I'm moving to England

[redsturgeon]

Meanwhile the US is very close to enacting some huge tax cuts. Assuming they pass and that you live in a low-tax State, there is probably nowhere in the West so committed to people keeping more of their money and resisting a vast welfare state.

Much as I enjoy visiting some parts of the US I would find it depressing to live in luxury in a country where some 41 million people live in poverty.

I agree with much of the rest of your post except it would seem I am happier giving up a slightly larger proportion of my income in tax than you are.

John

[didds]

even Tory governments have been raising taxes, which I find to be profoundly depressing.

It's clear to me that at the moment the UK is attempting to have a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget.

Personal tax rates have been as low as they have for ages. Inflation has occurred. wage rises have been at best paltry (for the vast majority - CEOs etc aside) and often non existent. So it doesn't take much to realise that the tax take is static but the prices of everything used by "society" (NHS, education, security, social care etc etc etc) has gone up. We can;t carry on this way surely?

didds

[JMN2]

Or one could have the best of both worlds and live just south of the border or in North East England - English tax rates with Scottish weather.

[Lootman]

Much as I enjoy visiting some parts of the US I would find it depressing to live in luxury in a country where some 41 million people live in poverty

Maybe I am wretched and soulless but the existence of poverty doesn't concern me so much. Nor do I understand this endless bleating about "inequality". Being poor in the United States still makes you fairly well off by the standard of most places. There are genuine opportunities to prosper and, in fact, become filthy rich. I feel sure you are aware that it is often the poor who vote Republican. Even though Republican policies do not favour the poor, voters still hold on to that dream that they will make it big and, when they do, they don't want the government taking it away.

In fact, pride in the success of others and a distrust of government are natural tendencies in the US. Whereas here there is an uneasy and sometimes envious suspicion about those who succeed, and an almost inexplicable faith that things are better done by government.

even Tory governments have been raising taxes, which I find to be profoundly depressing.

It's clear to me that at the moment the UK is attempting to have a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget.

Personal tax rates have been as low as they have for ages. Inflation has occurred. wage rises have been at best paltry (for the vast majority - CEOs etc aside) and often non existent. So it doesn't take much to realise that the tax take is static but the prices of everything used by "society" (NHS, education, security, social care etc etc etc) has gone up. We can't carry on this way surely?

Yes, the current deficit spending may well prove to be untenable. But the solution to that isn't necessarily to raise taxes, but rather to reduce spending. Do we really believe there isn't more fat to cut in the welfare budget? Does the NHS really have to be all things to all people, without any real competition? Do we have to have so many local authority middle managers on 80K a year? How about equating public sector pensions with private sector ones?

[redsturgeon]

I feel sure you are aware that it is often the poor who vote Republican. Even though Republican policies do not favour the poor, voters still hold on to that dream that they will make it big and, when they do, they don't want the government taking it away.

I just find it slightly odd that the richest three individuals in the US have more wealth than the poorest 150 million.

John

[didds]

Does the NHS really have to be all things to all people, without any real competition?


Do we have to have so many local authority middle managers on 80K a year?

Those two are the interesting questions to me too. I don;t know enough ebout what LA middle managekment does to comment really but 80K a year seems an awful lot of money.

As for the NHS - mankind's biggest dichotomy is that it can now keep more people alive for longer and fairly easily, which now manifests itself into more later life issues than ever before to be dealt with, and even ones that we may not have ever encountered before knowingly. At what stage does the NHS have to draw a line in the sand - or at least a box around itself - and say "This is what we treat. Everything else is outside of our remit". rather like "NHS" dentistry I suppose.

That debate would be a very hard one, and the decisions even harder.

I havemt; ignoired Lootman's other two questions

* Do we really believe there isn't more fat to cut in the welfare budget?
* How about equating public sector pensions with private sector ones?

Because I know even less about them. And howsoever we have what we have, I do feel uncomfortable about cutting welfare even more when its clear that there are plenty of people struggloing that dont; postebntially fall into the "its their own issue to deal with bucket"... I mean widows/widowers/orphans/ill health related social and financial issues/accidents etc etc. Public sector pensions... all I get is the impression is somebody made a promise a long time ago that they should still honour. That's not to say the same promises should be promised to new incomers today (perhaps they aren't?)

didds.

[Lootman]

I feel sure you are aware that it is often the poor who vote Republican. Even though Republican policies do not favour the poor, voters still hold on to that dream that they will make it big and, when they do, they don't want the government taking it away.

I just find it slightly odd that the richest three individuals in the US have more wealth than the poorest 150 million.

Did those three individuals (Buffett, Gates and Bezos? - just guessing) create more wealth, jobs and prosperity than the bottom 150 million?

And then there is Steve Jobs who (along with Tim Cook) was crucial in creating Apple's near $1 trillion market cap. How much should he have been worth?

Zuckerberg? His salary is a dollar a year, and he just provided an entire hospital wing for free medical care in San Francisco.

Benioff, of SalesForce fame, who funded an entire children's hospital, again in San Francisco.

