Election campaign kicks off

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't really think you need to go to such lengths to make an issue out of it. if you don't agree with the idea of people aged over 65 who can afford to pay, paying for prescriptions, just say so. But don't go off on a tangent implying I don't want to pay my way and the problem with Britain is mentalities like mine.

I don't agree.
Could they afford it? Probably many of them could, but that's not the point.
It's once more an extra charge on 'those who can afford it', aka those who made the right choices in life and probably paid bucket loads of tax into the system already.
We should be rewarding personal responsibility and self reliance, not punishing it.
Also, it's a slippery slope. It starts off with prescription charges, what's next? Those who can afford it can pay for x-rays, cancer treatment or a heart by-pass themselves?

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If we are looking to save money, the easiest way to do this is to fairly share the burden of existing systems.

We could easily and effectively increase NHS funding by asking everyone to pay for their own prescriptions bar those unable to reasonably do so. (that could be defined by various methods).

That doesn't 'save' money it moves costs and adds some new ones. If you're going to charge 80% of people, for example, why not make it universally free and pay for it via taxation? That way you lose the costs involved in working out who needs to pay, handling payments etc.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

I don't agree.
Could they afford it? Probably many of them could, but that's not the point.
It's once more an extra charge on 'those who can afford it', aka those who made the right choices in life and probably paid bucket loads of tax into the system already.
We should be rewarding personal responsibility and self reliance, not punishing it.
Also, it's a slippery slope. It starts off with prescription charges, what's next? Those who can afford it can pay for x-rays, cancer treatment or a heart by-pass themselves?

OK, better!

The question then would be "who does pay"?

You have talked about individual responsibility, and actively appeared to attack me regarding it. Yet at the same time, by default, you are suggesting that the idea of personal responsibility and paying your own way should not apply once you pass the age of 65 years old.

If over 65's do not share the burden of the increasing costs of the NHS, then under 65's, again, by default, have to pay more. Therefore paying more tax than the bucketfuls you suggest over 65's have.

Nothing is fair in all of this. Everyone is going to take offence to paying more. My overiding point though was that I believe that people wouldn't mind as much is everyone was doing their bit.

We are all responsible for the increase in costs of funding the services we provide. Therefore I believe we should all be responsible for paying for it. I don't believe an arbitrary age is the best way to run things today.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....If we are looking to save money, the easiest way to do this is to fairly share the burden of existing systems.....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....Nothing is fair in all of this. Everyone is going to take offence to paying more. My overiding point though was that I believe that people wouldn't mind as much is everyone was doing their bit.....

You have your own definition (and fixation on) "fairness".

Nobody will dispute that over the centuries and decades up to, say, year 2000, this country has enjoyed a huge glut of increased benefits, safety nets, welfare state goodies, and 'nannying' by successive governments.

We have reached a stage, in my view, where it cannot in any way be debated in terms of "sharing the cost" or "who pays". This is because virtually the whole of the 50% less wealthy half are "net takers", while the so-called "wealthy" half at the top are net contributors - with the lion's share of that by the mega-rich. Squeezing these any more will simply detract from overall tax take.

What Cameron/Osborne are trying to do is far from making all these benefit claimants "pay" more - but instead trying to indicate to them that their 'net take' simply cannot go on increasing when we have such a large defecit.

Quite reasonable in my view. Some of us would prefer a more drastic regime [like the benefits cap] where we physically take away inane benefits that give out the message that personal responsibility, life choices, education, and hard work don't matter. They do.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We are all responsible for the increase in costs of funding the services we provide. Therefore I believe we should all be responsible for paying for it. I don't believe an arbitrary age is the best way to run things today.

I don't require A&E services after a night on the razz, I keep fit, don't smoke, keep my weight down and watch my diet. My family history and lifestyle suggests I'll use the NHS less than the average person and then do the decent thing and just drop dead. All I hear though are reasons why I should pay more than the average person.

As far as I can see those that take responsibility for themselves and made sensible life choices are just seen as cash cows by those who didn't. I don't mind funding safety nets but we're way way beyond that.

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We have reached a stage, in my view, where it cannot in any way be debated in terms of "sharing the cost" or "who pays". This is because virtually the whole of the 50% less wealthy half are "net takers", while the so-called "wealthy" half at the top are net contributors - with the lion's share of that by the mega-rich. Squeezing these any more will simply detract from overall tax take.

Stop imagining that if someone is in the middle of the population for earnings they're not a taker from the public purse.

Government spending is budgeted at £714,000,000 in 2014. The population of the UK is estimated at 64,000,000. That means the government spends ~£11,500 for every person in the country.

A 2 adult household without children would likely need an income of £35k+ each to come near to being revenue neutral. Add in a couple of kids and shared incomes below £100k would be well short of paying their share. I'd be very surprised if as much as 20% of the population pays enough tax to cover their share of government spending.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

What Cameron/Osborne are trying to do is far from making all these benefit claimants "pay" more - but instead trying to indicate to them that their 'net take' simply cannot go on increasing when we have such a large defecit.

