Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 647
Likes: 443
|
Post by Mike on Apr 25, 2020 21:38:36 GMT
There are some easy (if, perhaps, not substantial) places to increase tax receipts that would play OK with the electorate (mainly because they don't know about them).
Not sure how they'd affect the economy. Capped %age pension relief, CGT alowance, VCT and (S)EIS relief, also a review of stuff like double taxation relief treaties ... etc. Entrepreneur relief already hit as easy target #1.
Otherwise, I agree - print cash is likely to be the preferred option. Most people don't understand it or what it means. Those that do can mitigate against
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Apr 25, 2020 22:38:44 GMT
A decent long-ish (but free) read from the Economist on how the bill could be paid, covering many of the ideas discussed here so far.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Apr 26, 2020 8:51:38 GMT
Simplz it is but it won't make much money. But no point in paying people to save cash. I remember 15% inflation it too made people spend as cash was losing its value. In theory at least but reality is savers are savers. Every other option makes conservatives unelectable or is stuck in the cult of the NHS. The obvious wealth tax option that stimulates an economy is remove tax shelters. Given that this a global crisis it might push international tax to get sorted out which would up global economy. Ww2 we just crashed sterling while trying to generate an nhs and sustain an empire. While such stupidity is well within our ability let's hope not. The NHS is very cheap (in terms of %gdp). You might well be able to shuffle some elements to independent providers and enhance quality and even keep the costs the same, (France, Germany...), and that would self evidently be a good thing, but it's very unlikely you will produce significant savings.
Not being an economist I tried to find figures showing people saved less of their income in times of high inflation. With a 10 year lag maybe. Not that useful
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 11:33:34 GMT
To be fair the NHS is very cheap, and it shows. I have friends who live in say France and UK or Germany and UK. They pay local taxes for these services and if in doubt remain in Germany or France when they get sick.
The NHS do a pretty fair job at keeping the costs down. However, I'm running into some of the issues that come with that low cost at the moment. For instance if I wanted to supply the NHS with visors I have to conform to a BS. I have to buy the BS (£260), I have to have my processes audited (£2k) and I have to make the things. Trouble is I'm not making these things to the BS and I want to give them for free, also they are better than nothing and the NHS, in the sector I'm supplying, has nothing.
During war we normally declare a War Standard. In this battle they are still using peace time rules and don't even get me started on the procurement website.
So I don't see lots of managers, or business consultants. I see a lot of specialist doctors who are lacking in empathy for their staff and a need to maintain individual standards over pure logic. Meanwhile those managers trying to keep costs downs struggle to work with the specialists. This is not to say that there are many many fantastic doctors I just feel the whole thing is too "public service".
The benefit of France and Germany is that the local hospital areas have to compete and yes it costs more but yes they achieve more.
I would rather pay more (and actually do through private insurance) but I'd rather do it through an agile NHS not an exhausted, pared to the bone one.
Still if wishes were horses....
Savings and Inflation. The economic model suggests that you should stop saving when inflation is high. I did a dissertation on the subject. The reality is that humans are not rational creatures and basically if you like to save, then you save no matter how silly.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Apr 26, 2020 13:25:33 GMT
The point is not that the NHS could make some savings for the government (it certainly could be more efficient but there is also much more that could be done) but if it was not provided on a socialist method the population would be prepared to pay more, judging from the experience in many other countries.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Apr 26, 2020 14:51:35 GMT
The point is not that the NHS could make some savings for the government (it certainly could be more efficient but there is also much more that could be done) but if it was not provided on a socialist method the population would be prepared to pay more, judging from the experience in many other countries. What's your evidence for this?