Shouldn't people like that be encouraged and motivated? And do UK tax rates deter us from similar achievements?

If Buffett moved to Winchester, your town would instantly become much more unequal. But would that matter?

[SalvorHardin]

I just find it slightly odd that the richest three individuals in the US have more wealth than the poorest 150 million.

Why should that be odd? Most people reading this are richer than at least 60 million people combined if we only consider Americans, let alone the rest of the world.

I'd expect that almost everyone on TLF is richer than at least 150 million people because so many people have no assets to speak of, but they do have debts.

A large number of people in the developed world have a negative net worth; something like 15% to 20% of Americans households for starters. So up to 60 million people to start with before considering any other countries. Almost everyone who has graduated in Britain in the last few years will have negative net worth.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-i ... 2017-11-11

And of course because someone is wealthy this does not mean that others must be poorer because of that person's wealth. Zero sum economics is a discredited theory, unfortunately much beloved by some left-wing politicians.

[Dod101]

The trouble with doing anything about welfare benefits is that it is almost political suicide to do much more and yet people have got to be persuaded to be more independent and take responsibility for their own (and their family's) welfare. I suppose that is really the idea of ISAs and SIPPs. And as for care for the elderly, when I look into family history it is amazing the number of families who have an elderly mother or father living with them and not that long ago either. It is all very well talking of care homes closing down but of course the care home used to be the daughter's family home.

The NHS is unsustainable in its current form. It is like having an insurance policy with no limits as to the financial benefits provided and no age limit. It will have to move to being much more of a 'no frills' service and maybe broken down into smaller local units. I have no doubt there is a huge amount of waste in it; it could hardly be otherwise. Just think of any other nationalised industry (because that is what it is)

And yet we get silly GPs like mine. I had a trapped nerve, excruciatingly painful, after a replacement hip op. I went to see him and he said I'll give you a referral to a physio. Waiting time? Maybe a few weeks. I said I cannot wait that long and will go privately. What he said to me was' Oh well if you want to flash the cash...........' I have never come as near to falling out with him as that moment. Here was a patient who could afford the £40 or so to go privately and the doctor either from professional pride or socialist principles suggesting basically that it was all right for me........I was voluntarily taking a modest amount of pressure off the NHS and yet he was almost insulting me for doing so. Why is it that dentists can have in the one practice a mix of entirely private and entirely NHS patients and yet GPs cannot? Yet private dentistry is acceptable it would seem whereas whenever anyone talks of a private provision for the NHS it is shock horror.

I would also take several non life threatening treatments off the NHS, all cosmetic surgery, IVF treatment and so on. There ought to be a public debate encouraged, cross party, to decide how to deal with the crisis, because that is I think what we have.

Dod

[redsturgeon]

I feel sure you are aware that it is often the poor who vote Republican. Even though Republican policies do not favour the poor, voters still hold on to that dream that they will make it big and, when they do, they don't want the government taking it away.

I just find it slightly odd that the richest three individuals in the US have more wealth than the poorest 150 million.

Did those three individuals (Buffett, Gates and Bezos? - just guessing) create more wealth, jobs and prosperity than the bottom 150 million?

And then there is Steve Jobs who (along with Tim Cook) was crucial in creating Apple's near $1 trillion market cap. How much should he have been worth?

Would they have been able to create that wealth without the bottom 150 million?

Zuckerberg? His salary is a dollar a year, and he just provided an entire hospital wing for free medical care in San Francisco.

I think Zuckerberg's salary is irrelevant

Benioff, of SalesForce fame, who funded an entire children's hospital, again in San Francisco.

Great...for the children of San Francisco, was a hospital needed there more than in say Mississippi?

Shouldn't people like that be encouraged and motivated? And do UK tax rates deter us from similar achievements?

Yes people should be encouraged, do you think that money was a major motivator for Bill Gates? I received my first Xmas card this year in the post this week. It is from someone I have known for about 20 years. He is an immigrant to this country. He came with nothing from Africa. He sold his first business in 1997 for £12 million. He is now worth over one billion ponds. UK taxes have not deterred him.

If Buffett moved to Winchester, your town would instantly become much more unequal. But would that matter?

It would not matter to me, but although some wealth can be created by individuals some of it is a zero sum game. I have plenty for myself and my family. I believe the pendulum has swung to far in one direction.

Interesting questions.

John

[UncleEbenezer]

And yet we get silly GPs like mine. I had a trapped nerve, excruciatingly painful, after a replacement hip op. I went to see him and he said I'll give you a referral to a physio. Waiting time? Maybe a few weeks. I said I cannot wait that long and will go privately. What he said to me was' Oh well if you want to flash the cash...........
Dod

You caught him out. NHS best practice is to string you along: give you a rough date you'll be happy with, then just push it back week-by-week until (and unless) it eventually suits them to treat you.

(I take it from your use of the past tense that my best wishes would be misplaced, or at least mistimed, now).

