Petrol prices to hit £1-20

[bungle]

Actually, the American term "Gas" is more accurate than the UK term 'petrol'.

 

The part of oil used to make your car run is "Gasoline" and "Gas" is merely a shortened version of this word.

[Gingeletiss]

My view is based on independent data showing rising average and median income in the UK and increasing GDP per capita backed up by affluence indicators such as number of foreign holidays, car ownership etc. But because you personally dont have as much money now you are retired as you did when you were working you think its ********. Way to go.

 

See buctootim, you are obviously of the tree hugging variety, and your posts reflect that, nothing wrong with your beliefs, but I don't personally, fall for all this PC sh1t.

 

Forget facts, lets talk about real terms. I and all of my work colleagues, are worse off now than we were ten years ago. My disposible income is reducing, as the prices going up, far outstrip the pittiful increase, that my bosses deam to give me. This has averaged about 1.05% over 10 years. Last year I had to take a £50.00 paycut, (it is a recession dn't you know), along with no payrise at all.

 

Now this may not be written facts in your made up left wing world, but it is real. Holidays abroad!, what are they, we now holiday once every three years. I'm not retired Like WG, but I know where he is coming from. Back to the fuel, this gready goverment, has ferked up the ecconomy so badly, that we will be taxed to death for years to come, by all partys. They did sell our gold reserves at rock bottem prices, and dear old Gord, has done everything in his power, to hand over our pension funds to his socialist friends in Europe.

 

He has no intention of reducing tax on fuel, as he is of the spend spend now mentality that all socialists have.

 

Truth is, you may be better off mate, but all of those that I know, are worse off in real terms.

[Johnny Bognor]

Now this may not be written facts in your made up left wing world, but it is real. Holidays abroad!, what are they, we now holiday once every three years. I'm not retired Like WG, but I know where he is coming from.

 

I agree, these holidays and cars are not from the results of increased wealth, but are the result of unprecendented and unsustainable consumer borrowing to the tune of 1.4 trillion.

 

Fraudon allowed us to borrow beyond the max in chasing the consumer dream so that we can have driveways full of new cars and three exotic holidays per year.....just don't mention the £20k stuffed on the credit card, the £20k in car finance and please do not mention the personal loans or remortgaged properties.

 

Just like Fraudon, 'we' have borrowed to buy these indicators of wealth, but alas borrowing the symbols of wealth is not wealth.

 

Fraudon was happy to let this happen whilst Chancellor as 'we' got that feel good factor which helped return them to power just before it all went tits up.

[solentstars]

See buctootim, you are obviously of the tree hugging variety, and your posts reflect that, nothing wrong with your beliefs, but I don't personally, fall for all this PC sh1t.

 

Forget facts, lets talk about real terms. I and all of my work colleagues, are worse off now than we were ten years ago. My disposible income is reducing, as the prices going up, far outstrip the pittiful increase, that my bosses deam to give me. This has averaged about 1.05% over 10 years. Last year I had to take a £50.00 paycut, (it is a recession dn't you know), along with no payrise at all.

 

Now this may not be written facts in your made up left wing world, but it is real. Holidays abroad!, what are they, we now holiday once every three years. I'm not retired Like WG, but I know where he is coming from. Back to the fuel, this gready goverment, has ferked up the ecconomy so badly, that we will be taxed to death for years to come, by all partys. They did sell our gold reserves at rock bottem prices, and dear old Gord, has done everything in his power, to hand over our pension funds to his socialist friends in Europe.

 

He has no intention of reducing tax on fuel, as he is of the spend spend now mentality that all socialists have.

 

Truth is, you may be better off mate, but all of those that I know, are worse off in real terms.

i believe john major (tory)brought in a escalator tax the idea was to annually increase fuel duty, initially at 3%, later rising to 5%,and the the rate of inflation which labour scrapped..

i agree with buctootim most people are better of unless you are on low incomes and a fixed pension but like all market economics you have winners and losers .

[solentstars]

I agree, these holidays and cars are not from the results of increased wealth, but are the result of unprecendented and unsustainable consumer borrowing to the tune of 1.4 trillion.

 

Fraudon allowed us to borrow beyond the max in chasing the consumer dream so that we can have driveways full of new cars and three exotic holidays per year.....just don't mention the £20k stuffed on the credit card, the £20k in car finance and please do not mention the personal loans or remortgaged properties.

 

Just like Fraudon, 'we' have borrowed to buy these indicators of wealth, but alas borrowing the symbols of wealth is not wealth.

 

Fraudon was happy to let this happen whilst Chancellor as 'we' got that feel good factor which helped return them to power just before it all went tits up.

 

i agree the same thing happened in the 80,s under the torys which lead to boom and bust instead of governments giving us sound money.

