the budget could make a significant difference.

nhsproviders.org/media/689303/nhs-providers-briefing-march-2020-budget.pdf

@SunshineSum

You're not. People who earn 250% more than minimum wage contribute 7% more.

No one's being penalised. Or paying 40%.

I'm talking about the people calling for higher earners to be taxed even more

I'm talking about the people calling for higher earners to be taxed even more

I have taken home 100k + at times during my working life, paying an extra 5k would have made zero difference to me.

Taxing a middle income earner 5% of their take home earnings would be crippling.
The other thing is the unfairness of council tax, which proportionately benefits the more the expensive property, which the wealthy tend to own.

I broke my femur and pelvis 3 years ago, the costs to the NHS (this type of accident isn't covered by bupa etc) would have been far in excess of 100k.

The nhs is a bargain, when its gone, we'll really miss it.

@diggingatrench unsure why you're repeatedly addressing my points then.