Only 34 per cent of Brits think the Government should redistribute income

[Louis MacNeice]

I don't benefit from not having to pay for private insurance - I pay tax to fund the NHS. You're working on the basis that medical cover is a requirement, not an option, and that simply by being there, even if like me you haven't used the NHS for years, it's a benefit. Well it isn't, it's only if I need to utilise it that it's a benefit having free universal health care.

Funding the NHS via general taxation is more economically efficient than the US approach; you pay less in tax than you would as an individual, so you benefit. It's just win win all the way...sit back and enjoy!

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Those inncolulations are only a benefit if there is a sickness going around and I happen to be exposed to it. They wouldn't do them unless they wanted to head off people coming in for treatment.

You said:

But it's hardly redistrubuting wealth, you don't get a material benefit if you use the NHS do you?.​

and:

But to acess this material benefit as you call it you have to get sick, which is a funny kind of wealth redistrubution in my book.​

Both of which turned out not to be true. As for the second half of what you've written above...what does it mean?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[treelover]

I have to say that Friedman chap really was an evil shit....

Framing the question in terms of a cost on one (deserving) section of society being paid out as a benefit to another (undeserving) section of society is how Friedman in Free to Choose wanted debates on government spending to be conducted.

 

[kyser_soze]

Funding the NHS via general taxation is more economically efficient than the US approach; you pay less in tax than you would as an individual, so you benefit. It's just win win all the way...sit back and enjoy!

Louis MacNeice

You can't define that as a benefit, it's a feature. People pay less in direct taxation to the state in the US than the UK and more in direct medical insurance costs, but that premium will be variable based on utilisation of medical services, whereas with the NHS I pay higher taxes whether I use it or not.

FWIW I don't have an issue here, I just don't go along with the notion that simply by existing the NHS is a 'benefit' - it's a social feature that offers advantages, but as yet no one has really nailed what the abstract, non-utilisation benefit is...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The first only applies in the sense SK meant - you only benefit from it directly if you use it (which goes back to the net contributor/net consumer point about the NHS that someone made on another thread); the general standard of health is a feature or product of this, and is not a directly material benefit...Paulie, you need to work on your FABs...

FABS?

I think Louis has made some good points inre: the first part you refer to above as well.

What is "the abstract, non-utilisation benefit" - collective financial responsibility for ensuring universal accessible healthcare? thereby embedding principles of mutuality and social responsibility in a very public manner? is that abstract enough for you? somehow i doubt it

 

[Brainaddict]

With the NHS, I think people are complicating the issue unnecessarily. When or whether you use it isn't the point. The point is that, being funded by taxpayers, it is disproportionately funded by richer people, while being equally available to everyone. This makes it a redistributive mechanism even if it is indirect.
Whether all poorer people are benefitting or not at any given time is irrelevant.
I suspect the poor probably also use the NHS disproportionately, but that doesn't even need to be the case for it to be redistributive.

 

[kyser_soze]

Feature, Advantage, Benefit...basic sales structure

This is a fun thread


@ BA - this is true, but that doesn't change the point that most people probably don't see the NHS as redistribution, and hence it's a badly phrased question.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

With the NHS, I think people are complicating the issue unnecessarily. When or whether you use it isn't the point. The point is that, being funded by taxpayers, it is disproportionately funded by richer people, while being equally available to everyone. This makes it a redistributive mechanism even if it is indirect.
Whether all poorer people are benefitting or not at any given time is irrelevant.
I suspect the poor probably also use the NHS disproportionately, but that doesn't even need to be the case for it to be redistributive.

I'm not at all sure that the bolded bit of your statement is true you know. I don't have time to have a look and be certain but the NHS is primarily funded through NI contributions AFAIK, and they are taken from most low-paid workers and contributions cease being taken at a relatively low point of the income scale (~£35-37k iirc) - so the richer people actually contribute more or less the same as the vast majority of people, and in the case of the super rich, probably a great deal less.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have to say that Friedman chap really was an evil shit....

If you ever get round to reading any of his economics papers, you won't just be calling him an evil shit, you'll be calling him an evidence-manipulating, fatuous and second-rate evil shit.

It's no wonder politicians and capital bought into his theories!