[buctootim]

See buctootim, you are obviously of the tree hugging variety, and your posts reflect that, nothing wrong with your beliefs, but I don't personally, fall for all this PC sh1t.

 

Forget facts, lets talk about real terms. I and all of my work colleagues, are worse off now than we were ten years ago. My disposible income is reducing, as the prices going up, far outstrip the pittiful increase, that my bosses deam to give me. This has averaged about 1.05% over 10 years. Last year I had to take a £50.00 paycut, (it is a recession dn't you know), along with no payrise at all.

 

Now this may not be written facts in your made up left wing world, but it is real. Holidays abroad!, what are they, we now holiday once every three years. I'm not retired Like WG, but I know where he is coming from. Back to the fuel, this gready goverment, has ferked up the ecconomy so badly, that we will be taxed to death for years to come, by all partys. They did sell our gold reserves at rock bottem prices, and dear old Gord, has done everything in his power, to hand over our pension funds to his socialist friends in Europe.

 

He has no intention of reducing tax on fuel, as he is of the spend spend now mentality that all socialists have.

 

Truth is, you may be better off mate, but all of those that I know, are worse off in real terms.

 

As it happens I suppose I am a tree hugger -if that means I think its foolish to treat the planet as though nothing that an ever growing population does will ever exhaust the natural resources we take for granted. Left wing - no. I think Brown is probably marginally better than Cameron, but thought Thatcher was a necessary evil, much preferable to Michael Foot. Yes I think Brown has taxed too much and spent too much without getting good value for money - but that doesnt change my main point that most people are better off than 10, 20 or 30 years ago (even though some individuals arent) and that Britain is not a particulalry high tax country. Compared to other developed nations both US and Europe we are pretty much in the middle of the pack - being charged overall average taxes for middle of the pack average services. Were neither hard done by nor especially lucky.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm not retired Like WG, but I know where he is coming from.

 

I'm not retired! It's long been an ambition of mine, but being self-employed I can't see it for the immediate future.

 

Or perhaps you're all trying to tell me something?

[Whitey Grandad]

As it happens I suppose I am a tree hugger -if that means I think its foolish to treat the planet as though nothing that an ever growing population does will ever exhaust the natural resources we take for granted. Left wing - no. I think Brown is probably marginally better than Cameron, but thought Thatcher was a necessary evil, much preferable to Michael Foot. Yes I think Brown has taxed too much and spent too much without getting good value for money - but that doesnt change my main point that most people are better off than 10, 20 or 30 years ago (even though some individuals arent) and that Britain is not a particulalry high tax country. Compared to other developed nations both US and Europe we are pretty much in the middle of the pack - being charged overall average taxes for middle of the pack average services. Were neither hard done by nor especially lucky.

 

Most of that is a fair view, but I've highlighted where we differ. For the last 15 years we have been going backwards and most of the increases have been in the public sector which has been paid for with money borrowed from the future, which probably means your children and my grandchildren.

 

As for taxation, we're a lot nearer than the top than you might think. I've had experience of America, Canada, Denmark and France and I would put us up with the top taxers.

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree, these holidays and cars are not from the results of increased wealth, but are the result of unprecendented and unsustainable consumer borrowing to the tune of 1.4 trillion.

 

Fraudon allowed us to borrow beyond the max in chasing the consumer dream so that we can have driveways full of new cars and three exotic holidays per year.....just don't mention the £20k stuffed on the credit card, the £20k in car finance and please do not mention the personal loans or remortgaged properties.

 

Just like Fraudon, 'we' have borrowed to buy these indicators of wealth, but alas borrowing the symbols of wealth is not wealth.

 

Fraudon was happy to let this happen whilst Chancellor as 'we' got that feel good factor which helped return them to power just before it all went tits up.

There's also the matter of the reduced savings ratio. Compared with other countries 'we' are putting very little away for a rainy day, possibly in the mistaken belief that we can borrow what we need when we have to. Add to that the disincentive to save for a pension caused by the raid on the dividend tax credits and the means-testing for those who tried to save a little bit extra for their old age and we are in a parlous situation.

[Ash]

Actually, the American term "Gas" is more accurate than the UK term 'petrol'.

 

The part of oil used to make your car run is "Gasoline" and "Gas" is merely a shortened version of this word.

Have you met Matthew Le God? I think you two would get along swimmingly.

[Whitey Grandad]

Actually, the American term "Gas" is more accurate than the UK term 'petrol'.

 

The part of oil used to make your car run is "Gasoline" and "Gas" is merely a shortened version of this word.

