National "Insurance"
Tim Ward
Sure there was a discussion here a few weeks ago but can't be ****ed to look
for the thread ...
Today's 2% rise (stated by the chancellor to be 1%, but most of us, here at
least, can just about manage to add 1% + 1% = 2%) in tax now means that for
the first time for most employed people most months NI will cost them more
at the margin (at 23.8% of nominal salary) than income tax (at 22% of
nominal salary).
I continue to find it astonishing how the penalty for actually having the
cheek to earn your own living continues to increase relative to the low
levels of tax (less than half, now!) you have to pay on unearned income
(dividends, rent, etc). Another budget for the rich, worthy of the Tories at
their most blatant.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Francis Turton
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1Hkv8.45389$C21.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Sure there was a discussion here a few weeks ago but can't be ****ed to
look
> for the thread ...
>
> Today's 2% rise (stated by the chancellor to be 1%, but most of us, here
at
> least, can just about manage to add 1% + 1% = 2%) in tax now means that
for
> the first time for most employed people most months NI will cost them more
> at the margin (at 23.8% of nominal salary) than income tax (at 22% of
> nominal salary).
>
> I continue to find it astonishing how the penalty for actually having the
> cheek to earn your own living continues to increase relative to the low
> levels of tax (less than half, now!) you have to pay on unearned income
> (dividends, rent, etc). Another budget for the rich, worthy of the Tories
at
> their most blatant.
>
What nonsense. (i) Do you seriously think the Tories would ever have
_dreamed_ of putting up national insurance? (ii) In what way does removing
the ceiling on national insurance contributions for high earners constitute
a "budget for the rich"? (iii) I assume that by "the cheek to earn your own
living" you mean "the cheek to be earning 50% more than the average national
wage".
We all have our opinions on whether a (relatively) equitable society is
desirable, but over and above that, your argument doesn't seem to make any
sense.
---------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "spamless." from e-mail address.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/francis.turton/
Colin Rosenstiel
francis...@spamless.ntlworld.com (Francis Turton) wrote:
> "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1Hkv8.45389$C21.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > Sure there was a discussion here a few weeks ago but can't be ****ed
> > to look for the thread ...
> >
> > Today's 2% rise (stated by the chancellor to be 1%, but most of us,
> > here at least, can just about manage to add 1% + 1% = 2%) in tax now
> > means that for the first time for most employed people most months NI
> > will cost them more at the margin (at 23.8% of nominal salary) than
> > income tax (at 22% of nominal salary).
> >
> > I continue to find it astonishing how the penalty for actually having
> > the cheek to earn your own living continues to increase relative to
> > the low levels of tax (less than half, now!) you have to pay on
> > unearned income (dividends, rent, etc). Another budget for the rich,
> > worthy of the Tories at their most blatant.
>
> What nonsense. (i) Do you seriously think the Tories would ever have
> _dreamed_ of putting up national insurance?
The Tories did put up National Insurance! More than once UIVMM.
> (ii) In what way does removing the ceiling on national insurance
> contributions for high earners constitute a "budget for the rich"?
What exactly has the Chancellor announced there? I've got contradictory
reports from different sources. I suppose we will all find out in the next
few days.
> (iii) I assume that by "the cheek to earn your own living" you mean "the
> cheek to be earning 50% more than the average national wage".
>
> We all have our opinions on whether a (relatively) equitable society is
> desirable, but over and above that, your argument doesn't seem to make
> any sense.
You can be sure that all is not as it at first appears. Are you denying
Tim's main point about the treatment of employment and savings incomes?
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Ayliffe
news:memo.20020418...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
>
> The Tories did put up National Insurance! More than once UIVMM.
Who has been responsible for putting up the NI(ee) Upper earnings limit?
When last I noticed (probly more than 5 years ago) it was less than £20k,
now it's over £30k. Obviously this is all part hidden campaign to remove the
cap, but I'm just interested to know which bunch is responsible.
Mark
Mike Lewis
nmore tax to workers.
On the other hand if you can stay out of the ir35 club you actually save
tax. Errr I imagine thisjust rubs salt in the wound.
--
Mike Lewis, Chartered Accountant
www.mikelewis.co.uk
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1Hkv8.45389$C21.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
Mike Lewis
workers taxes aren't. I don't mean those on the dole I mean those with
investment income.
--
Mike Lewis, Chartered Accountant
www.mikelewis.co.uk
"Francis Turton" <francis...@spamless.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oOmv8.43391$tZ1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Mike Lewis
to do. Don't tell me it's not income tax it's NI. It's 1 percent of income
so it's a tax.
--
Mike Lewis, Chartered Accountant
www.mikelewis.co.uk
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1Hkv8.45389$C21.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
Paul Oldham
(Paul Oldham) growled:
> In article <memo.20020418...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) growled:
>
> > > (ii) In what way does removing the ceiling on national insurance
> > > contributions for high earners constitute a "budget for the rich"?
> >
> > What exactly has the Chancellor announced there? I've got
> > contradictory reports from different sources. I suppose we will all
> > find out in the next few days.
>
> I think he's removed the ceiling, so the rather odd dip in the
> effective tax rate has gone, but this is only second hand.
Ah, I was wrong. The old ceiling remains, but the 1% increase has no
ceiling. So you play 11% on the first bit and then 1% thereafter.
--
Paul Oldham, Milton villager
The cam.* FAQ ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
Milton web site -> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
Paul Oldham
t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) growled:
> Sure there was a discussion here a few weeks ago but can't be ****ed to
> look for the thread ...
>
> Today's 2% rise (stated by the chancellor to be 1%, but most of us,
> here at least, can just about manage to add 1% + 1% = 2%) in tax now
> means that for the first time for most employed people most months NI
> will cost them more at the margin (at 23.8% of nominal salary) than
> income tax (at 22% of nominal salary).
What a load of tosh. Your NI has gone up by 1%. As has your employer's.
Just because in your head you consider Brett Ward Ltd to be you doesn't
change the fact that these are two separate entities.
And you fail to mention that Brett Ward Ltd, being a small business, will
benefit from changes in Corporation Tax in the opposite direction, zero on
the first 10K of profit and a 1% reduction thereafter IIRC and from
changes in the VAT regime to benefit small businesses, nor that you are in
the happy position of being able to take as much as your income as
dividends (the "unearned income to which you refer") as you can get away
with rather than as salary, unlike most employees and thus avoid NI all
together.
And talking of tax increases wasn't it your party which for years was
threatening to increase income tax by exactly the same percentage to
finance education ... are you *sure* you're standing for the right party?
Paul Oldham
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) growled:
> > (ii) In what way does removing the ceiling on national insurance
> > contributions for high earners constitute a "budget for the rich"?
>
> What exactly has the Chancellor announced there? I've got contradictory
> reports from different sources. I suppose we will all find out in the
> next few days.
I think he's removed the ceiling, so the rather odd dip in the effective
tax rate has gone, but this is only second hand.
--
Paul Oldham
mike-a...@nospam.ntlworld.com (Mike Lewis) growled:
> It is of course an increase in income tax. Precisely what they promised
> not to do. Don't tell me it's not income tax it's NI. It's 1 percent of
> income so it's a tax.
Yup, although as someone pointed out on the radio just now this isn't true
if you're a pensioner in employment or have unearned income (interest for
example) so it's not quite the same as income tax.
Paul Oldham
mike-a...@nospam.ntlworld.com (Mike Lewis) growled:
> I agree the increase in NI is gob smacking. It's a bloody cheek to add
> on nmore tax to workers.
Someone on the radio this morning was suggesting that workers on under 50K
*with children* may be better off because of some other changes.
