The difference is instead of shareholders losing money
people lose their lives, that changes absolutly everything.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:32, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

that's a bit facile
it's not as black and white as money-v-life, and you know it!

the bottom line is, however amazing a job the nhs does, someone has to pay for it. this is why lots of other countries don't have it. and the money simply isn't there to do that, esp given the massive number of non-contributors who use it now, as opposed to when the concept was established all those years ago. in fact, the more money you contribute into the tax pot, the less likely you are to use it, as you are more likely to have access to private healthcare. so to make it work, they have to do something.

if it were up to me, i'd take money away from other things that i think are pointless and pump it into the nhs, transport and education, but naturally the government never think to ask me...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:38, Reply)

There isn't a "massive number of non-contributors"
You've been reading to much hyperventilating Daily Mail stranglewank journalism.

The private healthcare argument is massively spurious as the vast majority of medical situations require you to use the NHS first regardless of your wealth or private healthcare.

And of course someone has to pay. That's why you put taxes up and actually enforce collection of corporation tax, instead of bending over backwards and being taken by anyone who fanices it. Because, here's the thing - banks and big business aren't going to fuck off to another country if you actually start to tax fairly. they just aren't. So why even listen to that as a threat?

Your plan is fine, but you don't need to take money from other things. You just need more money. Easy. More tax. now THAT is fair.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:45, Reply)

you say it's right wing bollocks
but every time the country has ended up in the financial shit, it's followed a more left wing government.

the problem is that you are never going to get high earners to think they should "have to pay" more tax to support other people who choose not to work at all. so there will never be a definition of "fairly" because it will fluctuate depending on who is control.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:59, Reply)

Why are you assuming that I would tax high earners more?
I'd tax everyone more. High earners pay more money, but not proportionally more.

And that government thing is entirely untrue. It's happened once (Wilson's government) - I don't think you can call the previous Labour administration "left wing"

I'm not, incidentally, left wing. I'm very capitalist. I don't wave ineffectual fists at the nasty banks. Capitalism works. But the ONLY fair solution to financial crisis is wholesale tax increases, because it is the only thing that hurts everyone equally.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:06, Reply)

Apart from those who employ accountants to ensure they pay as little tax as possible
By abusing loopholes and tax havens and the like.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:08, Reply)

and lawyers
don't forget the lawyers.

but then the accountants and lawyers pay tax on their fees and salaries, so.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:10, Reply)

Nowhere near as much as the tax money saved by the rich
Closing tax loopholes would be the most fair method of raising more money, in my very ill-informed opinion.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 15:12, Reply)

Take the example of the banks then
They were too big to fail, they got a large amount of help from goverment and the government has now said they're not in the buisiness of micro managing the banks. Trusting them to sort themselves out.

Where as the NHS has had the soon abolisment of NICE (the only way it currently has to limit the use of overpriced undereffective drugs), a "real-terms increase" which in reality is cuts and a massive stuctural change imposed by the government. Totally the opposite to what happened to the banks.

This is all about ingrained mistrust of the people who work in the public sector by the government, and politicians in general to be able to do anything at all without them pointing out what they should focus on.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 14 Jan 2011, 14:48, Reply)