Petrol is short for 'petroleum spirit' and is the generally accepted name in the UK. What I hate is people who use alliterative expressions like 'gas guzzler' or 'rat run', preumably because they think it sounds trendy or maybe just because they like the sound of their own voices.

[bridge too far]

Most of that is a fair view, but I've highlighted where we differ. For the last 15 years we have been going backwards and most of the increases have been in the public sector which has been paid for with money borrowed from the future, which probably means your children and my grandchildren.

 

As for taxation, we're a lot nearer than the top than you might think. I've had experience of America, Canada, Denmark and France and I would put us up with the top taxers.

 

I guess you can't make a judgement on tax levels alone. For example, in the US and Canada, you have to pay private health insurance.

 

Maybe a better way of comparing one against another would be by looking at disposable income AFTER tax, NI, private insurance, road tolls, etc. etc. etc. (you'll get my drift).

[dune]

I guess you can't make a judgement on tax levels alone. For example, in the US and Canada, you have to pay private health insurance.

 

Maybe a better way of comparing one against another would be by looking at disposable income AFTER tax, NI, private insurance, road tolls, etc. etc. etc. (you'll get my drift).

 

As much as you'll hate the idea it has to be said that a private healthcare system is much better than an NHS. In the 50's the NHS was the right because it was all about providing healthcare, but nowadays the NHS is more about bureacracy and pen pushers. This is how the public sector works - it's a wasteful and acts like a sponge with money pouring in, but not getting to where it really should get i.e frontline services. I'm not suggesting we go down the US route of making healthcare completely a free market because that would make healthcare exclusive, what I am a strong supporter of is privatisation of our existing healthcare and it being payed for via national insurance or income tax or simply from the public purse - it makes no difference as ultimately it's all the same pot anyway. However getting the best out of healthcare won't be straightforward because much like with BA there is a millitant element that is powerful in the NHS, but it was the same with the railways and overtime rail workers have got used to no longer being on the public sector gravy train and they understand that they're now in the real world. Of course there would be much shouting from the unions and the tatty old flags would get brought out for a few protests, but that's about it. In the end they'd have to face up to a choice - like it or lump it.

[Thedelldays]

I guess you can't make a judgement on tax levels alone. For example, in the US and Canada, you have to pay private health insurance.

 

Maybe a better way of comparing one against another would be by looking at disposable income AFTER tax, NI, private insurance, road tolls, etc. etc. etc. (you'll get my drift).

dont we pay for health care..?

[Whitey Grandad]

I guess you can't make a judgement on tax levels alone. For example, in the US and Canada, you have to pay private health insurance.

 

Maybe a better way of comparing one against another would be by looking at disposable income AFTER tax, NI, private insurance, road tolls, etc. etc. etc. (you'll get my drift).

That's absolutely true. Here we have employers' NI which is always overlooked but is as much a part of the employees' salary as the take-home pay. Once you factor that in the marginal rate look horrendous. In France the pay slip includes a long list of taxes, all itemised. In Denmark the employer pays all the money to the employee who then pays a high marginal rate. When I was there a lot in the 80s VAT was 25% (even on food) and car purchase tax was 180%, i.e. you paid 280% of the ex-works cost of a new car, whereas Germany next door had VAT at 10%. Comparing salaries alone is very misleading.

[Whitey Grandad]

dont we pay for health care..?

Of course (but youknew that). It's compulsory health insurance. The problem is that the public think that the NHS is doing us all a favour when in reality we are paying customers who deserve better.

[solentstars]

Of course (but youknew that). It's compulsory health insurance. The problem is that the public think that the NHS is doing us all a favour when in reality we are paying customers who deserve better.

i agree but i,m glad we have a nhs and don,t have the big business crap private usa health care system with its bureaucracy and burden on private business,mind you the canadians have a good health care system.

[dune]

i agree but i,m glad we have a nhs and don,t have the big business crap private usa health care system with its bureaucracy and burden on private business,mind you the canadians have a good health care system.

 

instead we have a wasteful unionised socialist bureaucracy and a burden on the taxpayer.

[bridge too far]

Of course (but youknew that). It's compulsory health insurance. The problem is that the public think that the NHS is doing us all a favour when in reality we are paying customers who deserve better.

 

Well, having just brought Mr TF home after a procedure on his knee, I beg to differ.

 

Saw the GP about 6 weeks ago, arthroscopy yesterday involving arriving at hospital at 2pm and home by 11pm. Single en-suite room, really nice meal once he'd recovered from anaesthetic.

 

Absolutely no complaints whatsoever. The procedure etc would have cost him a shade under £3K had he had it done privately. As it was, it was done in a private hospital under the NHS choose and book system at no cost to him.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Well, having just brought Mr TF home after a procedure on his knee, I beg to differ.