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You can't define that as a benefit, it's a feature. People pay less in direct taxation to the state in the US than the UK and more in direct medical insurance costs, but that premium will be variable based on utilisation of medical services, whereas with the NHS I pay higher taxes whether I use it or not.

FWIW I don't have an issue here, I just don't go along with the notion that simply by existing the NHS is a 'benefit' - it's a social feature that offers advantages, but as yet no one has really nailed what the abstract, non-utilisation benefit is...

It's a benefit because for similar results we pay less as a proportion of GDP for health care than the Americans (and most other industrialsed countries), wepay less per head than the Americans (and most other industrialsed countries) and treatment is cheaper than in the US. All of which is because of the universalist and redistributive character of the NHS; in health terms both as individuals and as a society we are quids in.

Enjoy - Louis MacNeice

 

[Brainaddict]

National Insurance is for social security, no? Particularly pensions.
NHS funding comes from general taxation I think.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm not at all sure that the bolded bit of your statement is true you know. I don't have time to have a look and be certain but the NHS is primarily funded through NI contributions AFAIK, and they are taken from most low-paid workers and contributions cease being taken at a relatively low point of the income scale (~£35-37k iirc) - so the richer people actually contribute more or less the same as the vast majority of people, and in the case of the super rich, probably a great deal less.

Something over 90% of NHS funding come through general taxation not NI contributions; which doesn't mean the ceiling shouldn't be removed from NI liability.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[sleaterkinney]

You said:

But it's hardly redistrubuting wealth, you don't get a material benefit if you use the NHS do you?.​

and:

But to acess this material benefit as you call it you have to get sick, which is a funny kind of wealth redistrubution in my book.​

Both of which turned out not to be true.

In what way is the first not true?. As for the second, I think preventative vs curative medicine is just splitting hairs.

 

[_angel_]

I'm not against the NHS, far from it. But to acess this material benefit as you call it you have to get sick, which is a funny kind of wealth redistrubution in my book.

Or have a baby, or be born.

 

[lewislewis]

Considering the right-wing media barrage we're subjected to, the results of that survey aren't as bad as I thought they'd be. I agree with the general feeling of this thread, if it was explained what constituted redistributing income, it'd be way higher than 34%. The respondents probably just thought redistributing income= higher taxes.

The rest of the survey isn't that bad, women are being seen of as workers more (instead of automatically being seen as 'stay at home') which is good. The homophobia stuff isn't good but at least is decreasing, and the climate change awareness stuff is good.

The bad thing for me wasn't the income redistribution, it was the section on race.

Re the NHS, it is a great institution, it is very easy to defend as well. I think that free prescriptions should apply in England as well though, and the private sector shouldn't be involved in the delivery of NHS services.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I think they should enact laws obliging pollsters to publish information about the sample and questionnaire used by the survey. A figure like 34% doesn't interest me in the slightest.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I think they should enact laws obliging pollsters to publish information about the sample and questionnaire used by the survey. A figure like 34% doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Agreed. I'd like to see the methodology and the questions asked in this case as the 34% seems odd to me.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

WTF? That can't be right can it?

I saw it in this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/britain-in-2008-a-nation-in-thrall-to-thatcherism-772335.html

That Britain is in thrall to Thatcherism isn't a surprise obviously, but that particular statistic I find quite shocking - and not entirely believable. Did people fail to understand the question or something? I can't really believe that the remaning 66% really want to scrap child benefit, JSA, income support, incapacity benefit and all other welfare. Perhaps they see that as an individual's reciprocal arrangement with the state, rather than as redistribution? But a lot of it *is* outright redistribution (as is much of NHS spending) and I really hope it is supported by more than 34% of people.

Why should someone who works hard and is successful give up their money to someone who doesn't? It seems like a perfectly normal attitude to have.

 

[Blagsta]

Why should someone who works hard and is successful give up their money to someone who doesn't? It seems like a perfectly normal attitude to have.

for a cunt with no mates like you perhaps

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Why should someone who works hard and is successful give up their money to someone who doesn't? It seems like a perfectly normal attitude to have.

I disagree with you as I think we should give money to those who have nothing if they deserve it. What bothers me is giving money to those who don't whether it be Northern Wreck shareholders or the vultures who will buy this company or those who bludge the dole.