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Apr 26, 2020 20:59:22 GMT
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Apr 27, 2020 8:45:38 GMT
Well yes. It says the NHS is comparatively low cost, and elsewhere there are papers saying that the NHS gives better value for money than any othe first world country. I agree it's amazing when one observes the clunkiness of some of the procedures, but there you are
What prompted me to as for evidence was this: if it was not provided on a socialist method the population would be prepared to pay more, judging from the experience in many other countries.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Apr 27, 2020 14:31:10 GMT
the NHS gives better value for money than any othe first world country. Come come ... I know we're all supposed to be of the opinion that NHS is god and can do no wrong, but that statement is a bit excessive. Nobody would disagree with you if you said the NHS gives better value for money that the US system. However, in Western Europe, the NHS faces stiff competition. It's cheaper (% gdp) and has in many areas equal results. I quite agree more could be spent and results could thereby be improved. I live in France, which costs more, in many areas has similar results (cure rates etc), but in terms of accessibility is streets ahead (blood tests, I go to one of the 3 labs in this town of 50k people, no appointment, I hang around for 10 mins, maybe 45, and the doc and I both get results electronically the next day. I phone the GP, and get an appointment same or next day normally. I get a scan/x-ray, once done I wait for 30-60mins, and I am given the print and sat down with radiographer to discuss interpretation). So yes this seems streets ahead of what happened in UK (10 years ago admittedly). France costs more and the UK is cheap www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,522
Likes: 2,666
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 27, 2020 15:56:10 GMT
Come come ... I know we're all supposed to be of the opinion that NHS is god and can do no wrong, but that statement is a bit excessive. Nobody would disagree with you if you said the NHS gives better value for money that the US system. However, in Western Europe, the NHS faces stiff competition. It's cheaper (% gdp) and has in many areas equal results. I quite agree more could be spent and results could thereby be improved. I live in France, which costs more, in many areas has similar results (cure rates etc), but in terms of accessibility is streets ahead (blood tests, I go to one of the 3 labs in this town of 50k people, no appointment, I hang around for 10 mins, maybe 45, and the doc and I both get results electronically the next day. I phone the GP, and get an appointment same or next day normally. I get a scan/x-ray, once done I wait for 30-60mins, and I am given the print and sat down with radiographer to discuss interpretation). So yes this seems streets ahead of what happened in UK (10 years ago admittedly). France costs more and the UK is cheap www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29 The UK is c
Your link didn't work for me, seemed to have extraneous characters after "2019-08-29". Try this link
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Apr 27, 2020 16:27:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 3, 2020 7:46:25 GMT
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 3, 2020 8:03:24 GMT
Lefties always seem to get confused about why older people have lots of wealth and the young had none. They seem to think it is unfair rather than something that the older generation worked, saved and invested for.
None of my friends had much money when we were in our 20s, even those from wealthy households. Im in my 40s now, with a “high net worth” but I’d happily pay every penny of it for a pill that made me 20 and penniless again.
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 194
|
Post by daveb on Jul 3, 2020 9:33:30 GMT
I think it would make sense to shift the tax burden from buying to owning houses. Drop stamp duty and put up council tax. That would make it easier to move for work, and tempt older folk to downsize to free up family homes. But I doubt if that would fill much of the hole in public finance. We might need to do something about our productivity for that.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 3, 2020 9:51:42 GMT
Lefties always seem to get confused about why older people have lots of wealth and the young had none. They seem to think it is unfair rather than something that the older generation worked, saved and invested for. None of my friends had much money when we were in our 20s, even those from wealthy households. Im in my 40s now, with a “high net worth” but I’d happily pay every penny of it for a pill that made me 20 and penniless again. Come now, you must know it's not quite as simple as that, Hazel. I'm in my 30's, and through an unconventional route and a dollop of luck have done very well so far. But I look at the next generation and frankly, I feel sorry for them. Their salaries are stagnant, whilst housing in high demand areas is ludicrously expensive even compared to when I bought one in 2011. Meanwhile, I was the last of the lot to go to University for £1k a year, I remember thinking it a raw deal at the time. How wrong I was. Now it's obviously way more, and effectively a graduate tax. For the previous generation it was free. For my father's generation, well, he was paid to go! . Anyway, there are studies that control for age and show this, but it's pretty self-evident in my view that intergenerational inequality has risen. Housing especially is the nasty one on this. Student loans, wage growth, pensions, it's all in one direction. It's not just a Guardianista's imagination (though there's always room for that too ) .. FT article (google search resultedit: Have removed the graph I pasted as it makes no sense without the context of the article.
|
|