 

Saw the GP about 6 weeks ago, arthroscopy yesterday involving arriving at hospital at 2pm and home by 11pm. Single en-suite room, really nice meal once he'd recovered from anaesthetic.

 

Absolutely no complaints whatsoever. The procedure etc would have cost him a shade under £3K had he had it done privately. As it was, it was done in a private hospital under the NHS choose and book system at no cost to him.

 

Is that from the strain on his knees reaching to be picked up by you and carried?

[solentstars]

instead we have a wasteful unionised socialist bureaucracy and a burden on the taxpayer.

 

i,ve seen the us healthcare system at work,my relative who lives in florida whose baby was ill had to pay £80 dollars to see a docter before he would even look at his sick baby.

so i rather have a europeon health care system rather then crap usa wasteful bureacracy private system which is a burden on us business who want it of their wagebills..

[bridge too far]

Is that from the strain on his knees reaching to be picked up by you and carried?

 

So droll, L - so very droll

 

It did include his nappies and dummy I must admit!

 

I've just looked at comparitive costs of having this procedure done elsewhere. The costs of having this done privately in the UK are HUGE in comparison to other countries.

 

Rip off private healthcare Britain eh?

 

http://www.treatmentabroad.com/cost/surgery-abroad-cost/arthroscopy/

[solentstars]

Well, having just brought Mr TF home after a procedure on his knee, I beg to differ.

 

Saw the GP about 6 weeks ago, arthroscopy yesterday involving arriving at hospital at 2pm and home by 11pm. Single en-suite room, really nice meal once he'd recovered from anaesthetic.

 

Absolutely no complaints whatsoever. The procedure etc would have cost him a shade under £3K had he had it done privately. As it was, it was done in a private hospital under the NHS choose and book system at no cost to him.

 

good post about nhs and i know the average patient would not have £3k plus hanging about.

[solentstars]

So droll, L - so very droll

 

It did include his nappies and dummy I must admit!

 

I've just looked at comparitive costs of having this procedure done elsewhere. The costs of having this done privately in the UK are HUGE in comparison to other countries.

 

Rip off private healthcare Britain eh?

 

http://www.treatmentabroad.com/cost/surgery-abroad-cost/arthroscopy/

 

i agree look at what it costs now to see a private dentist,it seems the only one who benefits are the dentists, lining their pockets with their rip off charges .

[View From The Top]

Fuel tax is far to high. Far too much of that tax is wasted. Brown is a twaaat.

[buctootim]

Most of that is a fair view, but I've highlighted where we differ. For the last 15 years we have been going backwards and most of the increases have been in the public sector which has been paid for with money borrowed from the future, which probably means your children and my grandchildren.

 

As for taxation, we're a lot nearer than the top than you might think. I've had experience of America, Canada, Denmark and France and I would put us up with the top taxers.

 

Total tax burden http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

 

Rank Countries Amount

# 1 Sweden:54.2 % of GDP

# 2 Denmark:48.8 % of GDP

# 3 Finland:46.9 % of GDP

# 4 Belgium:45.6 % of GDP

# 5 France:45.3 % of GDP

# 6 Austria:43.7 % of GDP

# 7 Italy:42 % of GDP

# 8 Netherlands:41.4 % of GDP

# 9 Norway:40.3 % of GDP

# 10 Germany:37.9 % of GDP

# 11 United Kingdom:37.4 % of GDP

# 12 Canada:35.8 % of GDP

# 13 Switzerland:35.7 % of GDP

# 14 New Zealand:35.1 % of GDP

# 15 Australia:31.5 % of GDP

# 16 Ireland:31.1 % of GDP

# 17 United States:29.6 % of GDP

# 18 Japan:27.1 % of GDP

Weighted average:39.4 % of GDP

[JackFrost]

Total tax burden http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

 

Rank Countries Amount

# 1 Sweden:54.2 % of GDP

# 2 Denmark:48.8 % of GDP

# 3 Finland:46.9 % of GDP

# 4 Belgium:45.6 % of GDP

# 5 France:45.3 % of GDP

# 6 Austria:43.7 % of GDP

# 7 Italy:42 % of GDP

# 8 Netherlands:41.4 % of GDP

# 9 Norway:40.3 % of GDP

# 10 Germany:37.9 % of GDP

# 11 United Kingdom:37.4 % of GDP

# 12 Canada:35.8 % of GDP

# 13 Switzerland:35.7 % of GDP

# 14 New Zealand:35.1 % of GDP

# 15 Australia:31.5 % of GDP

# 16 Ireland:31.1 % of GDP

# 17 United States:29.6 % of GDP

# 18 Japan:27.1 % of GDP

Weighted average:39.4 % of GDP

 

Is that just income tax? ie. does it include stealth taxes?