And if that was genuinely all they were trying to do they'd likely get more credit from many in the political middle ground. However they clearly aren't. They're continuing to increase benefits to pensioners regardless of income, while cutting benefits to the genuinely poor, even though we've reached a point now where the average pensioner is better off!

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

..... I'd be very surprised if as much as 20% of the population pays enough tax to cover their share of government spending......

Don't disagree, but your point only exaggerates the point I was making. We have reached a point where the "net givers" are squeeking their pips as there are so many "takers"...

N1AK wrote: »

And if that was genuinely all they were trying to do they'd likely get more credit from many in the political middle ground. However they clearly aren't. They're continuing to increase benefits to pensioners regardless of income, while cutting benefits to the genuinely poor, even though we've reached a point now where the average pensioner is better off!

I see very little evidence of "increased benefits" for pensioners although they seem to be inflation protected, I agree. There is not much "cutting" of benefits, but more a deliberate failure to index link them. Most people call these "cuts" but I don't see them that way.

We should be very clear not to confuse "State Pension" with the income of an "Average Pensioner".

You can hardly call state pension of £113 a week massive income, and whilst we all know it's paid out of current revenue, it is one of the few 'benefits' that has always been positioned as being "earned" by one's NI contribution.

Yes, current pensioners are joining the Darby & Joan club with a lot more income these days, but that is down to their frugality in saving for retirement, or accepting lower salaries in lieu of good company pensions etc. It is not down to massive increases in State Pension.

We must not forget, also, that recessions come and go, as do the 'good' times. Now a pensioner who has served his/her working life generally has no further recourse to income in the bad times. Someone of working age, however, always has the opportunity to do better. OK, more easily said than done, but there are always opportunities for promotion, moving jobs, overtime, extra part time jobs, etc. to boost incomes.... but the typical pensioner is not always the best equipped to do that. Maybe I could (at 65) if I were desperate, but what could my 85 year old widow neighbour do?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't require A&E services after a night on the razz, I keep fit, don't smoke, keep my weight down and watch my diet. My family history and lifestyle suggests I'll use the NHS less than the average person and then do the decent thing and just drop dead. All I hear though are reasons why I should pay more than the average person.

As far as I can see those that take responsibility for themselves and made sensible life choices are just seen as cash cows by those who didn't. I don't mind funding safety nets but we're way way beyond that.

I've never suggested you should pay more than the average person. All I have said is if we all pay for our prescriptions (bar a set group of people who we deem, through, whatever method, cannot afford it), we could get more funding into the NHS. We can do this ALONGSIDE freezing benefits and sort out economic issues quicker.

Currently only 11% of people in England pay for their prescriptions. Theres huge scope there to get the other 89% paying something and therefore increase revenues, without it being too difficult for the person paying. As I say £104 a year will get you unlimited drugs on prescription from the NHS. People all over the world would LOVE to pay this for the amount you get back, but for some strange reason, people are arguing they are entitled to it for free just because of their birth date and they have paid tax....this sort of stuff will be the death bed of the NHS if were not careful.

It would seem to me this is exactly what you would like. You are not using the services, therefore don't require medication, therefore don't pay for a prescription. Those who do, do pay (based on ability, and this would be quite simple to devise....anyone not on pension credits for example). This would create extra funding for the NHS by those who are using it.

I'm therefore stuck as to exactly what you are arguing here. I know you are arguing with me.... I'm just not sure what your point is as no one is asking you to pay any more. Your issue seems to be that you are paying for something you don't use, but my example solution specifically means you won't pay a single bean more, precisely because you are not using the service.

Cyberman60

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The govt borrowed well over £100 billion last financial year. That is not "austerity".

It IS when you consider that they could have stayed at Labour's annual deficit levels in 2009 of 160 Billion a year throughout this parliament. Thus in five years the Tories would have spent a further 5 times 60 billion= 300 Billion pounds.

So the Tories have effectively saved 300 Billion since 2010. That IS AUSTERITY and a huge achievement that Labour could never ever match !!! :T

Tromking

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

....current pensioners are joining the Darby & Joan club with a lot more income these days, but that is down to their frugality in saving for retirement, or accepting lower salaries in lieu of good company pensions etc. It is not down to massive increases in State Pension.

I have a feeling that the current generation of pensioners or soon to be pensioners are no more disposed to frugality than any other. The 'lucky generation's' relative wealth is more likely down to cheaper house prices (relative to wages) and escaping the recent pension reforms surely?
Rather than foster the myth that younger generations are uniquely profligate and child like in their need for possessions for the sake of it, it might be more accurate to say that those currently enjoying their dotage in well earned comfort have been a tad lucky.