What would you like to see in the Budget next month?

davomcdave

Herzlos wrote: »

Some lefty blog. According to this, it's about 5-7%: http://www.if.org.uk/archives/3453/new-figures-reveal-weight-of-pfi-burden-on-nhs-trusts
Which also claims that the we're paying more in interest on the PFI stuff than the assets actually cost.

Payments of £628.7 million in FY2011/2012.

Where does it claim that? It says this:

To summarize, PFI deals have become problematic for three major reasons: they usually have very high interest rates, they impose much higher debts upon the taxpayer than the actual value of the infrastructure they originally helped to build (in 2011 the taxpayer owed £121.4 billion to pay for infrastructure which was only valued at £52.9 billion) and they often include expensive maintenance and service contracts which charge the public purse vastly inflated fees for performing simple tasks (one PFI hospital was apparently charged £333 to have a new light bulb installed under the terms of their maintenance contract, for example).

So the debt is higher than the value of the assets apparently but if we are paying £600 million a year for assets valued at £50bn then that seems like rather a good deal. We're only paying 1.2% which is amazing.

rtho782

antrobus wrote: »

I've got news for you. The state pension has never been funded, it has always been paid for by the next generaion. Carry on the way you are, and the generations to come may well decide to take you at your word, and give you doodly-squat.

But with people living 20-30 years in retirement our generation is now paying for two generations retired at once.

It's not sustainable.

antrobus

rtho782 wrote: »

But with people living 20-30 years in retirement our generation is now paying for two generations retired at once.

It's not sustainable.

20-30 years is one generation.

It's your arithmetic that is not sustainable.:)

Fella

rtho782 wrote: »

But with people living 20-30 years in retirement our generation is now paying for two generations retired at once.

It's not sustainable.

Your generation isn't paying for anything.

People who spend their lives working, creating businesses etc pay for the people who don't do much if anything, same as always.

westernpromise

rtho782 wrote: »

But with people living 20-30 years in retirement our generation is now paying for two generations retired at once.

It's not sustainable.

I'd bet dollars to the proverbial that your income makes you a net taker of tax from others.

steampowered

Herzlos wrote: »

Some lefty blog. According to this, it's about 5-7%: http://www.if.org.uk/archives/3453/new-figures-reveal-weight-of-pfi-burden-on-nhs-trusts
Which also claims that the we're paying more in interest on the PFI stuff than the assets actually cost.

Payments of £628.7 million in FY2011/2012.

The NHS budget last year was £116.4 billion.

Payments of £628.7 million a year would therefore represent 0.54% of the total NHS budget. Not 70%.

That article suggests there are a handful of NHS trusts which spend 5-7% of their income servicing PFI payments, not 70%.

I hope you will have the good grace to acknowledge that your reference to PFI consuming 70% of NHS funding was not accurate and to correct your post accordingly.

Herzlos

Good point, updated.

steampowered

Herzlos wrote: »

Good point, updated.

Nice one! :cool:

teddysmum

rtho782 wrote: »

But with people living 20-30 years in retirement our generation is now paying for two generations retired at once.

It's not sustainable.

Well, as you don't want to be an old aged burden on the State, perhaps we should have a whip round to send you to Dignitas, now.


Alternatively, you could put some of us out of our misery (Dignitas is expensive and suicide attempts risky), but do it openly , so you are sure to spend your later years in a nice hotel with Sky tv, games console, drugs,heat,food,priority for hospital treatment, plenty of friends and uniformed staff to take care of you. It's all free,so you won't need a pension and have no need to worry where it comes from.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

I'd bet dollars to the proverbial that your income makes you a net taker of tax from others.

It doesn't really work that way

A full and proper accounting of the situation greatly lowers the net figures for takers and givers.

Imagine the following. If the top earning million people died what would happen? Would the UK be bankrupt?

So if the top paid football star disappeared would that be lots of tax lost or would another person who scores 99/100th as many goals replace him and his advertising deals and his tax payments? What if a top athlete disappeared? What if a top CEO disappeared from heading BP PLC would BP just say OK we are going to carry on without a replacement CEO?


Edit to add.

It's about productive. Not of the individual but of the nation (or perhaps more accurately the local region). Get rid of poor people and you will drag down the individual productivity of the remainder, get rid of rich people and you will drag up the individual productivity of the remainder. Overall there will be no great gain or loss.

To get richer the nation doesn't need more Roch people or more poor people the nation needs to become more productive. It can do this in various ways from investing in more capital (factories machines etc) to investing in R&D and equation to specialising etc.