Both airing the idea and loony MP.
What's the use of ill poor people anyway if you can't make money from them.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Thu 14 Jun 2018, 12:55,
Reply)
Means-tested, surely?
While making no comment on the rights and wrongs of co-funding / co-payment, which is fairer - an extra 1 or 2p on national insurance that would have to be paid by every poor fucker on £20,000 p/a, or for people earning, say, £35,000 having to part with £20 to see their GP?
Honest question; I've got no idea how to solve the eternal NHS crisis.
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Thu 14 Jun 2018, 13:14,
Reply)
you've picked a very regressive tax there surprisingly
Why not have those on high earnings pay a bit more income tax? Or put corporation tax up?
(, Thu 14 Jun 2018, 13:46, Reply)
Because once you put income tax up above a certain level, rich people simply avoid it or leave the country.
That's the estimate of HMRC themselves, not the government.
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Thu 14 Jun 2018, 13:59,
Reply)
I dont really buy that
The super-rich pay very little tax wherever they live and for most of the others, where you live in the world isnt just contingent on the tax burden.
(, Thu 14 Jun 2018, 14:11, Reply)
Take it up with
Her Majesty's Revenue Cunts then.
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Thu 14 Jun 2018, 14:55,
Reply)
It could be means tested and work ok.
It could also be used as a lead-in to normalise paying for healthcare; Within a very short time, lots of insurers would offer policies to cover charges.
More and more additional costs would arise, to be covered by said policies. Slowly creeping toward a US model.
A little like dentistry has changed.
I don't have an easy answer either, although I am aware that large corporations like to expand into new markets.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Thu 14 Jun 2018, 14:01,
Reply)