<hugo>
Why are we subsidising these people's hobbies!
</hugo>
Paul Rudin
PO> <hugo> Why are we subsidising these people's hobbies! </hugo>
Coz the results of these hobbies will be paying tax to support the
meals-on-wheels Hugo'll need in his dotage? :-)
--
This PORCUPINE knows his ZIPCODE.. And he has ``VISA''!!
Paul Oldham
Rudin) growled:
> >>>>> "PO" == Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> writes:
>
> PO> <hugo> Why are we subsidising these people's hobbies! </hugo>
>
> Coz the results of these hobbies will be paying tax to support the
> meals-on-wheels Hugo'll need in his dotage? :-)
Hush. ;-)
Anyway they'll do it anyway: how many people really say "gosh darling, I
think we should change our minds and have some children now that Mr Gordon
has been so generous"?
Mike Pitt
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
>Yup, although as someone pointed out on the radio just now this isn't true
>if you're a pensioner in employment or have unearned income (interest for
>example) so it's not quite the same as income tax.
I think it also differs with regard to tax rebates on both pension
contributions and charitable donations. (That is to say if he'd put
income tax up then the govt would have had to pay out more on these
things.)
Mike
Mark Ayliffe
news:vaq*qB...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk>,
> I think it also differs with regard to tax rebates on both pension
> contributions and charitable donations. (That is to say if he'd put
> income tax up then the govt would have had to pay out more on these
> things.)
They may have had to adjust pension contributions to fit, but (tax reclaimed
on) charitable donations would have a net effect of zero. As they do now.
Mark
Mark Ayliffe
news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
> In article <9Nuv8.44415$tZ1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> mike-a...@nospam.ntlworld.com (Mike Lewis) growled:
>
> > I agree the increase in NI is gob smacking. It's a bloody cheek to add
> > on nmore tax to workers.
>
> Someone on the radio this morning was suggesting that workers on under 50K
> *with children* may be better off because of some other changes.
Possibly. I've not seen that they are doing with family allowance or
whatever it's called now. Might be a take with one hand and give with the
other situation? Any clues?
Mark
Richard Meredith
t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) wrote:
> I continue to find it astonishing how the penalty for actually having the
> cheek to earn your own living continues to increase relative to the low
> levels of tax (less than half, now!) you have to pay on unearned income
> (dividends, rent, etc). Another budget for the rich, worthy of the Tories
> at
> their most blatant.
Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
upper earnings limit benefit the rich? Budget for Gordon Brown, more like.
--
This message may contain traces of nuts. Do not refreeze once thawed.
No animals were hurt in the making of this production. Suitable for
vegetarians.
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
> > (ii) In what way does removing the ceiling on national insurance
> > contributions for high earners constitute a "budget for the rich"?
>
> What exactly has the Chancellor announced there? I've got contradictory
> reports from different sources. I suppose we will all find out in the
> next few days.
His 1% hike has no upper earnings limit, though the rest of it still has.
It's rather more than a simple hike in the rate - it's another complication
in the system, just as you'd expect from Gordon Brown.
Paul Oldham
mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Someone on the radio this morning was suggesting that workers on
> > under 50K *with children* may be better off because of some other
> > changes.
>
> Possibly. I've not seen that they are doing with family allowance or
> whatever it's called now. Might be a take with one hand and give with
> the other situation?
That was the impression I got.
David Braben
> t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) growled:
>
> benefit from changes in Corporation Tax in the opposite direction, zero on
> the first 10K of profit and a 1% reduction thereafter IIRC and from
> changes in the VAT regime to benefit small businesses, nor that you are in
> the happy position of being able to take as much as your income as
> dividends (the "unearned income to which you refer") as you can get away
> with rather than as salary, unlike most employees and thus avoid NI all
> together.
An additional 1% on employers NI is a bad tax, as it does not depend on
ability to pay. In industries where the majority of expenditure is salaries
(ie service sector, software etc) this is major tax hike. Corporation Tax is
only paid by companies making a profit; this is another nail in the coffin
of many small businesses already on the edge, and as such is a very bad
thing. We are already the second highest business taxpayers in Europe (after
Germany)[1] - and I suspect we have the highest rate in the Western World by
far of non profit-dependent business taxes.
This 1% hike on employment costs effectively knocks 1% off the salary budget
for next year - most logically taking 1% out of any possible pay rises, so
in effect it is indeed a 2% tax hike as Tim says.
A separate issue - I personally think it is barmy to tax what used to be
known by Labour as "un-earned income" at such a different rate to salaries
etc [2] - it overcomplicates the tax system, and this is what this so-called
NI is all about. Why not roll the lot (CGT, Income tax, employer NI,
employee NI) into one, with one set of rules? Much fairer for all and
simpler to collect, and stop pretending we're a country of low taxation.
David
[1] Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight last night.
[2] because interest etc has no NI
Mark Ayliffe
news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
> In article <vhxv8.8$Az2.780@psinet-eu-nl>,
> mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
>
> > "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> > news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > > Someone on the radio this morning was suggesting that workers on
> > > under 50K *with children* may be better off because of some other
> > > changes.
> >
> > Possibly. I've not seen that they are doing with family allowance or
> > whatever it's called now. Might be a take with one hand and give with
> > the other situation?
>
> That was the impression I got.
Ah, my cynicism control was set a little too high. "Child Benefit" remains
according to http://makeashorterlink.com/?O269126B so it appears (from table
5.22) that I/we shall get back about the same as the NI amount taken away,
possibly slightly more. 3 or more kids seems to be the requirement here
though.
Ho hum
Mark
Chris Brown
Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
>upper earnings limit benefit the rich?
By not applying to income from investments.
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
Robert Laws
Surely rental income is taxed like all other income - just added in.
Ditto for interest and dividends. These may be taxed at source at the
basic rate but if you are a higher rate taxpayer you then have to pay
pay the extra tax at your marginal rate. Or is that not the point
that was being claimed?
Robert
Paul Oldham
(David Braben) growled:
> This 1% hike on employment costs effectively knocks 1% off the salary
> budget for next year - most logically taking 1% out of any possible pay
> rises, so in effect it is indeed a 2% tax hike as Tim says.
Yes, but that's not the way he put it. He wants us to think of it as a 2%
increase in personal taxation which it clearly isn't.
Whether businesses cope with *their* tax increase by reducing salary
increases next year rather than increasing prices or productivity or sales
or shareholder dividends or whatever is their choice, but it ain't a 2%
increase in tax for individuals and I don't like seeing it being
misrepresented as such for political purposes.
Paul Oldham
mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <vhxv8.8$Az2.780@psinet-eu-nl>,
> > mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> >
> > > "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> > > news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > > Someone on the radio this morning was suggesting that workers on
> > > > under 50K *with children* may be better off because of some other
> > > > changes.
> > >
> > > Possibly. I've not seen that they are doing with family allowance or
> > > whatever it's called now. Might be a take with one hand and give
> > > with the other situation?
> >
> > That was the impression I got.
>
> Ah, my cynicism control was set a little too high. "Child Benefit"
> remains according to http://makeashorterlink.com/?O269126B so it appears
> (from table 5.22) that I/we shall get back about the same as the NI
> amount taken away, possibly slightly more. 3 or more kids seems to be
> the requirement here though.
>
> Ho hum
Enough of that "ho hum"ing lad. Get home and get started! You've only got
twelve months to add as many children as you can manage to your household.
Mark Ayliffe
news:d476338b.0204...@posting.google.com...
>
> Surely rental income is taxed like all other income - just added in.
