Would you cancel HS2 to invest in the NHS?

[Bletchleyite]

I don't want to sidetrack this thread so will only comment on this suggestion once, but it seems to me that such a system would rapidly result in inequity. "Income" and "spending" would need to be defined, for a start: e.g. are capital gains "income", and are investments "spending" (and if the answer to both is "yes", we would have the paradox that one can earn income on what one is spending).

It's probably be easier just to impose a wealth tax and abolish VAT. I really dislike VAT as a tax - it is regressive, and it discourages spending - one benefit of Brexit is that we will no longer be forced to charge it.

 

[yorksrob]

The idea being that money that is flowing though the economy is doing everyone some good, money that is sitting idle (either in bank accounts or in non-liquid assets) is not. So you could potentially have someone who earns a million pounds a year paying the same or less tax than someone who earns £30K a year because the person with the higher income is spending so much more (and in so doing supporting so many other people).

No idea how it would work in practice, but it's an interesting thought exercise.

Its one of the reasons why we have low interest rates to encourage borrowing (and consequently spending) and discourage saving.

 

[Moonshot]

Yes, there's a need to consider efficiency and economies of scale. The USA is a glaring example of how a fragmented private sector doesn't automatically lead to greater efficiency. I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't get carried away by the idea that healthcare costs are somehow "spiralling out of control" until we've looked at other similar countries.

Absolutely bang on......just how much of todays NHS hype is actually the true reality ? Does the NHS suffer from the journalistic tendencies of the Daily Mail just like the rail industry does??

 

[WelshBluebird]

Nope. Because the money IS there for the NHS. Its just this government is specifically avoiding putting the money where it is needed in an attempt to starve the NHS of money. Don't be naive enough to think this is not planned.

When considering funding for healthcare, our first port of call should be to consider how much other western industrialised countries spend on it per person. I understand that we spend less than many other countries such as Germany and France, which suggests that we should probably be spending more (although I'm not sure how social care fits in with their spending).

We should resist siren calls to put some arbitrary limit on what the state provides. It should provide those services deemed necessary by society, but which the private sector is unable to provide commercially.

Indeed we spent less, but cover more, than a few other countries. The US is the best (well, worst) example as they spend a fair amount more than us but only provide cover to a small percentage of people, leaving the rest either uncovered or reliant on employers or expensive private insurance.

 

[najaB]

Does the NHS suffer from the journalistic tendencies of the Daily Mail just like the rail industry does??

To be fair to the NHS, there is very little hyperbole in what they put out. How it is reported in some sections of the press leaves a lot to be desired though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

HS2 is capital investment, and the NHS is very much a current account (opex) problem.
So the comparison is not between the NHS and HS2, it is between the NHS and higher fares/salaries/jobs on the railway (and new/more trains).
Do you want to put the franchises in reverse?
Keep the Pacers and HSTs?
DOO everywhere?

We have the oddest health system in the developed world, not replicated anywhere, with this "free at the point of need" system.
There must be at least as much effort put into working out improved methods of management as there is in "more beds/nurses/doctors".
Although the staff work exceptionally hard, I'm sure many compromises have been made in organising the service (eg centralisation or specialist services).
Perpetual government interference doesn't help, but they have to come up with a more efficient structure to make best use of the resources available.
Some form of means-tested top-up funding seems inevitable to keep things going.

 

[physics34]

[/B]


Absolutely bang on......just how much of todays NHS hype is actually the true reality ? Does the NHS suffer from the journalistic tendencies of the Daily Mail just like the rail industry does??

waiting lists have increased significantly in the past 6 months or so there has got to be some ring of truth to it....

on the subject of HS2.... especially with the timescales mentioned i really now think it should be scrapped and the money spend on other rail investment.... i know it wouldve been manly private money anyway but......!

We are not gonna see the benefits of HS2 for many a year. If it could be built sooner or opened up in sections which make money then so be it

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed we spent less, but cover more, than a few other countries. The US is the best (well, worst) example as they spend a fair amount more than us but only provide cover to a small percentage of people, leaving the rest either uncovered or reliant on employers or expensive private insurance.

Indeed. The American system is excellent at providing exemplary healthcare on a limited basis (hence why we often see fund raising drives to fly people there for some specialist treatment) but from what I've read struggles to provide the basics across the board.

