"I've paid into the system!"

[Hippogriff]

Possibly, but it shouldn't be on amount earned, but hours worked or something that doesn't discriminate people who earn low pay but work hard.

 

I'm not sure I agree on that, at least solely. But maybe a function of the two things - hours worked and £s given back into the system.

 

People unable to work, or who simply don't work, would not be penalised per se - they don't get 'cut off' from benefits, they just don't have any surplus to choose the better bed at hospital or the subsidised unemployment benefit... but I don't think their pot should continue to accrue unless they're working and paying-in... I'd go the same same with parents looking after children too, on the assumption there was a conscious choice made there and the implications were fully understood at the time.

[Cyclone]

I

It seems fair-minded to me that people should get out more if they pay in more. More fair-minded than everyone gets the same, regardless of how much they pay in.

The opposite of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

That's just enforced wealth redistribution and the people at the bottom will still moan that it's not enough.

Societies with the highest wealth and income equality are the happiest...

 

A case being, not only does a rich person have to pay more taxes and get the same medical treatment (etc.) but they also - really - have to choose to purchase medical insurance on top and then get penalised further from a tax perspective. That doesn't feel fair-minded.

What tax penalty?

[ubermaus]

They'll also die at 45, and despite the x-box have a miserable, torrid life. I wouldn't envy them too much.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 13:41 ----------

 

 

I'm glad you're not my neighbour, but you're part of the malady in society IMO, and people with the same attitude.

You wouldn't report the theft of someone elses car, seriously, what is wrong with you? You might as well condone car theft and benefits fraud for that matter.

 

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 13:41 ----------

 

 

Avoidance is by definition legal, so you can't magically wave a wand and make it disappear.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

And the answer was that you'd not report a car theft that you saw.

 

There is simply no moral justification for knowing about a crime like that and not reporting it.

 

You seem to be putting yourself up as the forums great moral arbiter again. Talking horse **** as usual.

 

Unlike yourself, im honest and don't claim to be a moral crusader, galavanting about town reporting random crimes, but you seem to think that's normal behaviour?

 

Neighbours, friends, family, of course you report and help out, it goes without saying....how many times have I seen a random car with its window smashed in? a handful but I've never reported it. I'm like most people, I keep myself to myself which doesnt make me immoral.

Edited May 12, 2015 by ubermaus
.......

[Cyclone]

Maybe we should run a poll. I do think it's normal to report it if you see a crime. It's your basic civic duty.

 

Seeing a broken window is not seeing a car being stolen, which was the question I posed.

 

You're not like most people if you would only reluctantly report an assault and wouldn't at all report a car theft (except your own).

[L00b]

What tax penalty?

Health insurance contributions taxed as BIK, at a guess. Which is a bit rich, when you see the kind of car leasing deals that taxpayer-funded NHS employees can get (inclusive of salary sacrifice and BIK). Besides similar volume-based nice-to-haves that many (most?) private sector employees haven't a hope of seeing for a long time. Edited May 12, 2015 by L00b

[Hippogriff]

What tax penalty?

 

So, with medical insurance that you get from an employer (even if you pay for that partially yourself, many companies work like this) it is treated as a benefit - so it's given a value and counted as salary received - then you are taxed on it.

 

My view was always that if you had, as an example, private medical insurance what you are actually doing is relaxing the burden on the state system (not sure how much by, as you still need to go to the GP to get a referral). So you should be rewarded for that... not taxed more.

 

So, if you don't have medical insurance, you use the NHS just like everyone else (clogging up the system) but you aren't taxed on the value that has been attributed to that benefit either... as you won't get a cash alternative, you end up paying less tax by not having private medical insurance and you burden the NHS, just like everyone else.

 

Does that make sense? It makes sense to me, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise (always).

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 13:55 ----------

 

Health insurance contributions taxed as BIK, at a guess.

 

Correct... BIK.

[ubermaus]

The opposite of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Societies with the highest wealth and income equality are the happiest...

What tax penalty?

 

you going to personally attack everyone on every thread today or stick to the thread for once?

[Cyclone]

Please explain who this

 

The opposite of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Societies with the highest wealth and income equality are the happiest...

What tax penalty?

 

Is a personal attack on?

[ubermaus]

Maybe we should run a poll. I do think it's normal to report it if you see a crime. It's your basic civic duty.

 

Seeing a broken window is not seeing a car being stolen, which was the question I posed.

 

You're not like most people if you would only reluctantly report an assault and wouldn't at all report a car theft (except your own).

 

Run a poll then. But thats a different thread. Stick to the topic.

[Cyclone]

So, with medical insurance that you get from an employer (even if you pay for that partially yourself, many companies work like this) it is treated as a benefit - so it's given a value and counted as salary received - then you are taxed on it.

If you literally just pay for it yourself, then it's not a BiK and you don't pay any more tax.

If you company pays for it (partially or fully) you are taxed as if that payment were income to you. This isn't a tax penalty, it just means you aren't avoiding tax with a hidden benefit.

 

My view was always that if you had, as an example, private medical insurance what you are actually doing is relaxing the burden on the state system (not sure how much by, as you still need to go to the GP to get a referral). So you should be rewarded for that... not taxed more.

 

So, if you don't have medical insurance, you use the NHS just like everyone else (clogging up the system) but you aren't taxed on the value that has been attributed to that benefit either... as you won't get a cash alternative, you end up paying less tax by not having private medical insurance and you burden the NHS, just like everyone else.

 

Does that make sense? It makes sense to me, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise (always).

There is some sense in what you say, although you'll still use NHS for emergencies and you'll see your GP first. But yes, you'll reduce the burden in other ways. So maybe this one should specifically be tax exempt to encourage it's use.