> Ditto for interest and dividends. These may be taxed at source at the
> basic rate but if you are a higher rate taxpayer you then have to pay
> pay the extra tax at your marginal rate. Or is that not the point
> that was being claimed?
No. Investment income (contra capital gains) is only liable to Income Tax,
not NI, therefore is subject to less overall tax for the same gross income.
Mark
Mark Ayliffe
> (David Braben) growled:
>
> > This 1% hike on employment costs effectively knocks 1% off the salary
> > budget for next year - most logically taking 1% out of any possible pay
> > rises, so in effect it is indeed a 2% tax hike as Tim says.
>
> Yes, but that's not the way he put it. He wants us to think of it as a 2%
> increase in personal taxation which it clearly isn't.
>
> Whether businesses cope with *their* tax increase by reducing salary
> increases next year rather than increasing prices or productivity or sales
> or shareholder dividends or whatever is their choice, but it ain't a 2%
> increase in tax for individuals and I don't like seeing it being
> misrepresented as such for political purposes.
And I don't like seeing it being misrepresented as a 1% rise. Overall
payroll taxes [have risen|will rise] by 2% not 1%. Yes we could increase our
prices and thus go out of business. And even if we don't (go bust) that'll
blow a big hole in his inflation targets. Shareholder dividends, that was a
joke right? Productivity gains, in the software business?
Mark
Mark Ayliffe
> twelve months to add as many children as you can manage to your household.
We've got our three thanks, and we're very happy indeed with them. *smug*
Mark
Paul Oldham
mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> news:memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <FRNT674...@frontier.co.uk>,
> > dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk
> > (David Braben) growled:
> >
> > > This 1% hike on employment costs effectively knocks 1% off the
> > > salary budget for next year - most logically taking 1% out of any
> > > possible pay rises, so in effect it is indeed a 2% tax hike as Tim
> > > says.
> >
> > Yes, but that's not the way he put it. He wants us to think of it as
> > a 2% increase in personal taxation which it clearly isn't.
> >
> > Whether businesses cope with *their* tax increase by reducing salary
> > increases next year rather than increasing prices or productivity or
> > sales or shareholder dividends or whatever is their choice, but it
> > ain't a 2% increase in tax for individuals and I don't like seeing it
> > being misrepresented as such for political purposes.
>
> And I don't like seeing it being misrepresented as a 1% rise. Overall
> payroll taxes [have risen|will rise] by 2% not 1%.
Fine.
> Yes we could increase our prices and thus go out of business. And even
> if we don't (go bust) that'll blow a big hole in his inflation targets.
Yup. I do wonder whether he's allowed for that. It's exactly the result
I'd expect to see.
> Shareholder dividends, that was a joke right?
No. A typo. I meant "decrease" of course.
> Productivity gains, in the software business?
You've clearly not met the programmer I used to employ ;-)
Mark Ayliffe
>
> No. A typo. I meant "decrease" of course.
From zero?
> > Productivity gains, in the software business?
>
> You've clearly not met the programmer I used to employ ;-)
:-) Yeah, fair comment. My implication was that mostly the productivity is
up at the mo' due to the errm, state of the job market.
Mark
Jon Green
wrote:
>In article <Cozv8.17$Az2.842@psinet-eu-nl>,
>mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
>
>> Yes we could increase our prices and thus go out of business. And even
>> if we don't (go bust) that'll blow a big hole in his inflation targets.
>
>Yup. I do wonder whether he's allowed for that. It's exactly the result
>I'd expect to see.
Depends whether the reduction in consumer cashflow through added
taxation and lower wage increases has a compensating effect, by
depressing the market.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email.
Want a free solution to email spam? Try http://www.deadspam.com/
(Declaration of interest: I own/run the domain.)
st...@psopgagmle.org
> Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
> upper earnings limit benefit the rich?
Hint: many of "the rich" are not employees and/or have significant
non-employment income.
-- Steve
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:
> In article <memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>,
> Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
> >upper earnings limit benefit the rich?
>
> By not applying to income from investments.
You mean in the same way the colour of the sky benefits the rich?
Richard Meredith
Brown) wrote:
> ompulink.co.uk>,
> Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
> >upper earnings limit benefit the rich?
>
> By not applying to income from investments.
On the principle that "the rich" only have investment income?
Or is that it doesn't hit the rich as much as it could if it applied to
investment income as well, even though it still hits the rich more than the
not-rich?
Is a budget that isn't 'for the rich' one that doesn't screw them as hard as
it is possible to do?
Chris Brown
Oh, I see what you're getting at now - people on minimum wage don't have to
pay national insurance on their stock market investments, dividends etc.
either. How silly of me not to realise that!
Tim Ward
> t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) growled:
>
> > look for the thread ...
> >
> > Today's 2% rise (stated by the chancellor to be 1%, but most of us,
> > here at least, can just about manage to add 1% + 1% = 2%) in tax now
> > means that for the first time for most employed people most months NI
> > will cost them more at the margin (at 23.8% of nominal salary) than
> > income tax (at 22% of nominal salary).
>
> Just because in your head you consider Brett Ward Ltd to be you doesn't
> change the fact that these are two separate entities.
Most employers have a "wages and NI" budget. If 1% more of it goes in NI
that's 1% less to go to the workers come the next pay round. Don't fall for
the bullshit.
> And you fail to mention that Brett Ward Ltd, being a small business, will
> benefit from changes in Corporation Tax in the opposite direction, zero on
> the first 10K of profit
Really??? I though it was just a reduction of the 10% rate to 0%, and all of
that is clawed back starting at £10,001 profit. So Brett Ward Ltd never saw
any of the lower rate AFAIK. (Not that I understand the CT form, that's the
one thing I get the accountant to do for me).
> and a 1% reduction thereafter IIRC and from
> changes in the VAT regime to benefit small businesses, nor that you are in
> the happy position of being able to take as much as your income as
> dividends (the "unearned income to which you refer") as you can get away
> with rather than as salary, unlike most employees and thus avoid NI all
> together.
Um, possibly, possibly not. Nice to have your vote of confidence that BWL
escapes IR35, but the tax man might not agree; and of course the thousands
we've spent researching this don't count as "tax" but I can't spend them on
something else either.
> And talking of tax increases wasn't it your party which for years was
> threatening to increase income tax by exactly the same percentage to
> finance education ... are you *sure* you're standing for the right party?
Sorry, I can't have been clear enough. It's the NI I'm objecting to, and
particularly the trick of raising it by 2% whilst claiming to have raised it
by 1%; if tax needs to be raised it should be income tax.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Tim Ward
> Ditto for interest and dividends. These may be taxed at source at the
> basic rate but if you are a higher rate taxpayer you then have to pay
> pay the extra tax at your marginal rate. Or is that not the point
> that was being claimed?
No, they are taxed at 22% (income tax only) not 45.8% (income tax plus
national insurance) like earned income.
Tim Ward
> (David Braben) growled:
>
> > This 1% hike on employment costs effectively knocks 1% off the salary
> > budget for next year - most logically taking 1% out of any possible pay
> > rises, so in effect it is indeed a 2% tax hike as Tim says.
>
> Yes, but that's not the way he put it. He wants us to think of it as a 2%
> increase in personal taxation which it clearly isn't.
Oh Yes It Is, it just takes a year or so to get there. Well, probably not
this time, actually, because employers can make money by starting to offer
new hires 1% less than they might have done before the tax actually comes
in!
Tim Ward
news:9Nuv8.44415$tZ1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> On the other hand if you can stay out of the ir35 club you actually save
> tax. Errr I imagine thisjust rubs salt in the wound.
