What are gas prices in Britian?

[John Rumm]

Its actually about 360% in fact!

[Geoffrey]

What NIC limit?

I disagree. If one does make one's own arrangements then presumably one can afford to do so. This unburdens the NHS to treat those who cannot. Why on earth should the state subsidise the private health care of the well off?

Personally I think that if all private hospitals and public schools were closed, the state of our education system and health service would improve dramatically but that isn't going to happen and the last thing we want to do is subsidise them!

BTW - in case you wondered - I do have private health insurance (for which I pay tax as benefit in kind) and I send my kids to state schools.

Yesterday was a good day - required grades achieved and University place confirmed :)

[Christian McArdle]

It is my damn business if someone is causing reckless damage to the planet that I inhabit.

Christian.

[Christian McArdle]

It is the global, irreversible damage that is the problem. Moving doesn't reduce CO2 damage.

Christian.

[Pete C]

What car do you drive Huge?

Do you drive a big twatty car? ;)

cheers, Pete.

[Andy Hall]

OK, to be accurate - above the lower and up to the upper earnings limit employee NIC is 11% and then falls to 1% so is not hugely significant.

Because it doesn't have the cost of treating them, therefore there should be a rebate for that part. I am not sure that private healthcare is the prerogative of the well off any longer - many companies offer it simply so that employees can get treatment at a time that suits them and the business. However, even if one were to assume that it is the better off who go for this, they are paying more in income tax, NIC and probably VAT as well, all of which does proportionately benefit the less well off. Therefore there is a subsidy in that direction. I am not suggesting removing that because in a civilised society the less well off should to some extent be helped by the better off. I am really objecting to the additional tax that is levied on those who unburden the state from its self claimed responsibility for healthcare

I am very sceptical about that. The private sectors of both have not grown hugely in the past few years, yet the public sector in both has deteriorated markedly. I've had two recent experiences of NHS hospitals and found the way that patients are treated (I don't entirely mean medically) is pretty disgusting.

I've sent my kids to state schools for short periods early and late in their school careers and have been very underwhelmed each time. As an example, my daughter was reading a considerable time before she went to school and was then deliberately held back when at school and asked to help teach children in part of her group that were a year younger. This is in an educationally "good" area. After that we took lot out of earned income and gave up a great deal to fund private education. It was worth every penny. A generation ago, it wouldn't have been necessary.

That's great news and your son/daughter is to be congratulated - I genuinely mean that. I am sceptical about teaching standards today vs. when I went to school as I think many parents are, but since the whole pattern from school to university to work has also changed, it may not matter as much as we think. The one thing that I took from my time at university (and it was made clear the very first week) is that university is about learning how to think and to deal with issues rather than a vocational meal ticket - something of lifelong value. I hope that your son/daughter gets that out of it as much as everything else.

[Geoffrey]

That is a specious argument. I have never had a fire in my house and never suffered directly (or indirectly as far as I know) from a crime. Should I get a rebate on all the money I've paid into the fire and police services? I've never claimed any benefits (apart from child benefit), can I have a rebate for that too? After all, I have my own house, pay my own supermarket bills out my own earnings, the state doesn't have to contribute towards that so I should get a tax rebate on my Tesco bill shouldn't I? I have 2 children, my sister has 3 and my sister-in-law has none. Isn't it a bit unfair that we all pay the same towards the education system? I don't use libraries and neither do my children, why should I have to pay towards their upkeep? Parks are not my favourite place to go, I have a perfectly nice garden thank you - I think I would prefer not to subsidise local parks. As for legal aid (what was that about kettles?), if I need a lawyer I can pay for it myself - why should my tax be spent on other people's legal aid when I pay my own lawyer! I should get a tax rebate on that too!

If you remove the words "them and" I would tend to agree. Nevertheless it is a considerable perk available a LOT cheaper than any individual could get for themselves and as such is, and most definitely should be, taxed.

..(snip)

So nothing much has changed over the past 30 years then. I am fairly confident that if royalty, cabinet ministers and high ranking civil servents had no choice but to attend NHS hospitals and send their children to state schools then the standard of those hospitals and schools would be rather higher than they are today but, as I said that will never happen.

..(snip)

I am not sceptical about teaching standards today although I do think appalling that league tables and exam results seem to be the be-all and end-all of school life. I was lucky in that when I went to school I had time to eat a proper meal and attend choir practice/chess club or simply play at lunch time. My children have had their working day reduced and reduced until "lunch time" is a hurried 30 mins to grab chips and get back to class.

Oh she will I'm sure. I just hope the £20,000 debt that she will leave with will not make her regret going.

[Andy Hall]

I see your point, and in many cases (that you've illustrated) it isn't practical to opt out. However, in regard to healthcare it certainly is. I think it would be a good thing if there was a tax incentive to those who can do to make their own arrangements, however, I'd settle for not being penalised for doing so. That's unreasonable.