[Dod101]

UE

Absolutely correct on both counts. It is over a year now since I had the op and almost exactly a year since my problems with the trapped nerve (which I may say my wonderful physio had fixed in about two weeks max).

I live in Scotland and we have I think it is a three month guarantee for elective ops like mine. The clock starts ticking after your pre
med check. I had mine at the end of March and at the end of June I got a letter to say they could not maintain the guarantee and would let me know. My op was 2 September so that was exactly as you describe, just stringing me along and of course I do not think there is any sanction, and what would be the point anyway? The system is broken. Throwing money at it is not the answer.

Dod

[TUK020]

The NHS is unsustainable in its current form. It is like having an insurance policy with no limits as to the financial benefits provided and no age limit. It will have to move to being much more of a 'no frills' service and maybe broken down into smaller local units. I have no doubt there is a huge amount of waste in it; it could hardly be otherwise. Just think of any other nationalised industry (because that is what it is)

Dod

the problem is that the NHS is so unwieldy, that it is in effect unmanageable.
It employs over a million people. You have to go to India or China to find a larger organisation by number of people (although I believe Walmart comes close).
Re-engineering the organisation will involve massive abrupt and painful change, because it is so difficult to have a discernible impact on such a large blob from evolutionary policy tweaks.
I suspect that devolved regional government will be necessary to start viewing 'budget boundaries' differently (e.g NHS vs social care) to get systemically more cost effective ways of doing things. To set a hare running: halve the size, staffing and cost of the hospital, and move half the residents (aka bed blockers) to a local cheap hotel with a visiting district nurse.

Better stop here....... already well off the piste.

[swill453]

It employs over a million people. You have to go to India or China to find a larger organisation by number of people (although I believe Walmart comes close).

Actually Walmart and the US DoD beat it, and it's about level with McDonald's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers

Scott.

[Clariman]

It disappoints me that many fellow Fools seem to be motivated only by their own personal income. What a sad world they must live in. So you wouldn't live in Scotland because you'd lose a few hundred quid a year? Hmmm.

Scotland has free student tuition, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free personal care for the elderly to help them live independently, cheaper housing and great scenery. It remains, broadly speaking, a country where people are happy to support the well-being of others.

Life isn't all about money. If it was, Stooz and I wouldn't be running this site for free.

Clariman

[Lootman]

It disappoints me that many fellow Fools seem to be motivated only by their own personal income. What a sad world they must live in. So you wouldn't live in Scotland because you'd lose a few hundred quid a year?

For me it's more than just the extra tax. It's about making an ideological choice. I prefer to live somewhere that is pro-business rather than pro-welfare. I'm willing to accept fewer handouts and subsidies in return for a more dynamic economy. In the case of Scotland the issue is confused because it's not a separate nation with a separate tax system and stock market, so you don't see the distinction so clearly. But why would it surprise or disappoint you that a constituency bound together by a desire for investment success would be cynical about a country where the size of the government is high relative to GDP?

Scotland has free student tuition, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free personal care for the elderly to help them live independently, cheaper housing and great scenery. It remains, broadly speaking, a country where people are happy to support the well-being of others.

I think it is a good thing that a country exists that offers that level of services and support. I also think it is a good thing that a place like the United States exists that does not, but allows people to keep more of what they earn and so can self-help. And all things in between. The important thing is that we have a choice of systems so we can decide which system best suits is. The worst situation would be everywhere is exactly the same because of a belief that there is only one way to run things.

Life isn't all about money. If it was, Stooz and I wouldn't be running this site for free.

And it is appreciated. In fact I believe that one way our welfare bill and taxes could be reduced is by more volunteerism, more emphasis on churches, charities and non-profits, and through the generosity of benefactors. It is perhaps significant that in the US, where the rich get to keep more of their earnings and wealth, there is a vibrant tradition of volunteerism, foundations and charitable giving. You can pay low taxes and still have a heart. In fact, tax me less and I will give more, knowing that I can direct that help to causes that are more meaningful to me.

[JMN2]

...

Scotland has free student tuition, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free personal care for the elderly to help them live independently...
Clariman

It's not free at all, someone has to pay for it. And that someone is the taxpayer south of the border.

[PinkDalek]

That is all.

[TUK020]

It employs over a million people. You have to go to India or China to find a larger organisation by number of people (although I believe Walmart comes close).

Actually Walmart and the US DoD beat it, and it's about level with McDonald's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers

Scott.

Thanks for the correction Scott.
For an organisation of that scale, where do you think it falls on the spectrum of management effectiveness? At the McDonald's end or the Indian Railways end?
Tuk020

[quelquod]

...

Scotland has free student tuition, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free personal care for the elderly to help them live independently...
Clariman

It's not free at all, someone has to pay for it. And that someone is the taxpayer south of the border.

To warm us up at the fire you've just lit, UK tax revenues from North Sea oil to 2014 are well over $400 billion predominantly from North of the border. It will be quite a while, if ever, before Barnett makes a decent dent in that.

Source https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-£400-billion-worth-oil-revenue taken (but not analysed by me) from government figures.