It *is* completely bizarre, isn't it?? Must be time for a pay cut ...
Tim Ward
> if you're a pensioner in employment or have unearned income (interest for
> example) so it's not quite the same as income tax.
The claim that they've done it this way to help poor pensioners living on £5
a week interest is fatuous, as they don't pay income tax anyway.
Tim Ward
news:memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
>
> Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
> upper earnings limit benefit the rich? Budget for Gordon Brown, more like.
Because the rich don't pay it.
The rich don't get a PAYE salary, dear boy, the rich live on dividends (no
NI), rent (no NI), interest (no NI), and other financial instruments too
obscure for me to know about (no NI).
Tim Ward
news:memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
>
as
> it is possible to do?
No, it's one that doesn't screw them as much as it screws the not-rich.
Richard Meredith
Yes. So a brand new tax that does not actually hit one section of the rich
is a positive benefit to them, in the same way that way that a tax on pet
gorillas is a benefit to those who do not have pet gorillas.
Thomas Thurman
> For even more honesty the description ought to mention
> the NICs above UEL, but it starts to get unwieldy then...
There's now this quite beautifully surreal picture in my mind
of hundreds and hundreds of Ethernet cards floating serenely
in the sky above the campus of UEL (I think it's the Dagenham
one-- the one with the little murals all along the front).
T
Colin Rosenstiel
mike...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) wrote:
> In article <memo.20020418...@paul.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
> >Yup, although as someone pointed out on the radio just now this isn't
> >true if you're a pensioner in employment or have unearned income
> >(interest for example) so it's not quite the same as income tax.
>
> I think it also differs with regard to tax rebates on both pension
> contributions and charitable donations. (That is to say if he'd put
> income tax up then the govt would have had to pay out more on these
> things.)
Another point is that NI is levied separately for every "employment". This
means that most councillors don't pay any because they get less than the
lower limit of £386 per month (£89 per week).
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
> A separate issue - I personally think it is barmy to tax what used to be
> known by Labour as "un-earned income" at such a different rate to
> salaries etc [2] - it overcomplicates the tax system, and this is what
> this so-called NI is all about. Why not roll the lot (CGT, Income tax,
> employer NI, employee NI) into one, with one set of rules? Much fairer
> for all and simpler to collect, and stop pretending we're a country of
> low taxation.
Simpler? With Gordon Brown as Chancellor? Does not compute.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
tho...@thurman.org.uk (Thomas Thurman) wrote:
Oh no! Not the return of the Network Card thread!
Colin Rosenstiel
alan truelove
703 989 9103 (US)
Seems all the more reason to perform your profession as an independent
contractor, if you can. I haven't looked at the various uk consulting
ng's lately, and I realise that UK Inland Revenue makes life difficult
-- all the more reason to mix in some N. American jobs -
>
>
Mark Ayliffe
news:memo.20020419...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
No, this is the wireless network card thread. Ahhh Friday again.
Mark
Richard Meredith
t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) wrote:
> "Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
> >
> > Budget for the rich? In what way precisely does a brand new tax with no
> > upper earnings limit benefit the rich? Budget for Gordon Brown, more
> > like.
>
> Because the rich don't pay it.
>
> The rich don't get a PAYE salary, dear boy, the rich live on dividends (no
> NI), rent (no NI), interest (no NI), and other financial instruments too
> obscure for me to know about (no NI).
Generalisations, generalisatios..
Of course, the reduced profits due to the payroll tax (only Gordon Brown
doesn't call at that, just as he doesn't call a tax on income income tax)
won't affect those dividends as GB diverts all that money his way, not at
all.
Look, I happen to think that the whole idea of NI as currently implemented
is purea, unadulterated nonsense: the sooner the whole shebang was abolished
and rolled up into the income tax system the better all round: much simpler
and cheaper to administer, and avoiding all those pitfalls you're
complaining about.
IMO this budget was pretty miserable all round: not a budget for the rich,
or the poor either.
Sarah Woodall
(Richard Meredith) wrote:
>IMO this budget was pretty miserable all round: not a budget for the rich,
>or the poor either.
It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
money. So it was a budget for all of us.
Sarah
--
Sarah Woodall, Labour candidate for East Chesterton
48 Water Street, Cambridge CB4 1PA, UK. +44 1223 561769
http://www.cambridgelabour.org.uk/candidate-eastchesterton.shtml
Mark Ayliffe
news:l900cukntceale5lc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:39 +0100 (BST), rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk
> (Richard Meredith) wrote:
> >IMO this budget was pretty miserable all round: not a budget for the
rich,
> >or the poor either.
>
> It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
> money. So it was a budget for all of us.
And you can't even see the strings.
Mark
Mark Goodge
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:39 +0100 (BST), rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk
> (Richard Meredith) wrote:
> >IMO this budget was pretty miserable all round: not a budget for the rich,
> >or the poor either.
>
> It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
> money. So it was a budget for all of us.
Pity that an election pledge had to be broken in order to raise the
money, though. And money isn't the only problem facing the NHS - I'd
have liked to have seen some intelligent measures to tackle management
inefficiency and political interference.
Mark
Richard Meredith
Goodge) wrote:
No doubt with her penchant for spin Sarah would claim that it's not income
tax. A tax on income is, of course, something entirely unrelated.
And they wonder why so many people distrust politicians. Sheesh.
Richard Meredith
sa...@sarahwoodall.org.uk (Sarah Woodall) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:39 +0100 (BST), rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk
> (Richard Meredith) wrote:
> >IMO this budget was pretty miserable all round: not a budget for the
> rich, >or the poor either.
>
> It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
> money. So it was a budget for all of us.
Congratulations, a comment straight from Spin Central, bypassing all brains
en route.
Look, IF all this works then I'll be happy with it. I am not yet convinced
that it will work, and if it doesn't I don't want Gordon or his successor
claiming that all it needs is yet more squillions without considering that
there might be something structurally wrong with the NHS and looking rather
more widely about the whole healthcare business. At the moment it seems that
the Government is treating the whole thing as a sacred cow, with nothing to
learn from other countries that may do some things rather better than the
NHS currently does.
Paul Oldham
rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk (Richard Meredith) growled:
> No doubt with her penchant for spin Sarah would claim that it's not
> income tax. A tax on income is, of course, something entirely unrelated.
Not entirely unrelated, but it *is* different. Income tax is a tax on
income. NI is tax on earnings. Two different things. It doesn't make any
difference to most of us here but it does if you're a pensioner living on
your savings.
I'm still with David though: the sooner they're combined into one tax
system the better. Too much arsing about having two taxes to collect.
And I'm sure some scheme could be derived to cope with the pensioner
problem - like a nice large tax allowance perhaps?
--
Paul Oldham, Milton villager
The cam.* FAQ ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
Milton web site -> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
Jon Boston
"Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
>
> Look, IF all this works then I'll be happy with it. I am not yet
convinced
> that it will work, and if it doesn't I don't want Gordon or his
successor
> claiming that all it needs is yet more squillions without considering
that
> there might be something structurally wrong with the NHS and looking
rather
> more widely about the whole healthcare business. At the moment it
seems that
> the Government is treating the whole thing as a sacred cow, with
nothing to
> learn from other countries that may do some things rather better than
the
> NHS currently does.
>
> --
Given that it takes 5-7 years to train doctors/surgeons and 14 years for
a cancer specialist (according to GMTV) etc etc I wouldn't bet on seeing
much significant improvement in the NHS regardless of structural
changes.