 

[Moonshot]

HS2 is capital investment, and the NHS is very much a current account (opex) problem.
So the comparison is not between the NHS and HS2, it is between the NHS and higher fares/salaries/jobs on the railway (and new/more trains).
Do you want to put the franchises in reverse?
Keep the Pacers and HSTs?
DOO everywhere?

We have the oddest health system in the developed world, not replicated anywhere, with this "free at the point of need" system.
There must be at least as much effort put into working out improved methods of management as there is in "more beds/nurses/doctors".
Although the staff work exceptionally hard, I'm sure many compromises have been made in organising the service (eg centralisation or specialist services).
Perpetual government interference doesn't help, but they have to come up with a more efficient structure to make best use of the resources available.
Some form of means-tested top-up funding seems inevitable to keep things going.

Best post of the lot .

 

[Starmill]

That's an interesting option. But what's a car parking space? Do I have one (my driveway) or two (because I have a garage - in which no car is ever parked, it's used as a giant shed and workshop)?

If you own the car and the land I would not tax that. But if land is being used to park cars on commercially then I would apply one to that. The difficulty may arise in practice with how to tax free car parks. There may also need to be some specific exemptions for car parks which are designated for bus (and other public transport) users only, and are enforced as such (although that's very difficult). This would be better as a local scheme where the revenue is available to the local authority to spend on improvements to local buses or new routes, or in cities investment in new infrastructure such as trams, but I would want the policy to be fairly consistent nationally. It will help to nudge people out of their car and onto the bus or train. Where it does not it will generate some small revenue that I would want to support these.

 

[yorksrob]

HS2 is capital investment, and the NHS is very much a current account (opex) problem.
So the comparison is not between the NHS and HS2, it is between the NHS and higher fares/salaries/jobs on the railway (and new/more trains).
Do you want to put the franchises in reverse?
Keep the Pacers and HSTs?
DOO everywhere?

You could make an argument that new trains are a one off capital investment (at least for the next forty years), particularly if they significantly increase capacity.

 

[muz379]

You mean inheritance tax?

No not inheritance tax because inheritance tax is only levied once after the person who has accumulated the wealth passes away. and there are that many ways to avoid it and reduce liability for it anyhow .

I am talking about taxing people year on year for accumulating masses of wealth that is sitting around doing nothing and only ends up getting passed down in various ways .

 

[Moonshot]

You could make an argument that new trains are a one off capital investment (at least for the next forty years), particularly if they significantly increase capacity.

Funded by the private sector ROSCOs .....

 

[Howardh]

No not inheritance tax because inheritance tax is only levied once after the person who has accumulated the wealth passes away. and there are that many ways to avoid it and reduce liability for it anyhow .

I am talking about taxing people year on year for accumulating masses of wealth that is sitting around doing nothing and only ends up getting passed down in various ways .

The government take (at least) 20% tax on the interest* on monies tucked away. However interest rates are pitiful, so the treasury doesn't get much from someone who has £1m @ 0.5% or less!!

*For the pedants - save for ISA's and your first £1000 in another account.

If we are looking for more tax...newspapers and magazines would be a start (yes, that government would lose the support of certain papers...) but if the tax went directly to the NHS, how could they morally oppose??

 

[Trog]

on the subject of HS2.... especially with the timescales mentioned I really now think it should be scrapped and the money spend on other rail investment....

You don't think the fact that Network Rail is struggling to carry out the amount of upgrade work already in progress has a bearing on that idea?

Also what are you going to do about the fact that the lines into London are running out of capacity, given that the WCML has already been upgraded at vast expense.

 

[Moonshot]

The government take (at least) 20% tax on the interest* on monies tucked away. However interest rates are pitiful, so the treasury doesn't get much from someone who has £1m @ 0.5% or less!!

*For the pedants - save for ISA's and your first £1000 in another account.

If we are looking for more tax...newspapers and magazines would be a start (yes, that government would lose the support of certain papers...) but if the tax went directly to the NHS, how could they morally oppose??

Newspapers and magazines are a declining market anyway. Tax would kill it off.

 

[najaB]

If we are looking for more tax...newspapers and magazines would be a start...

That might raise 50p or so. Circulation of print newspapers is plummeting, an additional tax would only help kill them off entirely.

 

[Moonshot]

So to sum up for me.....we shouldnt be " robbing Peter to pay Paul " so to speak.....think everyone would like to see more funds for the NHS against a backdrop of an ageing population - but i m not sure that taxing people more directly is the right way to do it.

