how are benefits different from hospitals and schools?

[foreverastudent]

Playing devil's advocate a bit here so don't flame me. I wouldn't personally actually want any of this.

If (and only if) you beleive that benefits should be means-tested and only available to the needy then do you think the same of hospitals and schools?

Is giving free medical treatment (especially non-life threatening) and free education (especially at the top state schools) to the very wealthy just as inequitable as non-means tested benefits?

The "why should a poor working family be paying tax to be paid in benefits to the rich?" arguement applies just as much to hospitals and schools doesn't it?

Prescription charges already follow that model, if you think about it. And some wealthy people already opt out of the state provisions for health and education, despite having already paid through their taxes (no tax rebates for being in BUPA!)

I think it ends up being fair on the rich/poor scale because rich people pay in more tax in absolute terms than the poor. So low taxpayers, if they make use of education and health services, get a much better return per £1 put in.

But the standard of education in 'poor' areas tends to be worse so it's maybe actually bad value for money?

And maybe the poor are poor and thus paying less tax because of sub-standard healthcare/education?

The 'paying twice' arguement is valid but id health/education was 'pay as you go' then they wouldn't be paying twice iyswim?

I don't think it's necessarily true that education or health provision in poor areas is automatically worse than anywhere else. A school in the middle of a fairly downtrodden housing estate where I grew up is now - according to friends who still live there - one of the most oversubscribed in the area. If we keep pushing for a universally high standard of education the idiotic business of moving house to be near a good school would fade into history.

On health, I'm sure we could come up with a system where everyone pays for identical health insurance and the cost is determined by a sliding scale depending on income. The poor and unemployed getting it for free and wealthy people paying the full price. Right now I think the NHS budget equates to about £2000 per man, woman and child. You can get a stellar BUPA package for that much!

Don't be ridiculous. You cannot equate paying for Bupa with the NHS. For a start, private health insurance will not cover you for any pre-existing conditions.

The NHS is a marvellous thing and we would all be the poorer without it.

I have always felt that the wealthy should pay for their health care and be compelled to pay for their education. In fact you could argue that this is the only way to create equality. If you did away with private health care and private schools. Having done that education and health could be means tested against income with the everyone paying on a sliding scale, with only the very poorest contributing nothing.

This would provide greater funding in both health and education. It would prevent health inequality with richer people living on average 13 years longer and their children being unfairly advantaged.

We already finance education (to age 18) & health on a sliding scale related to income.... it's called income tax.

If education were only to be paid for by people who used it, for example, the cost to each individual would be excessive. The cost of education (unlike health procedures which vary depending on complexity) is pretty flat in a £ per pupil sense. Everyone benefits from education during their life so we all pay in, proportional to what we earn, and we share the cost. It's a fair system

Further education is funded differently now and we can see the situation that creates. Which is effectively that it there is easier access to it by the poorest and the richest than there is by the 'middle' - who struggle to afford tuition fees etc.

I suspect that if a 'national healthcare insurance scheme' were funded in a similar way to the further education model i.e. the poor get it free and the rich pay the full amount... that it would be the same people in the middle that would find they couldn't afford it. It would also act as another disincentive for those in the lower income bracket to improve their earnings.