Sarah Woodall
(Richard Meredith) wrote:
>In article <l900cukntceale5lc...@4ax.com>,
>sa...@sarahwoodall.org.uk (Sarah Woodall) wrote:
[...]
>> It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
>> money. So it was a budget for all of us.
>
>Congratulations, a comment straight from Spin Central, bypassing all brains
>en route.
Actually this is a topic on which I've done quite a lot of thinking
over the years. Also my brother is an NHS doctor and gave me an earful
about it over Christmas, so part of my jubilation over this budget is
a very personal hope that he won't be quite so cross next time we
meet.
>Look, IF all this works then I'll be happy with it. I am not yet convinced
>that it will work, and if it doesn't I don't want Gordon or his successor
>claiming that all it needs is yet more squillions [...]
We spend a significantly smaller proportion of our national income on
health care than most comparable countries do[*]. I believe this
difference in funding is sufficient to explain any differences in the
standard of service we get. Some management improvements would
doubtless help too, but basically you get what you pay for.
Sarah
[*] Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies. See
http://www.ifs.org.uk/health/bn21.pdf
(the graph on page 3 is particularly interesting).
David Braben
> In article <memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>,
> rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk (Richard Meredith) growled:
>
> > No doubt with her penchant for spin Sarah would claim that it's not
> > income tax. A tax on income is, of course, something entirely unrelated.
>
> Not entirely unrelated, but it *is* different. Income tax is a tax on
> income. NI is tax on earnings. Two different things. It doesn't make any
> difference to most of us here but it does if you're a pensioner living on
> your savings.
>
> I'm still with David though: the sooner they're combined into one tax
> system the better. Too much arsing about having two taxes to collect.
I was suggesting not stopping there. Include CGT too. Simple is beautiful.
David
Jonathan Larmour
Jon Boston <jon_b...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:memo.2002041...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
>> In article <l900cukntceale5lc...@4ax.com>,
>> sa...@sarahwoodall.org.uk (Sarah Woodall) wrote:
>
>>
>> Look, IF all this works then I'll be happy with it. I am not yet
>convinced
>> that it will work, and if it doesn't I don't want Gordon or his
>successor
>> claiming that all it needs is yet more squillions without considering
>that
>> there might be something structurally wrong with the NHS and looking
>rather
>> more widely about the whole healthcare business. At the moment it
>seems that
>> the Government is treating the whole thing as a sacred cow, with
>nothing to
>> learn from other countries that may do some things rather better than
>the
>> NHS currently does.
I do find it irritating that Labour advocate raising taxes to
"European" spending levels while pretending not to notice how the
spending is sourced. Spending levels != state spending levels.
>Given that it takes 5-7 years to train doctors/surgeons and 14 years for
>a cancer specialist (according to GMTV) etc etc I wouldn't bet on seeing
>much significant improvement in the NHS regardless of structural
>changes.
There's plenty of staff that they've lost over time that could be
attracted back. However I hear they are advocating spending the money
on N thousand Doctors or something like that, but without any mention
of increased remuneration. Just like Stagecoach: complain they can't
recruit, but pay peanuts.
Jifl
--
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
Tim Ward
> (Richard Meredith) wrote:
> >IMO this budget was pretty miserable all round: not a budget for the
rich,
> >or the poor either.
>
> It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it,
Some of us can't. We've just bought several thousands of pounds' worth of
private operation for a child to whom the NHS offered no appropriate
treatment at all.
Al Grant
> money. So it was a budget for all of us.
I see "Attack of the Clones" is out already.
How do you explain the fact that NHS spending in Scotland is 20%
higher per capita than in England, yet health outcomes are worse?
D.M. Garner
Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>How do you explain the fact that NHS spending in Scotland is 20%
>higher per capita than in England, yet health outcomes are worse?
Deep fried pizza?
Seriously - what is a "health outcome" - death? If so, I would
hazard a guess that it's entirely due to poorer diet and a greater
proportion of smokers than in England.
David.
Patrick Gosling
Jonathan Larmour <jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid> wrote:
>There's plenty of staff that they've lost over time that could be
>attracted back. However I hear they are advocating spending the money
>on N thousand Doctors or something like that, but without any mention
>of increased remuneration. Just like Stagecoach: complain they can't
>recruit, but pay peanuts.
By no stretch of the imagination are doctors paid peanuts.
What is far more damaging (as far as I can tell) are the conditions
under which they are expected to work, and the general morale of the
organisations within which they operate.
-patrick.
Tim Cutts
Sarah Woodall <sa...@sarahwoodall.org.uk> wrote:
>
>It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
>money. So it was a budget for all of us.
I got considerably more effective treatment on my BUPA membership which
cost me a lot less than my NI contributions. Less, even, than the
increase I've just been lumbered with. Hmm. Keep thinking on those
lines and the Tories' ultimate plans for abolishing the NHS and
replacing it with private insurance look very sensible, at least for me.
Tim.
Richard Meredith
sa...@sarahwoodall.org.uk (Sarah Woodall) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:38 +0100 (BST), rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk
> (Richard Meredith) wrote:
>
> >In article <l900cukntceale5lc...@4ax.com>,
> >sa...@sarahwoodall.org.uk (Sarah Woodall) wrote:
> [...]
> >> It was a budget for the NHS. We all rely on it, and it needs the
> >> money. So it was a budget for all of us.
> >
> >Congratulations, a comment straight from Spin Central, bypassing all
> brains >en route.
>
> Actually this is a topic on which I've done quite a lot of thinking
> over the years. Also my brother is an NHS doctor and gave me an earful
> about it over Christmas, so part of my jubilation over this budget is
> a very personal hope that he won't be quite so cross next time we
> meet.
Well, it'd be nice if all this thought had shown up in your original post,
rather than a content free political slogan.
> >Look, IF all this works then I'll be happy with it. I am not yet
> convinced >that it will work, and if it doesn't I don't want Gordon or
> his successor >claiming that all it needs is yet more squillions [...]
>
> We spend a significantly smaller proportion of our national income on
> health care than most comparable countries do[*]. I believe this
> difference in funding is sufficient to explain any differences in the
> standard of service we get. Some management improvements would
> doubtless help too, but basically you get what you pay for.
Again, it'd be nice to see some real justification of this (not the national
income bit, which I accept) rather than the bland assertion that there's
nothing wrong with the NHS that more money, spent in undefined ways, won't
suddenly transform it into something wonderful.
The track record of state run industries is not good with respect to
efficiency, why should we blindly assume the NHS is any better? The
nationalised GPO took months to install a new phone line - despite its many
other shortcomings, BT takes days. That's not to deny that private or
privatised industries can't be equally vile, it's just by way of making the
point that staterun is not necessarily optimal.
There was a particularly useless performance by Alastair Darling on
Newsnight the other night where he spent the entire time rubbishing what the
other parties were saying (or rather, rubbishing what they weren't saying,
since he wasn't listening to what they actually said) without ever actually
saying what *his* lot were doing other than throw money at it: quite
pathetic, really.
Richard Meredith
jon_b...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Jon Boston) wrote:
Quite true but I don't think it's necessarily that bleak - if better pay &
conditions results in fewer people leaving/emigrating, and maybe even tempt
some back or from overseas, that gap could probably be filled.
I suspect a lot of the problem is at a lower level - nurses etc - which mean
that hospitals can't keep enough beds open, meaning that half the year the
docs can't cut down their waiting lists because there are no beds. Nurses
don't take so long to train, and as a stopgap places like the Philippines
and Spain have a vast surplus of nurses - not a longterm solution I fully
agree, but better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Brian Morrison
<7qDv8.46866$tZ1.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> "Tim Ward"
<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> No, it's one that doesn't screw them as much as it screws the not-rich.