[bridge too far]

Is that just income tax? ie. does it include stealth taxes?

 

I think if you look at the top of the list you'll see it says 'TOTAL' tax burden.

[Whitey Grandad]

Total tax burden http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

 

Rank Countries Amount

# 1 Sweden:54.2 % of GDP

# 2 Denmark:48.8 % of GDP

# 3 Finland:46.9 % of GDP

# 4 Belgium:45.6 % of GDP

# 5 France:45.3 % of GDP

# 6 Austria:43.7 % of GDP

# 7 Italy:42 % of GDP

# 8 Netherlands:41.4 % of GDP

# 9 Norway:40.3 % of GDP

# 10 Germany:37.9 % of GDP

# 11 United Kingdom:37.4 % of GDP

# 12 Canada:35.8 % of GDP

# 13 Switzerland:35.7 % of GDP

# 14 New Zealand:35.1 % of GDP

# 15 Australia:31.5 % of GDP

# 16 Ireland:31.1 % of GDP

# 17 United States:29.6 % of GDP

# 18 Japan:27.1 % of GDP

Weighted average:39.4 % of GDP

Ta for those.

So if we are taxed at 37.4% of GDP, why does tax freedom day fall on 25th June? It's because these figures are only the tax raised and do not include government borrowing.

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/tax-freedom-day/

[buctootim]

Ta for those.

So if we are taxed at 37.4% of GDP, why does tax freedom day fall on 25th June? It's because these figures are only the tax raised and do not include government borrowing.

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/tax-freedom-day/

 

 

Its because the total tax burden includes everything - corporate, personal, property, VAT, capital gains everything.

 

This table from a different source breaks it down.

 

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

[Whitey Grandad]

Its because the total tax burden includes everything - corporate, personal, property, VAT, capital gains everything.

 

This table from a different source breaks it down.

 

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

We are comparing two different amounts here. One is the tax actually taken, as you have pointed out, the other is the amount actually spent. The government has been spending more than it has been taking, effectively they've spent the money but they haven't presented us with the bill yet, so we have tax as a proportion of GDP and spending as a proportion of GDP. Current overspend is future taxes and the liability is increasing all the time when you consider public sector pensions and PFI commitments.

[bridge too far]

^^

But surely this whole debate has been centred on how much tax we actually pay (not what we might owe in the future). We were comparing, firstly, how much tax we pay on fuel and then we moved on to how much tax we actually pay overall.

 

The amount the government is borrowing is not germane to THIS debate. And, if it were, we'd also have to compare how much our borrowing is compared to the countries whose tax takes we've been examining.

[Saint George]

i,ve seen the us healthcare system at work,my relative who lives in florida whose baby was ill had to pay £80 dollars to see a docter before he would even look at his sick baby.

so i rather have a europeon health care system rather then crap usa wasteful bureacracy private system which is a burden on us business who want it of their wagebills..

 

$80?....That's about right if you don't have insurance.....It's generally $10 - $20 co pay for most peeps with insurance..........You pay's your money and take your choice....Nany's not going to come bail you out with someone else's money over here.....Although there are plenty of Charity options where peeps 'choose' to help.

 

Did he think he was still living in the UK or something? or just decided that he didn't need insurance?.......If he took that chance, then he needed to be prepared to accept the consequences of paying his medical bills in full....no good crying about it after......Mind you, if $80 is his sole medical expense for this year, he's doing pretty good....that's less than 1 weeks NI contribution for most peeps in the UK.....Man, he'll be up by $$$thousands$$$ by the end of the year at that rate.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

^^

But surely this whole debate has been centred on how much tax we actually pay (not what we might owe in the future). We were comparing, firstly, how much tax we pay on fuel and then we moved on to how much tax we actually pay overall.

 

The amount the government is borrowing is not germane to THIS debate. And, if it were, we'd also have to compare how much our borrowing is compared to the countries whose tax takes we've been examining.

We owe it now, we pay it in the future. It's all part of the big picture. Taxes have to go up, and petrol is an obvious target. I'm not personally against high fuel taxes provided that vehicle taxes are reduced to offset them. I think it is right that those who use the roads more should pay more and that vehicles which are less fuel-efficient should also pay more.

[buctootim]

$80?....That's about right if you don't have insurance.....It's generally $10 - $20 co pay for most peeps with insurance..........You pay's your money and take your choice....Nany's not going to come bail you out with someone else's money over here.....Although there are plenty of Charity options where peeps 'choose' to help.

 

Did he think he was still living in the UK or something? or just decided that he didn't need insurance?.......If he took that chance, then he needed to be prepared to accept the consequences of paying his medical bills in full....no good crying about it after......Mind you, if $80 is his sole medical expense for this year, he's doing pretty good....that's less than 1 weeks NI contribution for most peeps in the UK.....Man, he'll be up by $$$thousands$$$ by the end of the year at that rate.