Slightly off topic I noticed that we have yet another council tax rise in the pipeline. More money for fuck all. Nobody objects to paying tax provided that the taxpayer gets value for money. We are not getting value for money from our local authoritiies. Too many useless superfluous managers and non core activities.

 

[girasol]

Haven't read the whole thread but my view is that there is already enough money out there, the only problem is that the government doesn't use it wisely.

IMO what needs to be done is a redistribution of the existing taxes, not necessarily an increase in tax.

As they say: "the hallmark of a healthy society is how well it looks after its weakest and most vulnerable members", so reducing money going into welfare is really bad idea.

 

[Mallard]

As has been said these surveys are unreliable and a lot depends on the wording of questions. Conversley there a survey in France recently where about 30% of respondents said that they 'were against capitalism as a concept'? However, the left/left wing views in the UK are the lowest profile I've ever seen them (current Public Sector disputes aside).

 

[_angel_]

I disagree with you as I think we should give money to those who have nothing if they deserve it. What bothers me is giving money to those who don't whether it be Northern Wreck shareholders or the vultures who will buy this company or those who bludge the dole.

Slightly off topic I noticed that we have yet another council tax rise in the pipeline. More money for fuck all. Nobody objects to paying tax provided that the taxpayer gets value for money. We are not getting value for money from our local authoritiies. Too many useless superfluous managers and non core activities.

I don't think council tax is money for fuck all, however questioning some of the jollies councillors may get up to is entirely justified.

Old peoples homes, social services, services for disabled people are always the first to be axed by councils when they're hard pressed for cash, closely followed by schools.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I don't think council tax is money for fuck all, however questioning some of the jollies councillors may get up to is entirely justified.

Old peoples homes, social services, services for disabled people are always the first to be axed by councils when they're hard pressed for cash, closely followed by schools.

These services should be supplied and paid for and run centrally as it would reduce admin duplication and would probably be more effective.

I'll stop moaning about excessive tax when councils become more effective and I can get a fucking dentist that I can afford.

 

[_angel_]

These services should be supplied and paid for and run centrally as it would reduce admin duplication and would probably be more effective.

I'll stop moaning about excessive tax when councils become more effective and I can get a fucking dentist that I can afford.

I think you need to blame Thatcher for privatising dentistry, not councils for their taxes.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I think you need to blame Thatcher for privatising dentistry, not councils for their taxes.

I pay taxes as it is a part of a covenant between the citizen and the state. We pay taxes therefore we should bet effective services. We are not getting effective services therefore we should complain about taxes and how they are being wasted.

Why isn't money being spent in areas where it should be spent?

I pay taxes for things like the NHS and regular street cleaning I don't pay taxes so that councils and govt depts can waste them.

I work with public money and treat public money as carefully as I treat my own - If I can do this why can't they. Councils should ask themselves 'do we need to pay our chief exec £100k do we need to translate documents into every language under the sun, do we need to go on junkets to twinned towns, do we need to fund councillors pet projects with no requirement for financial reporting as in Newham,do we need a fancy new logo etc etc' If the money is short then these sort of things need to be cut back on not essential services.

 

[_angel_]

I pay taxes as it is a part of a covenant between the citizen and the state. We pay taxes therefore we should bet effective services. We are not getting effective services therefore we should complain about taxes and how they are being wasted.

Why isn't money being spent in areas where it should be spent?

I thought the NHS was funded thru income tax not council tax?

I've never understood why dentistry was considered something okay to put out of the reach of about half the population though.

 

[Andy the Don]

You need not redistribute wealth to improve the life of the poor. In fact tax cuts, such as zero tax rate for anyone under £15kpa, would do more to alleviate poverty than government redistributing wealth. A zero rate tax on <£15k would give the working poor an immediate increase in wealth directly to their pockets.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You need not redistribute wealth to improve the life of the poor. In fact tax cuts, such as zero tax rate for anyone under £15kpa, would do more to alleviate poverty than government redistributing wealth. A zero rate tax on <£15k would give the working poor an immediate increase in wealth directly to their pockets.

Good post.

 

[_angel_]

I never understood why they don't say have zero tax for those on minimum wage and reorganise the tax brackets, aren't ALL earners over 30k lumped in together or something? That's like the slightly above average and multibillionaires all in the same tax bracket.

Weird.