Welcome to the real world. I'm sure you'll notice that in countries where
there were very few rich people, as soon as whatever restriction that
prevented their existence went away they spring up like ninepins.
Wealth redistibution may be a moral imperative in some peoples' eyes, it
just doesn't actually seem to be possible to keep the playing field flat once
you've levelled it......
--
Brian Morrison
please observe reply-to address
Andrew Nightingale
>my BUPA membership which cost me a lot less
>than my NI contributions.
But check also what your BUPA contributions will be when you're 85 (at
current prices). A huge proportion of the money spent on health treatment is
in the latter part of our lives.
--
Andrew Nightingale of Cambridge (UK)
Jonathan Larmour
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <7dhp9a...@worf.jifvik.org>,
>Jonathan Larmour <jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid> wrote:
>>There's plenty of staff that they've lost over time that could be
>>attracted back. However I hear they are advocating spending the money
>>on N thousand Doctors or something like that, but without any mention
>>of increased remuneration. Just like Stagecoach: complain they can't
>>recruit, but pay peanuts.
>
>By no stretch of the imagination are doctors paid peanuts.
You don't recruit someone straight away as a GP or a consultant.
Nursing in particular would be one of the particular areas I am
thinking of.
>What is far more damaging (as far as I can tell) are the conditions
>under which they are expected to work, and the general morale of the
>organisations within which they operate.
That is something they can solve (or ameliorate) by recruiting thus
spreading the existing work load, but only if they _can_ attract people
back in the first place, and you can't easily get thousands of Doctors
and nurses back by money alone. Well, without buying in from abroad
anyway and that has its own problems.
Patrick Gosling
Jonathan Larmour <jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid> wrote:
>In article <a9pliv$h42$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>By no stretch of the imagination are doctors paid peanuts.
>
>You don't recruit someone straight away as a GP or a consultant.
>Nursing in particular would be one of the particular areas I am
>thinking of.
I'm not quite sure I understand you.
There is currently no obvious career path that goes nurse -> doctor.
Nursing is an area I can entirely agree with you needs fixing. Perhaps
they could start by looking at the treatment of student nurses. At the
moment they're treated as free labour while at the same time being
expected to maintain themselves with student loans. Nice.
-patrick.
Jonathan Larmour
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <ubpp9a...@worf.jifvik.org>,
>Jonathan Larmour <jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <a9pliv$h42$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>By no stretch of the imagination are doctors paid peanuts.
>>
>>You don't recruit someone straight away as a GP or a consultant.
>>Nursing in particular would be one of the particular areas I am
>>thinking of.
>
>I'm not quite sure I understand you.
>
>There is currently no obvious career path that goes nurse -> doctor.
It was two separate points: the entry point for a new doctor is way down
the food chain, rather than e.g. the GP/consultant positions which do
pay well. And separately there are also nurses who don't get paid much
and have a vital role.
>Nursing is an area I can entirely agree with you needs fixing. Perhaps
>they could start by looking at the treatment of student nurses. At the
>moment they're treated as free labour while at the same time being
>expected to maintain themselves with student loans. Nice.
Ick. Most of the reports I hear of people leaving the NHS "in disgust"
have come from nurses. Although of course it's probably easier for them
having not already spent so much of their life in training, and being
able to find easier but equivalently paid work elsewhere.
Colin Rosenstiel
(David Braben) wrote:
You might be interested in this then (from a Liberal Democrat briefing):
· Our other major criticism is the huge extra complexity introduced in
this Budget and previous Brown budgets. Lib Dems are stepping up our
campaign for a simpler tax system - further details can be found at
www.simplertax.org.uk.
Colin Rosenstiel
Patrick Gosling
Jonathan Larmour <jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid> wrote:
>It was two separate points: the entry point for a new doctor is way down
>the food chain, rather than e.g. the GP/consultant positions which do
>pay well.
A pre-registration house officer (ie still effectively in the last year
of their training) earns UKP18k+ . After that pre-registration year,
they move onto a scale that goes from UKP23k - UKP38k, with an average
(according to the BMA) of UKP27k .
However (and this is quite important), that basic salary is then scaled by
factors between 1.2 and 2.0 according to a combination of
a) whether hours are under or over 48/week and
b) how anti-social the working arrangements are.
More details are available from
<URL:http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Background+briefing+on+the+Review+Body+%26+doctors%E2%80%99+pay+February+2002> (including consultant and GP
pay information).
My gut feeling is that the places that need fixing are all very much at
the low end - the very lowest scale points for newly qualified doctors,
and the arrangements for nurses in training; at the top end of the scales
things are considerably more sensible.
-patrick.
Paul Oldham
alg...@myrealbox.com (Al Grant) growled:
> How do you explain the fact that NHS spending in Scotland is 20%
> higher per capita than in England, yet health outcomes are worse?
Higher proportion of people in low income households leading to overall
poorer national health?
Higher costs of providing adequate health care in areas of very low
population density?
Crap weather?
You're hardly comparing like with like there.
Richard Meredith
ne...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:23:26 +0100, in article
> <7qDv8.46866$tZ1.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> "Tim Ward"
> <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > No, it's one that doesn't screw them as much as it screws the not-rich.
>
> Welcome to the real world. I'm sure you'll notice that in countries where
> there were very few rich people, as soon as whatever restriction that
> prevented their existence went away they spring up like ninepins.
What I notice in countries where there are few rich, they tend to be very
rich indeed, while the standard of living of the majority is poor and for
the poorest members, disastrously so.
The only exceptions being where the ruling elite has been motivated by
something else, like religion, and asceticism is considered a major virtue,
such as the Afghanistan of the Taliban.
> Wealth redistibution may be a moral imperative in some peoples' eyes, it
> just doesn't actually seem to be possible to keep the playing field flat
> once
> you've levelled it......
ISTM that most attempts at explicit wealth redistribution have resulted in
general impoverishment, while not getting rid of the rich as such - though
you might manage to destroy one wealthy elite, in no time flat you get a
brand new one: usually those in, or close to, political power.
Wealth redistribution, when translated as "soak the rich", almost invariably
seems to be almost wholly destructive: trying to improve the lot of the poor
has been a lot more successful.
Tim Ward
news:4502425.p...@moomintroll.electronghost.co.uk...
>
> What is the list of exemptions on NHS heathcare?
Not written down anywhere. You only find out when you try to get treatment;
then it's off to the private sector, if you can afford it or if you happen
to have BUPA insurance.
At least BUPA's list of exceptions is honestly written down so you know what
you're getting and not getting.
Mark Carroll
Tim Smith <t...@electronghost.co.uk> wrote:
(snip)
>Ahem. Let's take some examples of state-run industries that became markedly
>improved when turned over to the private sector. Like BT (up to its
>eyeballs in debt) or Railtrack...
Quite. I don't hear that the postal service has improved a whole lot
lately either.
(snip)
>patient is bankrupt? What is the list of exemptions on NHS heathcare? I
(snip)
I believe that, at least a few years ago, this varied on a regional
basis. (!)
-- Mark
Meldrew of Meldreth
Smith <t...@electronghost.co.uk> writes
>My wife and daughter spent 2 weeks in hospital after the sprog was born
>about 4 weeks premature. 2 weeks works out at 14 grand. I figure I've had
>my money's worth out of the NHS with just one kid[3].
A friend in the USA used up $2 Million's worth of health insurance in
less than a month's care of premature twins.
--
This posting is handtyped from natural materials. Minor blemishes are part of
its character and appeal.