 

 

Not really true though is it. US taxation only appears low because they load the burden of paying for healthcare and a decent education off the government balance sheet and on to the employer or individual. For the people we employ in NYC it costs $2,400 per month for healthcare for a family of four - thats an additional $28,800pa tax on employing someone. Also unless you live in a very affluent area you wouldnt want to send your kids to the local state school - proabably another $300,000 to educate one child during their lifetime. I know of one working couple in DC who currently bring in $120,000pa between them but she is pregnant, they live in a 1 bed apartment and they have no idea how they are going to either live on one salary or pay for childcare so she can go back to work - both are unaffordable. They really are hidden taxes in the US.

Edited 18 March, 2010 by buctootim

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

instead we have a wasteful unionised socialist bureaucracy and a burden on the taxpayer.

 

Now now dune, for people such as myself who has a life-long condition, under an American style system, I would not be able to get insurance/afford the premiums; what woud you do with people like me?

[buctootim]

Now now dune, for people such as myself who has a life-long condition, under an American style system, I would not be able to get insurance/afford the premiums; what woud you do with people like me?

 

Quite. Dune also forgets that the internal market in the NHS, which has increased beauracracy was brought in under John Major. Even so the NHS employs nothing like the number of people that private healthcare systems have to in order to process payments, chase bills and deal with insurance companies. The NHS only seems like a luxury when you are healthy.

[Whitey Grandad]

Quite. Dune also forgets that the internal market in the NHS, which has increased beauracracy was brought in under John Major. Even so the NHS employs nothing like the number of people that private healthcare systems have to in order to process payments, chase bills and deal with insurance companies. The NHS only seems like a luxury when you are healthy.

We are ranging away from the original topic now, but why is it that the NHS employs so many people compared with other countries, and why has no other country followed this model? How do we compare with France, for example?

[Gingeletiss]

We are ranging away from the original topic now, but why is it that the NHS employs so many people compared with other countries, and why has no other country followed this model? How do we compare with France, for example?

 

I think I'm right in saying, that the original model for the NHS, did not allow for free food, or bedding, and that is a big costing to the system.

[Thedelldays]

I think I'm right in saying, that the original model for the NHS, did not allow for free food, or bedding, and that is a big costing to the system.

I think the original model for the NHS was for basic health care etc...not for gender transplants etc because someone is "having issues"

[buctootim]

We are ranging away from the original topic now, but why is it that the NHS employs so many people compared with other countries, and why has no other country followed this model? How do we compare with France, for example?

 

Old article but things havent changed a great deal.

 

Paul Krugman - Nobel prize winning economist. "Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada. In my next column in this series, I'll explain why the most privatized health care system in the advanced world is also the most bloated and bureaucratic."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html

 

This the French system - good quality care but very expensive to the taxpayer and patient still has to pay a proportion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7427313/NHS-investigated-the-French-health-service.html

 

 

The NHS isnt perfect by any means but it is quite good and cheap compared to most systems.

Edited 18 March, 2010 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

I the early 80s I did a some work in Canada and the States and they explained to me one difference between them In Canada, once the paramedics were called out to an emergency you had to go to hospital but in the States they wouldn't take you unless they were satisfied that you could pay. One New Yorker told me that getting old in America was fraught with healthcare problems and that he would be coming to England when he retired. I'm not sure that he was joking.

[Saint George]

Not really true though is it. US taxation only appears low because they load the burden of paying for healthcare and a decent education off the government balance sheet and on to the employer or individual. For the people we employ in NYC it costs $2,400 per month for healthcare for a family of four - thats an additional $28,800pa tax on employing someone. Also unless you live in a very affluent area you wouldn't want to send your kids to the local state school - probably another $300,000 to educate one child during their lifetime. I know of one working couple in DC who currently bring in $120,000pa between them but she is pregnant, they live in a 1 bed apartment and they have no idea how they are going to either live on one salary or pay for childcare so she can go back to work - both are unfordable. They really are hidden taxes in the US.

 

Oh it's very true for 'most' peeps.....Let's just have a look at even the couple of extreme cases you're putting up for an example of the fine things about the Nanny System in the UK.

 

$2,400 per month for World class health care for a family of four? Man, someone seen you guys coming. Decent health care insurance is available for way less than that...... But even so, how much would it cost in Employer's and Employee's NI contributions for the same couple with the same income to receive near Third World health care in the UK?....Not to mention any Private health care plans they would have to have in place to ensure that they could actually get treated should they ever fall sick.....Even then, they could still find them selves having to pay to come to the US or go to Germany to get the best treatment for anything really bad.

