Fair?

OptionARMAGEDDON

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Because it protects the most vulnerable in our society.... You big numpty:eek:

F !ck the vulnerable. they should have worked harder at school like us top rate tax payers. my net is -30k Hamish. Bled to the bone.

As for libraries, all mine does is provide the workshy with a means of checking facebook and surf ebay. I watch them. Perhaps if they didnt chain smoke so much, they might be able to afford internet in their bedsit. why not block facebook, ebay and h ost of other pointless sites?

OptionARMAGEDDON

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Do you mean

Why should English students pay £9k in fees for University when Scottish kids pay nothing?

Why should English people pay prescriptions when they are free in Scotland (and Wales?)?

I am sure there are other examples?

Why should we pay according to the Barnett formula? If the porridge jocks want freedom, they need to pay their own way. and before you get on your high horse, moswt of the gas and oil fields are not only outside of national waters, when they were discovered, they were outside of scotlands commercial waters too.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Blimey, put yourself on quite the pedestal there haven't you Hamish.

"The rest of us"? You know for sure your the richest here, do you?

If you can do without the rest of us scoundrels, leave the country, and earn the same money elsewhere.

Is Hamish bigging himself up. He hardly ever does that.

He must have a fantastic lifestyle.
Anyone compelled to spend the bulk of their time on the internet bigging themselves up to faceless internet posters really must be "living the life".

Of course grandmaster flash is pointing to household incomes.
There can't be many professional couples who won't be in that decile.

Mr_Mumble

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Because it protects the most vulnerable in our society.... You big numpty:eek:

More like it creates the vulnerable. The typical example cited: would there be fewer alcoholics if the A&E wasn't abused every Friday & Saturday night by drinkers who need their stomachs pumped? Hell, yes. Charge drunks the cost of their actions for each alcohol-related hospital visit and the cheap plonk will suddenly become far more expensive for abusers who have an incentive to give up while letting sensible drinkers have a cheap drink and a cheaper health service.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I don't have kids, but I don't mind my taxes funding schools as I don't want to live in a society full of illiterate savages (insert joke about educational standards here).

I'm never ill, but I don't mind my taxes funding the NHS as I don't want to live in a society full of ill, desperate people who can't afford private health insurance.

I don't drive, but I don't mind my taxes paying for street lighting and road maintenance as I don't want to walk to work over burning wreckage and mangled corpses.

I've never had cause to call the police, fire service, paramedics or coast guard or use a British Embassy whilst abroad, but I'm rather glad to know they're there.



I don't actually see how a society could function if everyone insisted on only contributing if they got a clearly defined return, exactly equal to their input. Clearly cave men realised this or we would never have evolved past opportunistic grubbing for roots and berries.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I don't have kids, but I don't mind my taxes funding schools as I don't want to live in a society full of illiterate savages (insert joke about educational standards here).

I'm never ill, but I don't mind my taxes funding the NHS as I don't want to live in a society full of ill, desperate people who can't afford private health insurance.

I don't drive, but I don't mind my taxes paying for street lighting and road maintenance as I don't want to walk to work over burning wreckage and mangled corpses.

I've never had cause to call the police, fire service, paramedics or coast guard or use a British Embassy whilst abroad, but I'm rather glad to know they're there.
.

All very good points.

But equally, having 60% of people take more from the system than they put in is simply unsustainable in my opinion.

The blue sections below are what people take from the system by decile.

The red sections below are what people put into the system by decile.

the_flying_pig

OK H, I’ll bite.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...why shouldn't almost all services be paid for on a "fee for service" or "pay per use" basis?

Think about the four really big categories of spending that your taxpayer shilling pays for [things like libraries are incredibly small beer compared to these but similar arguments mostly apply].

(1) Defence is a classic public good. Everyone will always benefit from it equally whether they want to or not & whether they pay their share or not. Pay per use is completely infeasible.

When it comes to (2) social security [including your beloved housing benefit] pay per use is similarly infeasible because the whole point is that it goes to people who can’t afford the alternatives.

That leaves us with (3) health & (4) education.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax collected.
Why exactly should ordinary people like me, subsidise ordinary people like you?

Why should smokers subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers? Why should drinkers subsidise the healthcare of non drinkers? ...

It’s true that health & education could be provided on a pay per use basis. Many people likely wouldn’t be able to afford it [pushing up the social security bill] but also many people who now get it from the state would do.

Anyway, The reasons for [and against, particularly in the case of health] universal state subsidy in these two areas are, well, incredibly well-rehearsed & don’t need repeating here. Ditto the reasons for progressive taxation. No more needs to be said.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Well yes, people who are most able to contribute are probably by definition less likely to need so much out.

We certainly need to look at our existing benefits system (I would personally cap housing benefit and child benefit after the 3rd child) but fundamentally the proportions aren't going to change that much in terms of contribution: return.

Obviously a single, childless, well educated, healthy full time worker like myself is going to be paying more in than I've ever received. I might mutter darkly to myself about benefits scum occasionally, but really this is the only way it can work. Otherwise we quietly drown disabled babies at birth, because they're always going to be net recipients, and cull the elderly when they've reached a point on a spreadsheet when their care cost exceeds their lifetime's input.

andybenw

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Do you mean

Why should English students pay £9k in fees for University when Scottish kids pay nothing?

Why should English people pay prescriptions when they are free in Scotland (and Wales?)?

I am sure there are other examples?

Because the Scottish Government has decided that its spending priorities are different to the Westminster Gvt spending priorities. Why are tuition fees different in Spain than England you may as well ask.
You will find if you look past the headline that diverting money to free prescriptions for example means that overall healthcare in Scotland is of a slightly lower standard than in England.

andybenw

kabayiri wrote: »

Hamish, Scots take more out of the health system because they still think BuckFast is a drink; IrnBru is medicine; and deep fried pizza in a kebab with lettuce goes to your five-a-day !

Mmmm Racist. Find yourself reported.