Simon Quinn
> A friend in the USA used up $2 Million's worth of health insurance in
> less than a month's care of premature twins.
Scary - particularly as many US health insurance policies require you
to cough up 20% of your costs yourself. I ran up some quotes
yesterday, & packages offering benefits similar to the NHS (i.e. don't
require you to meet a significant proportion of the cost, or pay the
first $5K of each year's treatment up front) started at $145 a month!
--
Cheers,
sq
Tim Ward
news:abbaryybaqrybet...@sharra.llondel.org...
>
> Try costing a root canal filling from a US dentist - you're looking at
> $700. Next, consider the time it takes to do a root canal, probably
> under two hours in total. Not a bad hourly rate, is it?
Ah, but, don't forget the lawyers, the dentist has to pay $550 of that
straight out again on his malpractice insurance premium.
nasty boy
part of their NIC's. (Since I have a private pension too, shouldn't I get
a refund on the whole NIC's)?
Failure to do this must surely render the government guilty of fraud, or
similar? Ie; taking your money but not providing the service. As I
have BUPA, I am unfairly subsidising those that don't.
Further, how do we know this increase will go to the NHS? How do we know
the government isn't simply lying, and will use this money somewhere else -
like sending more marines to Afghanistan?
*** I believe all publically collected money should be itemised, and be
proven to be spent in said areas ***
nasty boy
as the police, ambulance and fire. The latest community charge leaflet
sent round says all of that comes out of our extortionate yearly community
charge payment. So where does all our tax money go to....?
If we pay tax, we should have the absolute right to know (and even decide)
how it is spent - the ultimate in democracy! Anything less leaves the
whole situation open to abuse, corruption and fraud.
Why not have a league table of most efficient expenditure by county? That
would soon show up the 'inefficient' ones.
What about taxes on alcohol, tobacco and fuel?
With prices on alcohol around 3 times higher than the cheapest European
country (eg; a bottle of brand-name spirits such as Smirnoff or Bells or any
other is Ł4.50), and prices on tobacco 5 times higher (eg; Ł1.50 for a
packet highstreet brand-name fags, eg; B&H), and petrol almost twice the
price (eg; 45p a litre), where does all this money go to, too?
*** This is nothing other than sheer governmental greed! ***
The amount of taxation (direct or stealth) in this country for return of
service is absolutely appalling!!! The government must be held
accountable, and should be done so by demonstrating on a very regular basis
how our money is spent. Failure to do so, should render them open to legal
action. Who do they think they are to keep taking our money, and not
providing the services? Why is the NHS in such a dire state already?
Didn't Maggie privatise all our industries a few years back? Well what
about all the savings on tax that that must have brought about, but did we
see a drop in taxation? Did we hell.
Where does all our tax money go to....?
nasty boy
matter.
Patrick Gosling
nasty boy <nast...@dcl.au> wrote:
>I think anyone with private health insurance should get a refund on the NHS
>part of their NIC's. (Since I have a private pension too, shouldn't I get
>a refund on the whole NIC's)?
Just as long as we don't hear any more of this "I was mis-sold a pension,
and now I'm not going to be as well off as I thought I was going to be,
waah, waah, we've got to be bailed out" crap? Or the "oops, I've got a
problem that my health insurance won't cover, where's the nearest nhs
hospital"? And when there are BUPA ambulances providing emergency cover?
-patrick.
nasty boy
cater for. So rather than a complete reimbursement of NHS NIC's, maybe a
part reimbursement is the way forward. Either way, for the gov. to keep
the full money is wrong. Same as if I send me kids to private school.
I think a tax refund is applicable there too...
Chris Keating
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a9ukgv$p0j$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <ayyw8.11073$DZ2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> nasty boy <nast...@dcl.au> wrote:
> >I think anyone with private health insurance should get a refund on the
NHS
> >part of their NIC's. (Since I have a private pension too, shouldn't I
get
> >a refund on the whole NIC's)?
No. You still get the state pension and unemployment benefits.
Chris
Patrick Gosling
nasty boy <nast...@dcl.au> wrote:
>Hmm, I suppose there is always the emergency aspect that only the NHS can
>cater for. So rather than a complete reimbursement of NHS NIC's, maybe a
>part reimbursement is the way forward. Either way, for the gov. to keep
>the full money is wrong. Same as if I send me kids to private school.
>I think a tax refund is applicable there too...
So what about the people who go running to the government for a bail-out
when their personal private arrangements go tits up?
-patrick.
Chris Keating
"Simon Quinn" <simon...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n0vx4d...@localhost.localdomain...
Don't worry, anything that cheap has a lifetime limit of a few USDM
attached. Sounds a lot until you realise that intensive care costs tens or
even hundreds of USDK a day. Also you're fcked if you smoke...
Paul Oldham
nast...@dcl.au (nasty boy) growled:
> I used to be under the impression that income tax paid for our services
> such as the police, ambulance and fire. The latest community charge
> leaflet sent round says all of that comes out of our extortionate yearly
> community charge payment.
Errr ... it doesn't you know. Some of it does, but a lot of it comes from
central government, as those leaflets make clear.
> So where does all our tax money go to....?
Some of it goes on the above.
I never really understand people whining about taxation. It is very clear
from the state of the NHS, roads, public transport, police, education,
council services etc etc that they are all running on very tight budgets
(too tight in many cases). If we want all of these things, and I think we
do, we have to pay for them, and that means taxation.
Similarly *everyone* claims they're paying too much tax, which suggests
the way we're taxed is fundamentally not too broken either if we're all
whinging.
Ben Hutchings
nasty boy wrote:
> I think anyone with private health insurance should get a refund on
> the NHS part of their NIC's.
IIRC, the NHS is supposed to be paid for out of general funds, not the
national insurance fund, and the national insurance fund is topped up
from general taxation. In that case, the recent rise in NIC rates
will not be going directly to the NHS (which would be a misuse of
them) but will instead make more money available to the NHS by
reducing the subsidy into the NI fund from general taxation.
If you were to opt-out of the NHS, you would have to buy coverage for
a whole lot of things that private health insurance doesn't normally
cover now (like emergency care). Then, if you became unemployed and
can't pay for private health insurance any more, do you think that the
NHS should refuse to treat you and your dependents, or that they
should treat you even though you didn't pay your share of their costs?
> (Since I have a private pension too, shouldn't I get a refund on
> the whole NIC's)?
You already can choose to have the pension part of NICs paid into a
private pension instead of SERPS.
> Failure to do this must surely render the government guilty of
> fraud, or similar?
I think governments normally have exemptions from such laws. In any
case, the government has to tax us more to pay us any compensation...
> Ie; taking your money but not providing the service. As I
> have BUPA, I am unfairly subsidising those that don't.
The NHS probably still is providing services to you (or will do in
certain situations). look at the list of exclusions on your policy.
> Further, how do we know this increase will go to the NHS? How do we
> know the government isn't simply lying, and will use this money
> somewhere else - like sending more marines to Afghanistan?
That's something the National Audit Office is supposed to check, I
think.
--
Ben Hutchings | personal web site: http://womble.decadentplace.org.uk/
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.
Chris Keating
> In article <unBw8.11272$DZ2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> nasty boy <nast...@dcl.au> wrote:
> >Hmm, I suppose there is always the emergency aspect that only the NHS can
> >cater for. So rather than a complete reimbursement of NHS NIC's, maybe
a
> >part reimbursement is the way forward. Either way, for the gov. to keep
> >the full money is wrong. Same as if I send me kids to private
school.
> >I think a tax refund is applicable there too...
