Private pensions popular in UK but not in France, Germany, Spain

nigelbb

bigadaj wrote: »

The problem other the NHS is that it is an inefficient organisation

Let's have some evidence instead of repeating this tired old line.

bigadaj wrote: »

You may have read the case of the management consultant in north wales who was based in Spain, charging around £400k per year, whose main suggestion to improve matters was to cut nurses breaks payment, which in total didn't even pay for his billing.

That was an idiotic suggestion as T&Cs are determined nationally so a local Trust cannot unilaterally implement a pay cut. Doubly idiotic to cut nurses pay when there is an enormous problem of recruitment & retention.

bigadaj wrote: »

NHS funding is the one area that hasn't been cut through austerity.

It has been cut in real terms because the rate of increase has not matched increasing demand.

[Deleted User]

It has been cut in real terms because the rate of increase has not matched increasing demand

That’s not how “real terms” are defined. https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/real-terms-definition-meaning/amp/

“Demand” is a meaningless term; there is no way to measure it consistently.

michaels

nigelbb wrote: »

Scandinavia, France, Germany etc are high wage, high tax, high benefit, high productivity countries. The UK by contrast has become a low wage, low tax, low productivity economy with greater inequality between rich & poor. The greed encouraged in the Thatcher era started the rot with the government selling off the family silver to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

We need to pay more tax to fund better public services which is a virtuous circle for as the NHS, roads, schools etc improve then people feel happier paying higher taxes as in Scandinavia.

The UK could be higher productivity if we had employment taxes that priced the least productive 10% out of the market and into long term unemployment as they do in France. The added advantage is it makes the country much less attractive to unskilled migrants hence the camps at Calais.

Not great for social cohesion and specifically racial integration tho.

There is also the assumption that increasing the tax rate increases the take. We already have direct evidence that GPs are retiring early as the effective tax on their income and pension means they put more value on their time than the small share of income they get left with post tax.

Once an individual starts thinking about how to maximise their happiness rather than their income then it be ones obvious that just raising taxes on the highest earners may well be counter productive and that actually to raise revenue it will be necessary to tax those who can't afford to make the choice between working and leisure time. I know this is hateful for the redistributionists but that doesn't stop it from being true.

bigadaj

nigelbb wrote: »

Let's have some evidence instead of repeating this tired old line.
That was an idiotic suggestion as T&Cs are determined nationally so a local Trust cannot unilaterally implement a pay cut. Doubly idiotic to cut nurses pay when there is an enormous problem of recruitment & retention.

It has been cut in real terms because the rate of increase has not matched increasing demand.

You really need to educate yourself a bit better if you think real terms is just more demand.

Thrugelmir

nigelbb wrote: »

Let's have some evidence instead of repeating this tired old line.

At our local trust 20% of appointments are missed by patients without giving prior notice.

nigelbb

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At our local trust 20% of appointments are missed by patients without giving prior notice.

I asked for evidence of inefficiency not an anecdote about patient behaviour unsupported by evidence.

LHW99

nigelbb wrote: »

I asked for evidence of inefficiency not an anecdote about patient behaviour unsupported by evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/patients-missing-their-appointments-cost-the-nhs-1bn-last-year

kangoora

nigelbb wrote: »

I asked for evidence of inefficiency not an anecdote about patient behaviour unsupported by evidence.

Not evidence per se, but I know what I heard.

3 nurses in my sisters ward when I went to visit her. It was mid-November and they were all 'scheduling' their 1 weeks 'sick leave' to do their Xmas shopping so as not to impact each others shifts (so thoughtful of them).

I remember speaking to a guy years ago whose wife worked in the council and was doing the same thing, he ws bemoaning he couldn't get away with it . It appears that if the council workers weren't sick during the year then it was commonplace to take a weeks 'sickie' as it fell under some sort of monitoring level and a simple return to work interview (I had flu) was enough for a free week off.

ex-pat_scot

I once was working at Royal Mail Liverpool office.
Next to the photocopier was an annual planner chart, with stickers / names showing against the days.
I was told this was the planner for "sick days". Carefully scheduled so as not to cause too much disruption.
Each person HAD to take their entitlement. They were forced to by the CWU (union). From memory it was 12 days annually.

Naturally I reported this (I was reviewing their operations) and was told that the unions demanded it as a right.

Silvertabby

ex-pat_scot wrote: »

I once was working at Royal Mail Liverpool office.
Next to the photocopier was an annual planner chart, with stickers / names showing against the days.
I was told this was the planner for "sick days". Carefully scheduled so as not to cause too much disruption.
Each person HAD to take their entitlement. They were forced to by the CWU (union). From memory it was 12 days annually.

Naturally I reported this (I was reviewing their operations) and was told that the unions demanded it as a right.

Back in the 1970s, one of my 'formal warnings' from the (closed shop) union was for failing to take my 2 days a month sick leave. The fact that I hadn't been ill wasn't an acceptable excuse. Another of my warnings was for going to the loo in my lunch break - union rules were that you went 'in bosses time, not workers time'.