To think the 'Net Contributors' argument is just wrong?

[Yetmorebeanstocount]

Just been reading about "Net Contributors" of tax and how it supposedly is a bad thing that we don't have enough in this country.
i.e. - that most people receive more, in cash benefits, social care, NHS, police, education, roads, bin collections etc. etc. than they will ever pay for via their taxes, so they are 'net recipients' of the system rather than 'net contributors'.

My reaction is - well yes of course. That is how it should be!

Take a very-over-simplified example to illustrate the maths:

Say there are 100 people who earn £1k, and one person who earns £200k. Say the 100 pay no taxes, and the one person pays tax at 50% of £100k.

That tax gets re-distributed to the 100 people in the form of services and benefits and pensions, so that the 100 now have the equivalent of £2k each and the one person still has £100k.
What is supposed to be wrong with this? It is just basic re-distribution of income, which is something that every civilised society should do.

Of course in real life people earn all sorts of amounts and receive different things, so it is not so simple, but the principle is the same - a few at the top are 'net contributors' and the rest are 'net recipients'.

And of course, those at the top still get something back as they drive on roads and have their bins collected, and have the benefit of living in a civilised society which is policed and (mostly) does not have people dying on the streets.

Yep, never seen any authoritarian tendencies on the right at all...

Of course it is a really bad example. I was merely illustrating the principle. I didn't have time to sit down and work out all the figures for a realistic example.

The principle still stands: it is perfectly normal for a society to have far fewer net contributors than net receivers.

But good marketing people make their employers money. Nurses are a cost: an essential cost that's fundamental to everyone, but only in France have I seen a private nurse walk in business where you or I can make an appointment to have a dressing changed or a travel immunisation jab administered. DH was injured (minor, one hand trashed by a skateboarder : injury repaired by the surgeon) and discharged with instruction to have the bandages replaced after five days.

As we were still in France, we ended up at the local independent nurse surgery, owned and run by a few mid-40s experienced nurses. There was a very modest charge, and frankly if you can afford a week's ski holiday, then you can afford the charge, and if you can't afford a week's ski holiday, then the injury would not have happened to you.

Aside from the immeasurable benefit of helping people live longer, fuller lives, nurses pay for themselves by increasing productivity. By helping people recover from illness or injury, they often enable them to return to work or school. In some cases, this also saves money on care costs, whether that care would be provided by a care assistant or by a relative who might have had little choice but to give up their own job.

Exactly. A healthy population is far more productive, People too ill to work because of lack of healthcare is bad for everyone.

Not quite my point. Paying a few euros to have your injury properly checked, dressed and re-bandaged (I recall a charge of about 5 euros) on your schedule and within walking distance seems worth the modest charge to me. I admit my privilege freely, but I also don't want to freeload on the state provision. MN is split on whether I am doing the right thing by queuing for three weeks, or taking the Mick by paying and not troubling the system.

I think part of the issue is that you don't need to be a high earner to be a net contributor. A quick google tells me that it's 41k

Given the cost of housing etc, 41k isn't a massive amount to live on. A family could easily be struggling on that, and yet are expected to fund others through the tax system.

@Papyrophile , I was addressing the beginning of your post.

But good marketing people make their employers money. Nurses are a cost:

Even low earners are paying hugely more tax than pre covid
Council tax up
Food prices
Gas electric
Fuel
And everything else.

Basically now spending whole wages so whatever the tax rate is on what is bought.
Even £1k now just to get 1 kid to secondary school.
So in terms of the initial tax and ni maybe not huge but when you see the say 1.5k council tax which just covers black bins (every 2w and weekly recycling)
If you think what products you have bought maybe a car so what that would be vefore tax and a phone.

However as a society growing too high population but as all layers too get more into spending on luxuries for themself keeping up with the jones the 'higher earners' rather than thinking how lucky they are (as most is just luck and no better at a job) try to avoid tax.
Personally i would cap the difference between to top earners in a company (except owners) often they are just constantly in meetings with those on the (non contributing?) 20-30k doing all the work

We are individualist here, Denmark and the other progressive countries have much more cohesive norms
Not everyone in the UK is a fuck you individualist - some of us still believe in society and don’t consider ourselves Thatcher’s children.

I don't disagree @Cattenberg . Nurses are among the most valuable members of society. But I was suggesting there are ways of utilising nursing skills and knowledge that may be more appealing to nurses who don't want to be at the beck and call of NHS rotas during child care years but who need to keep earning. France has "invented" the nursing office... so nurses keep their skills current and when their family commitments allow, go back to full on hospital work. I've consulted a few GPs in France, just walked in with ear infections mostly, and there has never been a nurse on the premises of a GP... only a receptionist to tell you your number and take your £10/15 euro consultation charge.

And in all the places that I've needed a walk in consultation in France, I have only ever walked into the surgery (unregistered without an address -- because we were on holiday) and given a brief description of the symptoms. Been seen, paid the consultation fee, examined, and treated. Usually a private Rx, for which the cost has mostly been less than the NHS Rx fee.

@Papyrophile but it must be subsidised by the government? There is no way 5 euros covers the cost of assessment and treatment by a qualified nurse.

Yes @Papyrophile

Lots of nurses with childcare responsibilities also do care in the community (elderly regular care, wound checking, removal of stitches after discharge etc) and phlebotomy roles (taking blood - you can get someone come to you!). They travel, often work just school hours and are sometimes paid time spent on job on a flexible basis.

In France I mean

I think these are self standing businesses; there may be a government subsidy, but I don't know how the finances work. But it probably helps that you only visit to have a specific service. There's no diagnostic work because you'd be sent elsewhere to get tests (another private service covered by state or insurance). France has a national hospital service, but not a national health service, as most providers/doctors etc work for themselves and vy for patients. From the outside, it seems to work very smoothly.

Agreed @Papyrophile

Also, France doesn't have a NHS - if you are entitled to treatment for something, you book your operation, down to the anaesthetist. Think of the admin cost saved!!

@Papyrophile there is assessment. A qualified nurse has to assess the wound before dressing it. It may not take long, but it still has to happen.
There is admin for private providers to claim money back from the government. Juts because you can't see the admin does not mean it is not there.
Frances healthcare is judged independently to be top notch. They also pay more for healthcare than people in the UK do.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/

And France manages to deliver exceptional health care with good results, for the vast majority of the population. At a cost that appears very cheap compared to the bureaucracy that dogs the NHS.

@Papyrophile France spends more on healthcare than the UK.

But the assessment process in France does not appear to require three clinicians to declare that it is necessary. The nurse can look, decide and treat in a single 5-15 minute whether to re-bandage a wound or leave it uncovered, or to say go back to the doctor for further advice.

No France doesn't spend more on healthcare. France's citizens spend more. There's a huge difference,

@mantyzer

Agreed that the French healthcare system is better funded than the NHS. It is not twice as well funded and it is multiple times better.

The late husband of a friend, a French resident for many years, was treated in France for a difficult life-threatening combination of health conditions in his last 18 months. The French system did much, much more to treat him than the UK system did to treat my DH (same age) with a similar condition. One lived, the other died.

Sorry to say this, but what happens when we inevitably have contributor drain? Unfortunately, those who pay the highest taxes are often the most geographically mobile and can do things like head to Hong Kong (10%), or the Middle East, and even though life might be more expensive for them, they'll have a better disposable income and a better way of life. We are heading to disaster with our continual
Hate of high earners.