 

As for school cost's.....If you wouldn't want to send your kids to a State School here, there's 'no way' you would be prepared to send your kids to a State Comprehensive School in the UK ....no way on this earth....So you cant add School cost's here and not do the same for the UK

 

If your example couple really can't live on a joint income of $120,000 then they have some serious issue's...But there again both the families you hold up as examples live in the most Left wing areas of the US, outside bankrupt California...Hell, New Yorkers pay almost as much tax as you guys do in the UK!.......So no surprise there then.

 

At the end of the day whether the sums end up higher or lower, the fact still remains that low taxes means more 'personal 'choice' for the individual.....We traditionally don't have a Nanny taking 'our' money and spending it how 'they' think is best us......I for one, wouldn't have it any other way......I can no longer even imagine anymore, paying $7.50 for a gallon of Gas...or 17% Sales Tax, or Road Tax, or Speed Camera Tax, or TV Tax.....Ugh, brings back nightmares just thinking about it........ No way!

 

[buctootim]

I the early 80s I did a some work in Canada and the States and they explained to me one difference between them In Canada, once the paramedics were called out to an emergency you had to go to hospital but in the States they wouldn't take you unless they were satisfied that you could pay. One New Yorker told me that getting old in America was fraught with healthcare problems and that he would be coming to England when he retired. I'm not sure that he was joking.

 

I think a lot of people in the US worry about healthcare if they become unemployed or retire. I dont know much about the Canadian system but it seems to be well respected and at a reasonable cost.

[buctootim]

Oh it's very true for 'most' peeps.....Let's just have a look at even the couple of extreme cases you're putting up for an example of the fine things about the Nanny System in the UK.

 

$2,400 per month for World class health care for a family of four? Man, someone seen you guys coming. Decent health care insurance is available for way less than that...... But even so, how much would it cost in Employer's and Employee's NI contributions for the same couple with the same income to receive near Third World health care in the UK?....Not to mention any Private health care plans they would have to have in place to ensure that they could actually get treated should they ever fall sick.....Even then, they could still find them selves having to pay to come to the US or go to Germany to get the best treatment for anything really bad.

 

As for school cost's.....If you wouldn't want to send your kids to a State School here, there's 'no way' you would be prepared to send your kids to a State Comprehensive School in the UK ....no way on this earth....So you cant add School cost's here and not do the same for the UK

 

If your example couple really can't live on a joint income of $120,000 then they have some serious issue's...But there again both the families you hold up as examples live in the most Left wing areas of the US, outside bankrupt California...Hell, New Yorkers pay almost as much tax as you guys do in the UK!.......So no surprise there then.

 

At the end of the day whether the sums end up higher or lower, the fact still remains that low taxes means more 'personal 'choice' for the individual.....We traditionally don't have a Nanny taking 'our' money and spending it how 'they' think is best us......I for one, wouldn't have it any other way......I can no longer even imagine anymore, paying $7.50 for a gallon of Gas...or 17% Sales Tax, or Road Tax, or Speed Camera Tax, or TV Tax.....Ugh, brings back nightmares just thinking about it........ No way!

 

 

In 2007, the US spent $7,439 per person, around 16% of GDP - even though 15% of people arent covered at all. The US government paid just over half of that - $3,800. The UK spent $3,200 per person in total, around 8% of GDP.

 

That means the US government taxes and spend more on healthcare than the UK government does per person and then employers or individuals have to shell out just as much again to get treatment. What a great system that is. If we more than doubled the amount of money going into the NHS do you not think the service might just be a tad better?

[St Landrew]

What I genuinely don't understand is why petrol is currently so high when crude is trading at around $80 a barrel whereas they were so much lower in 2007 when it was trading at $132 a barrel :confused:

 

It can't ALL be down to tax, surely?

 

http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html

 

 

Prices are as high as the market will bear. We seem to be able to bear a lot without kicking up a fuss. I can't be alone in being astounded that during last year, when the recession was supposed to have been so bad, that fuel prices were still relatively high. So if anyone has any doubts that the recession is not over, then look to the price of petrol.

[solentstars]

Not really true though is it. US taxation only appears low because they load the burden of paying for healthcare and a decent education off the government balance sheet and on to the employer or individual. For the people we employ in NYC it costs $2,400 per month for healthcare for a family of four - thats an additional $28,800pa tax on employing someone. Also unless you live in a very affluent area you wouldnt want to send your kids to the local state school - proabably another $300,000 to educate one child during their lifetime. I know of one working couple in DC who currently bring in $120,000pa between them but she is pregnant, they live in a 1 bed apartment and they have no idea how they are going to either live on one salary or pay for childcare so she can go back to work - both are unaffordable. They really are hidden taxes in the US.