Your taxes are not a retail transaction. You can't opt out of tax on the
grounds that you don't use a particular service which is state-funded; I
don't demand a refund on my VAT because I'm not a farmer being subsidised by
the CAP. You are perfectly entitled to use the NHS or state education and
you benefit from other people using them. If you then decide not to use
them, then the entitlement is still there and you still have to pay.
Equally, you have no right not to be defended from invasion by the British
military.
Chris
bw
> In article <WByw8.11076$DZ2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> nast...@dcl.au (nasty boy) growled:
>
> > I used to be under the impression that income tax paid for our services
> > such as the police, ambulance and fire. The latest community charge
> > leaflet sent round says all of that comes out of our extortionate yearly
> > community charge payment.
>
> Errr ... it doesn't you know. Some of it does, but a lot of it comes from
> central government, as those leaflets make clear.
>
> > So where does all our tax money go to....?
>
> Some of it goes on the above.
>
> I never really understand people whining about taxation. It is very clear
> from the state of the NHS, roads, public transport, police, education,
> council services etc etc that they are all running on very tight budgets
> (too tight in many cases). If we want all of these things, and I think we
> do, we have to pay for them, and that means taxation.
>
> Similarly *everyone* claims they're paying too much tax, which suggests
> the way we're taxed is fundamentally not too broken either if we're all
> whinging.
Just because things are in a poor state doesn't mean we are not being over
taxed, I also wonder what they do with it all.
When you take into account income tax, nat insurance, VAT, council tax, tax
on insurance premiums, corporation tax etc etc then it does appear to be
rather a large slice of all the earnings which disappears into a black hole.
Consider the Dome fiasco and now imagine that the rest of the country is run
in a similar fashion, bye bye hard earned cash.
Chris Keating
"Ben Hutchings" <ben-publ...@decadentplace.org.uk> wrote in message
> > Further, how do we know this increase will go to the NHS? How do we
> > know the government isn't simply lying, and will use this money
> > somewhere else - like sending more marines to Afghanistan?
>
> That's something the National Audit Office is supposed to check, I
> think.
However, the right place to check up on this would be in Parliament. Sadly,
MPs never actually debate where money goes.
andrew.m.wood
"Chris Keating" <cj...@nospcam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a9utan$8h0$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Your taxes are not a retail transaction.
Nor is highway robbery.
> Equally, you have no right not to be defended from invasion by the British
> military.
Nice idea, but as far as I can tell, we will be utterly defenceless
if the British military ever decide to invade.
Regards,
Andy.
Ben Hutchings
nasty boy wrote:
> I used to be under the impression that income tax paid for our
> services such as the police, ambulance and fire. The latest
> community charge
I'll assume you mean its successor, council tax.
> leaflet sent round says all of that comes out of our extortionate
> yearly community charge payment.
No, it doesn't say that. Local councils get most of their money in
grants from central government, which come out of general funds. So
part of your income tax does indirectly go towards those services.
> So where does all our tax money go to....?
That *is* a reasonable question, and one I would like to know the
answer to myself. Unfortunately the answer will depend on just how
much detail you want.
I dare say the National Audit Office could tell us some of the
information, but probably not in a very readable form.
> If we pay tax, we should have the absolute right to know (and even
> decide) how it is spent - the ultimate in democracy! Anything less
> leaves the whole situation open to abuse, corruption and fraud.
I agree that we should know (to a reasonable granularity) where the
money is going. However, you seem to be proposing that each tax-payer
should be able to decide where his or her money goes (correct me if
I'm wrong on that), which is quite impractical.
To be fair, you'd need to include everyone who pays VAT or other taxes
on spending. The administration of tracking such contributions would
be incredibly complex and have unpleasant privacy implications.
Further, I seriously doubt that more than a tiny number of people are
capable of coming up with a budget for their own small contribution to
public funds, even if they did read the vast amounts of information
that they would need about the many calls for government spending.
Anything reliant on public spending would be susceptible to annual
shifts in public spending fashions driven by sensational media reports.
We really have to make collective decisions as to where public
spending is needed, rather than trying to micro-manage the use of our
individual contributions, and we do that already through our
representatives in Parliament and local councils.
> Why not have a league table of most efficient expenditure by county?
> That would soon show up the 'inefficient' ones.
That's probably not as an good idea as it first sounds. First, you'll
have to choose a measure or measures of efficiency. Whatever measure
you choose, the reaction is likely to be an attempt to improve the
measurement(s) and not the things people actually care about (which I
do not believe to be easily quantifiable).
Consider, as an example, measuring the efficiency of NHS hospitals by
counting the number of people waiting for an operation. Successive
governments have been embarrassed by newspaper reports on waiting-list
figures and have tried hard to reduce them. In its first term the
Labour government put a lot of pressure on hospitals to do their bit
to reduce the national total. The result of this was that hospitals
did things like prioritising operations by speed or cost rather than
by urgency, delaying appointments with consultants that would add
patients to the lists, and keeping unofficial lists that weren't
included in the count. These things improved the measurement because
a simple total doesn't take into account things like urgency of the
operation or time spent on the list. The measure is easy to grasp but
not very helpful.
> What about taxes on alcohol, tobacco and fuel?
<snip>
> ...where does all this money go to, too?
The same things as all the other general tax revenue.
> *** This is nothing other than sheer governmental greed! ***
It doesn't go into their salaries, you know.
> The amount of taxation (direct or stealth) in this country for return of
> service is absolutely appalling!!!
Actually, it's lower than in most other EU countries.
> The government must be held accountable, and should be done so by
> demonstrating on a very regular basis how our money is spent.
> Failure to do so, should render them open to legal action.
But then they'd just have to tax you more to pay you back. (Unless
you meant suing individual ministers, but I dare say they have Crown
immunity.)
> Who do they think they are to keep taking our money, and not
> providing the services?
They're the government. They're supposed to tax us. ;-)
> Why is the NHS in such a dire state already?
Repeated organisational shifts not accompanied by a necessary increase
in funding?
> Didn't Maggie privatise all our industries a few years back?
Yes, but they didn't all stop needing government subsidies. Also,
they put a whole lot of people out of work, who then needed
unemployment benefit.
> Well what about all the savings on tax that that must have brought
> about, but did we see a drop in taxation? Did we hell.
Maggie lied to you. Privatisation isn't a panacea (though on balance
I suspect that most of those privatisations probably were a good
thing).
> Where does all our tax money go to....?
But you repeat yourself.
Thomas Thurman
> "Chris Keating" <cj...@nospcam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Your taxes are not a retail transaction.
> Nor is highway robbery.
Nor is ice-hockey. And your point is?
T
Chris Keating
"andrew.m.wood" <andrew...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YdDw8.21742$ML.31...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Chris Keating" <cj...@nospcam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:a9utan$8h0$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> > Your taxes are not a retail transaction.
>
> Nor is highway robbery.
If you started voting for highway robbers I think they'd soon work out VAT
and PAYE were more efficient, more equitable and more popular.
> > Equally, you have no right not to be defended from invasion by the
British
> > military.
>
> Nice idea, but as far as I can tell, we will be utterly defenceless
> if the British military ever decide to invade.
Hence the need for a European army.
Ben Hutchings
nasty boy wrote:
<snip>
> Same as if I send me kids to private school. I think a tax refund
> is applicable there too...
In that case, since I don't have any kids, I should get a tax refund
for that too.
Hmm, doesn't that mean only people who send their kids to state
schools should have to pay for them? That doesn't sound much like a
state school system to me. (If you don't think we should have a state
school system, ask yourselves how much it would cost employers to
train illiterate, innumerate new hires. That doesn't come cheap, you
know.)