Failing NHS caused by the Tories?

[I1L2T3]

You have to engage in some very creative maths to make it come out like that. The poorest in the country pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits without even accounting for the public services they use.

 

Can you try and avoid challenging the argument by making a different argument.

 

The poster was not talking about absolute tax contributions but proportionality and regressiveness.

 

You know what, one day I'm gonna get fed up with the idea of subsidising you through life

[ECCOnoob]

Proportionally the poor pay more in taxes than the rich

 

Only through "indirect" taxation. This was a spin the Guardian tried to pull in 2014. They claimed that...

 

"The reason why those on the lowest incomes are paying the biggest proportion of their income in tax is because indirect taxes, such as VAT and tax on tobacco, alcohol and fuel are charged at the same rate to all income groups"

 

What did they want? Poor people to be given a reduced tax rate on their purchases to make it fair??

 

Yeah, that's equality.

 

If we are talking about actual earnings and income then the figures are clear.

 

Institute of fiscal studies did reaserch stated....

 

"...The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people.

 

Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax..."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

 

HMRC FOI figures from 2014 stated....

 

"In all, 29.9 million people pay income tax in the UK. According to the new figures released by HM revenue & Customs (HMRC), almost one-third of income tax payers contribute less to the Exchequer than the top 3,000 earners - equivalent to 0.01 per cent of the total."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

 

Bloomberg: "Share of population paying any income tax falls to 56%" "number of people paying tax at the higher 40 percent rate and above rose to 5 million from 3.9 million"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax

 

I would be interested to see how much would be hit in this country if we lost these high earners. Maybe some of the politicians who use high earners as some kind of bogey men to push their own moronic agendas should think about that.

 

Now forgive me if I disregard the "equality trust" Think Tank Report and their very very selective use of the overall ONS data. Data, by the way, which included in its own source material this paragraph...

"On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

Edited January 14, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Bob Arctor]

Only through "indirect" taxation. This was a spin the Guardian tried to pull in 2014. They claimed that...

 

"The reason why those on the lowest incomes are paying the biggest proportion of their income in tax is because indirect taxes, such as VAT and tax on tobacco, alcohol and fuel are charged at the same rate to all income groups"

 

What did they want? Poor people to be given a reduced tax rate on their purchases to make it fair??

 

Yeah, that's equality.

 

If we are talking about actual earnings and income then the figures are clear.

 

Institute of fiscal studies did reaserch stated....

 

"...The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people.

 

Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax..."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

 

HMRC FOI figures from 2014 stated....

 

"In all, 29.9 million people pay income tax in the UK. According to the new figures released by HM revenue & Customs (HMRC), almost one-third of income tax payers contribute less to the Exchequer than the top 3,000 earners - equivalent to 0.01 per cent of the total."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

 

Bloomberg: "Share of population paying any income tax falls to 56%" "number of people paying tax at the higher 40 percent rate and above rose to 5 million from 3.9 million"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax

 

I would be interested to see how much would be hit in this country if we lost these high earners. Maybe some of the politicians who use high earners as some kind of bogey men to push their own moronic agendas should think about that.

 

Now forgive me if I disregard the "equality trust" Think Tank Report and their very very selective use of the overall ONS data. Data, by the way, which included in its own source material this paragraph...

"On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

 

What does this have to do with whether the Tories are running the NHS badly or not?

[I1L2T3]

What does this have to do with whether the Tories are running the NHS badly or not?

 

Well Bob, people aren't paying for it are they. Somebody else is, I.e. other tax payers. So those who aren't net contributors should like it or lump it and have no right to complain. We must also mount a vigorous campaign of support for the Tories no matter how badly they run the NHS. You know the drill

[tinfoilhat]

Ok, tories are mean, tories are scum, tories want to privatise the NHS. We've glossed over the fact labour don't despite the fact they were going to commit less money at the last election to the NHS.

 

However, the current Tory government has large foreign aid budget, proportionately higher than most other countries that they will not lower. Should they dip into that?

[Sidonica]

What does this have to do with whether the Tories are running the NHS badly or not?

 

Sorry Bob,

Think it's my fault for challenging the idea that the rich pay the most taxes, subsidising the rest of us. I wonder if that could be improved by making employers pay much higher wages to those on the bottom so we don't have to pay out in benefits and tax credits? Perhaps the higher earners could take a wage cut?

[El Cid]

However, the current Tory government has large foreign aid budget, proportionately higher than most other countries that they will not lower. Should they dip into that?

 

We are the 5th richest country, we can afford both, our debt is/was about average.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2017 at 14:07 ----------

 

Proportionally the poor pay more in taxes than the rich

 

I dont know the figures, exactly, but I would say middle earners pay the most.

Heavy smokers and heavy drinkers may be high up there too.

[I1L2T3]

Sorry Bob,

Think it's my fault for challenging the idea that the rich pay the most taxes, subsidising the rest of us. I wonder if that could be improved by making employers pay much higher wages to those on the bottom so we don't have to pay out in benefits and tax credits? Perhaps the higher earners could take a wage cut?

 

They (the rich) pay a fair whack of income tax. But income tax is only 30 percent of total HMRC revenue which is the happy fact that implodes the argument around the rich paying most of the tax.

[Margarita Ma]

It needs more funding because of aging and diabetes, not because living standards improved.

 

We are getting older because of improved living standards.

Before sewage was dealt with in the standards we have (post Victoria) people regularly died of Cholera and Typhoid at an early age. Look at the control of things like Lice and Fleas and you have two more risks removed.

 

Diabetes is on the increase because people are eating things in quantities that were not available years ago to the vast majority of people and many of the people eating these things have sedentary lifestyles, not necessarily because they are lazy but because the workplace has changed massively.

[I1L2T3]

Ok, tories are mean, tories are scum, tories want to privatise the NHS. We've glossed over the fact labour don't despite the fact they were going to commit less money at the last election to the NHS.

 

However, the current Tory government has large foreign aid budget, proportionately higher than most other countries that they will not lower. Should they dip into that?

 

Labour and the Tories have both badly damaged the NHS.

 

Labour with its internal market reforms and ruinous PFI. The Tories just blatantly mismanage and underfund it every time they reach power. But what else would they do? To a man/woman Tory MPs wouldn't need to routinely rely on the NHS. They have no love for it and most of them despite grudgingly made nods of respect to the NHS regard it as a massive mistake. It's not that they are mean scum. They just can't comprehend how important the NHS is to so many of us, and most of them have had no opportunity to comprehend that.