 

i think you said it all in that post,no wonder they are trying to reform their us health care system,where 41% of U.S. adults have problems paying medical bills and many are hounded by collection agencies and The United States ranks 43rd in lowest infant mortality rate, down from 12th in 1960. i,m glad to be in a country that treats everybody rather then having a few extra pounds in my pocket

[solentstars]

In 2007, the US spent $7,439 per person, around 16% of GDP - even though 15% of people arent covered at all. The US government paid just over half of that - $3,800. The UK spent $3,200 per person in total, around 8% of GDP.

 

That means the US government taxes and spend more on healthcare than the UK government does per person and then employers or individuals have to shell out just as much again to get treatment. What a great system that is. If we more than doubled the amount of money going into the NHS do you not think the service might just be a tad better?

 

thats why they want to reform their health care because big business and drug companys are ripping of the american public

[dune]

Oh it's very true for 'most' peeps.....Let's just have a look at even the couple of extreme cases you're putting up for an example of the fine things about the Nanny System in the UK.

 

$2,400 per month for World class health care for a family of four? Man, someone seen you guys coming. Decent health care insurance is available for way less than that...... But even so, how much would it cost in Employer's and Employee's NI contributions for the same couple with the same income to receive near Third World health care in the UK?....Not to mention any Private health care plans they would have to have in place to ensure that they could actually get treated should they ever fall sick.....Even then, they could still find them selves having to pay to come to the US or go to Germany to get the best treatment for anything really bad.

 

As for school cost's.....If you wouldn't want to send your kids to a State School here, there's 'no way' you would be prepared to send your kids to a State Comprehensive School in the UK ....no way on this earth....So you cant add School cost's here and not do the same for the UK

 

If your example couple really can't live on a joint income of $120,000 then they have some serious issue's...But there again both the families you hold up as examples live in the most Left wing areas of the US, outside bankrupt California...Hell, New Yorkers pay almost as much tax as you guys do in the UK!.......So no surprise there then.

 

At the end of the day whether the sums end up higher or lower, the fact still remains that low taxes means more 'personal 'choice' for the individual.....We traditionally don't have a Nanny taking 'our' money and spending it how 'they' think is best us......I for one, wouldn't have it any other way......I can no longer even imagine anymore, paying $7.50 for a gallon of Gas...or 17% Sales Tax, or Road Tax, or Speed Camera Tax, or TV Tax.....Ugh, brings back nightmares just thinking about it........ No way!

 

 

St George i take it you're English? From Southampton? If it's yes to these questions what's with the hill billy typing? Do you talk like that now?

[Saint George]

In 2007, the US spent $7,439 per person, around 16% of GDP - even though 15% of people arent covered at all. The US government paid just over half of that - $3,800. The UK spent $3,200 per person in total, around 8% of GDP.

 

That means the US government taxes and spend more on healthcare than the UK government does per person and then employers or individuals have to shell out just as much again to get treatment. What a great system that is. If we more than doubled the amount of money going into the NHS do you not think the service might just be a tad better?

 

Hey, no one ever said US health care was cheap...far from it, the system here is far from perfect and unfortunately the glaringly obvious fixes are being completely missed by Chairman 'O', who seems to be hell bent on trying to screw it up even more.

 

But none the less, in the real world, most areas the NHS do not even come close to being able to provide the level of health care and service that's available over here and yes, you would probably have to look at least doubling the funding for the NHS before you can even start to compare like for like.

 

Now to clear up a couple of misconceptions that have typically appeared on this thread

 

It's Federal law that emergency services respond to a call and take a patient to the nearest Emergency Hospital, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. It's also Law that the Hospital treats the patient until they reach a stable condition and can be safely discharged or transported to a Hospital of their choice. (there's that word again)Again, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay.

 

You 'can' get insurance for life long pre existing conditions...Sure, it's a little restrictive in so much as you will need to be in a employers group scheme and maybe have to wait a maximum of one year for the pre existing conditions to be included.......Not so for the self employed or personal insurance though.....Although that's one of the very few worthwhile things that Chairman 'O's health care reform will be putting right if it goes through.

 

Medicaid and Medicare take care of the Retired, that's where much of the cost that Buctootim mentions in this post stems from......very few peeps have to "worry" about health care during retirement

 

As for Canada?....Hell, when things get bad or they just want first class treatment, they just come over here for their health care "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

 

So i guess at the end of the day, it all comes down to freedom of choice...or the ability to even have that 'choice'......That's something i for one am not prepared to trade for anything....Make no mistake, a huge Tax burden is also a huge loss of liberty and freedom.

 

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"