 

[LLivery]

No but I would scrap the Yorkshire branch, the London to Birmingham and Manchester is the section needed; the Yorkshire branch just seems like a vanity. It is a bad idea and not practical to divert capital allocated for major infrastructure projects to the NHS. In an ideal world I would rip up the entire tax system and start again. I would vote to pay more tax to HMRC if I knew it would all go to healthcare and education only and its done fairly.

 

[class26]

I think it's clear we need new ways of bringing in tax revenue. Not increasing resources for the NHS (+social car, schools, local authorities etc. etc.) seems not to be an option, but that hardly means we should not imvest in roads, railways, energy and communications. Tax on land is a better avenue to pursue than the already highly taxed and highly political labour.

Mansion Tax sounds like a good idea to me. What about a tax on land with planning permission that is not developed? Or a tax on car parking spaces?

But none of these will raise a fraction of what is needed for the NHS

 

[RichmondCommu]

No, I'd increase taxes (specifically income tax) so we can fund both properly.

That is simply not going to happen because the Tories would never do it and my party (Labour) will not be elected at the next election and probably the election after that.

 

[muz379]

The government take (at least) 20% tax on the interest* on monies tucked away. However interest rates are pitiful, so the treasury doesn't get much from someone who has £1m @ 0.5% or less!!

*For the pedants - save for ISA's and your first £1000 in another account.

If we are looking for more tax...newspapers and magazines would be a start (yes, that government would lose the support of certain papers...) but if the tax went directly to the NHS, how could they morally oppose??

I dont think many people with £1m just have it sitting around in an ordinary saver at 0.5% . I know my idea is full of holes and tbh there would be that many ways round it like with inheritance that it would raise very little anyway . Culuturally though the practice of wealth just accumulating in the hands of a few does the economy no good .

As for Newspapers and magazines .
Magazines perhaps , although is regular magazine circulation really that high I dont know

Newspaper , as others have said newspapers are already in decline , additional tax would just kill them off , or at the very least effect the employment conditions of people working in the industry .

What about sugary food and drinks . even stuff like ready meals that contain alarming amounts of sugar .

 

[physics34]

You don't think the fact that Network Rail is struggling to carry out the amount of upgrade work already in progress has a bearing on that idea?

Also what are you going to do about the fact that the lines into London are running out of capacity, given that the WCML has already been upgraded at vast expense.

struggling to carry out upgrade work was always going to happen. their plans were always too good to be true. They could of course employ more staff to get the work done quicker.

Im sure capacity could be improved with advanced signalling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only-likely-to-incur-if-you-are-ill-advised-tax-that-really-needs-to-be-replaced-with-a-better-means-of-taxing-inherited-wealth.

Taxing actual current wealth is probably better than taxing inherited wealth.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Mansion Tax sounds like a good idea to me.

Just out of interest what would be your threshold?

 

[Mag_seven]

You don't think the fact that Network Rail is struggling to carry out the amount of upgrade work already in progress has a bearing on that idea?

NR are losing a lot of talented Project Managers and Railway Engineers to HS2 - their skills would be far better used on upgrading the existing network.

 

[PR1Berske]

I would scrap HS2 at an instant. End it all tomorrow without thinking twice or considering the consequences.

The billions wasted on London getting another railway could be spent in the North, where it really matters. Spread the money wasted on another London project where the benefit would be seen by far more people, far quicker.

 

[BantamMenace]

Savings elsewhere can be made in my opinion.

The prison service for example can utilise high levels of automation within new build specialist prisons for those serving less than a predetermined spell, say 3 years.

If these were in the private sector with a flat fee per prisoner per day paid to those operating the prisons with bonuses awarded when a prisoner hasn't reoffended 1 year, 3 years and 8 years after their release.

The prisons would be built be the state and then a franchise system similar to today's railways used to determine who would run these prisons.

Could fixed term franchising be used elsewhere with the state funding the capital improvements similar to today's railways?

Franchised hospitals, schools, prisons, fire services? How long before we're in a situation where it's worth a go because we're out of other ideas? For every failure there'd be a 'Chiltern' of the prison system where one prison could function incredibly successfully, low reoffending rates and a lot of lessons learnt for the rest of the industry.

 

[najaB]

The billions wasted on London getting another railway...

I didn't realise HS2 linked London to London.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Taxing actual current wealth is probably better than taxing inherited wealth.

Why do you say that? I'm currently earning money to save for my pension and get my children on the property ladder, I've paid my mortgage off and I don't have any debt. Why tax me when you can get after those who inherit millions without having to do anything?