Actually it depends. Pricing for insurance only starts to fall if you have a group scheme with s substantial number of people. If it's a small scheme or you work for a small business with too few people to justify a scheme then you pay at individual rates. There's no benefit like there used to be with company cars in the past.

Interesting perspective.

Yes. Actually it's the whole idea of a one size fits all curriculum that doesn't leave space for individual teachers and children to pursue a broader range of things that is disappointing.

I certainly know what you mean there, and I hope it won't.

[John Rumm]

I don't believe it is.

You are not comparing like with like. You may not have made use of the fire or police cover available - but you have still benefited from having it. You have not had to take out insurance with a private security firm or fire response outfit, to provide you with adequate cover. Think of it as an insurance policy.

There is also limited "routine" use that you can make of both fire and police services - they are by their nature "emergency services". That is not true of the NHS.

The NHS offers acute trauma care (frequently good) and routine healthcare (variable from good, to life threateningly bad) - one of the insurmountable problems with the routine provision is that you have in effect unlimited demand both in the number of users and the range or treatments they can request.

Reducing these demands (by restricting the range of services available, or getting customers to shop elsewhere) should leave the service better able to cope with supplying the remainder of users. If you elect to provide alternative routine healthcare cover for yourself and hence unburden the NHS, and still continue to pay at least a good proportion of the money you currently pay to support the NHS (via general and specific taxation), it seems wholly inappropriate that you should then be taxed in several additional ways for taking it upon yourself to help improve the situation for all.

If you accept that in a modern society we ought to provide a safety net for those that are unable to provide the basic essentials for themselves, then no. However this does not have to apply to all services you receive from government. If you opt to have someone else provide your pension, you can expect a proportion of the money collected via NI contributions to be diverted to your chosen provider. Some still goes to the collective "pot".

Given that we depend on the children of today to provide us with a secure retirement (i.e. providing the services and care that we have been saving long and hard for) - it seems fair enough that we each pay something toward that even if we don't contribute with the provision of said children.

[Huge]

Muddled thinking. Failure to steal extra money is not a "subsidy".

[Huge]

None of your damn business.

[Badger]

Wrong, universities are now a BUSINESS, with marketing managers and PR consultants to sell themselves to potential purchasers of their products, be it stoodense or research contracts....

Niel, also an ac.uk worker.

[Badger]

And fuel taxes if its a drinker!

My 2.5l land-rover does 30-33 mph on derv, SWTSMBOs 1.6l petrol Zafira

27-32, not as bad as some large cars, but still not so good.

If you want to stop fuel waste stop bus drivers sitting with their engines ticking over for ages at bus stations depositing *fines* in the exhaust system, ready to discharge into my/your lungs when they accelerate away.

[Badger]

Some of the costs, but then the govt needs football to distract the drinking classes....

[Badger]

Nope.

able to pay the tax without hardship Nope and are thus,

Nope

Why? I drive a 14 year old land-rover, regularly serviced, clean running, capable transport, used for towing Scout trailers, my trailer, local industrial archaeology trusts trailer and transport to/from work on a lunatic infested motorway. Its old, cheap to run for what it is required to do and should last for years saving the environmental costs of building/scrapping a replacement car every few years, my last land-rover was built in 1958 and is still in daily use.

Now if you mean those with company 40 grand plus 4x4 pimp mobiles...

[Badger]

No, but some leading lights in the medical profession want us to have insurance to cover costs of medical needs...

[Capitol]

So no taxpayers money is now involved then? Even for inflation proofed pensions and a guaranteed living (tenure?)? Premises are currently bought and paid for at a market rate?

Regards Capitol

[Derek ^]

You ask the wrong question.

The NHS isn't performing, it's kept on getting it's money whilst not providing proper healtcare for years on end. Given those circumstances you wouldn't expect any other outcome would you ??

That issue has to be addressed *first*.

A local trust has recently achieved *Zero Stars* and the NHS response has been to say from next year we'll stop using the stars scheme.

intend using a "Were the staff on the reception desk alive and recognisably human" scheme like the grot hotels instead.

DG

[Derek ^]

For the strong of stomach.

Yorkshire Evening Post article.

Extract follows:

No bed was available on the specialist ward so the patient was taken temporarily to ward 69 instead. What greeted them there horrified Mrs Flowers. She found:

• Dirty sheets;

• Vomit and food sprayed down the side of the bedside cabinet;

• The floor covered in dirt and human hair;

• Used syringe covers;

• The dirty slippers;

• Human waste on the floors of the toilets.

To be read in conjunction with.

Who in their right mind would pay anything for this level of service.

DG

[Frank Erskine]

Don't forget that a considerable part of NHS funding pays for public health, research and for training of medical staff who subsequently leave to work in the private sector.