To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

they’re happy to pay for services they use - NHS, educstion, and welfare/pensions seem to be the bugbears as they can’t envision ever having to use them. Even when I point out that private urgent care is not the same as A+E.

I don’t use education directly but I recognise that I benefit from the presence of well educated people. The private healthcare sector is staffed by healthcare professionals trained in the NHS and, as you say, would be of no use to them if they needed emergency care or very complex surgery. How can high earners who you’d assume were intelligent fail to see that they are using those services, just not directly?

Were you not educated by the state as a child? If you were then your argument about using education doesn't really stack up. You have already used it and of course should contribute back into the system that funded you.

Many countries still have functioning societies with arguably better functioning healthcare systems without such high taxation. Yes, those healthcare system wouldn't be accessible to everyone but higher earners would almost certainly be able to access them. In this country they are paying for their own access to a troubled healthcare system and lots of other people's access too. That's where the grind is. If there weren't obvious examples of other countries delivering better value to high earners then your argument would hold more weight.

There’s a very obvious flaw to only some people being able to access medical care.

I’d be one of those who could, but that absolutely doesn’t mean it’s right to deprive anyone else of it.

@Itchthescratch ,

‘Many countries still have functioning societies with arguably better functioning healthcare systems without such high taxation. Yes, those healthcare system wouldn't be accessible to everyone but higher earners would almost certainly be able to access them. In this country they are paying for their own access to a troubled healthcare system and lots of other people's access too. That's where the grind is. If there weren't obvious examples of other countries delivering better value to high earners then your argument would hold more weight.’

I am curious to know which countries you are thinking of?

But, besides that. It’s not what most want in the UK. Most want a functioning health system for all, regardless of ability to pay.

And that is what we choose when we vote.

If you prefer a country with even worse equality of outcomes than the UK, then there are many many to choose from where, for the right price, you get excellent healthcare.

My argument about education does stack up. I wrote in the present tense and used directly as a qualifier. My statement was factually correct.

Other countries’ healthcare systems are irrelevant. Here we have one which is free at the point of use and accessible to anyone who wishes to use it, not doing so is a choice. Private healthcare is subsidised by the NHS by way of training its staff and picking up its patients when things go wrong. Highly paid workers benefit from it indirectly - just like me and education.

I'm not making arguments about abolishing the NHS. My point is that lots of countries train medical staff outside without a super expensive NHS. There are clearly other ways to do it. These countries also have effect Emergency departments. I can see how a high earning immigrant from a country that doesn't have a culture of the NHS and doesn't intend to use it begrudges paying for it. Your belief that any other model is fatally flawed isn't necessarily shared by everyone. It's a value judgement.

What would you suggest in terms of an alternative?

I appreciate you’re just saying things and pointing them out, but could we get an idea on your own personal views?

I think the use of “super expensive” kind of clarifies their view. Fuck knows what you’d call the US model if ours is “super expensive”.

No child pays taxes to fund their own education though so almost all of us can say that we don't benefit from education in the present tense. It's a weird argument. It's like saying you don't benefit from paediatric care. Well obviously! Realistically we must all realise that we have cost the state money to educate us and provide health-care for us when we were too young to pay taxes and we should look to repay that investment. You have directly benefited from education and continue to do so now otherwise you wouldn't be able to read and write or use this forum.

58% of doctors in the UK were trained by the NHS. Barely over half. The link between private and state healthcare goes both ways. Often private healthcare reduces waiting lists on the NHS and steps in when NHS treatment is too slow or has failed. If there was no NHS then private provision would grow to fill the vacuum and it would offer the same treatments and provision.

Thank you but I can respond for myself.

The NHS is super expensive for a higher tax earner that isn't happy to use it as they have to contribute to it's existence and also fund their own private healthcare. Their contribution will be higher than most if they are a higher rate taxpayer. The same can be true for education if you are privately educated. Do you deny this?

America isn't the only other model. Very few people would view that as a bastion of high quality, efficient healthcare. I don't know why people are always desperate to pretend it's the NHS or the American system when there are obviously hundreds of other countries doing something different.

Those people with school age children do benefit directly from education. It was you who suggested I benefited from my own education, now you’ve changed tack.

Where does that 58% figure come from? You do realise that privately sourced reduction in waiting lists is NHS funded? It’s a subsidy.

Personally I am a fan of the Dutch model for healthcare and would like to see something similar here.

Parents of school aged children aren't the ones being educated. How are they direct beneficiaries? Do you think parents of children are direct beneficiaries of pediatric care too? Do you know what direct beneficiary means? Read the last sentence of my first paragraph and explain how I've changed tact.

If someone leaves the NHS waiting list because they have paid for their own private treatment then this isn't subsidised. You are talking about something else quite specific. The 58% can be found here from the General Medical Council. Nurses have similar stats.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do-and-why/data-and-research/the-state-of-medical-education-and-practice-in-the-uk/workforce-report

Including their taxation rates?

The whole thing. It is more expensive but a superior service which I and I think most people would be happy to pay for.

Absolute bullshit.

Absolute truth. Basic capitalism 101.

I’m happy paying what we do, for a universal access healthcare system.

From what I can see, the Dutch model would mean higher tax, and less access for people who don’t have the deductible payment available.

I wouldn’t pay more so some could be excluded. That trade off makes no sense to me.

It’s also ridiculously self defeating. The U.K. depends on SMEs

I think the main problem is that it no longer pays for (more people without investments such as a mortgage) to work. In the past, working afforded you at least a slightly better quality of life. Now that welfare has been bolstered to match the average quality of life and now that most younger people can't buy their own home, it's becoming less rewarding to work and that in turn is making those who do still work feel like mugs. I'm not sure what the solution is, to be honest.

There definitely are people on benefits at level
now due to housing and the removal
of the 2 child benefit cap.

"Now that welfare has been bolstered to match the average quality of life..."

What does this mean?

What do you recommend is done about housing costs? What's your view on LHA?

It means your quality of life on benefits is matching that of people who earn enough money to not qualify for any kind of benefit.
Kind of makes you feel ... why the fuck did I bother when I could have sat back and had a handout.