The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

£100000 is only £65000 after taxes

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Bornblue
Defense.


You still have not answered my question.
Original post by Fred5134
That myth again? The same out that was spread when various public services were privatized, which only resulted in costs increasing so that private companies could make a large enough profit?

https://corporatewatch.org/news/2014/dec/08/energy-rail-and-water-privatisation-costs-uk-households-%C2%A3250-year


Competition and corporate exploitation are two very different things.
Original post by Bornblue
Yet in America 40 million people could not afford health insurance.


Blanket statements such as this are not constructive to the argument and quite honestly irrelevant to the argument you are making. Firstly, to assume that this is primarily due to insurance premiums being too expensive is false. Members of all incomes brackets have proportions of people who are uninsured: are you suggesting that a household earning more than $100k is incapable of paying the average monthly premium of $238 (a portion of which is paid for by the employer)?


Original post by Bornblue
You're simply wrong here and you are putting ideology ahead of evidence.


Do not simply state I am wrong; prove it.
Most people earn less than a third of your after tax figure, so I wouldn't whine about it.
Original post by inhuman
How naive.
Can you give me examples of countries with wholly private healthcare systems? And are these examples good? I.e. something worth implementing?


This line of thinking is flawed. Your assumption is that health care, on a global scale, is a) perfect and b) comparable. Instead, let me ask you: can you think of a nation that does not need improvements in its health care system?
Original post by Aceadria
This line of thinking is flawed. Your assumption is that health care, on a global scale, is a) perfect and b) comparable. Instead, let me ask you: can you think of a nation that does not need improvements in its health care system?


Nope.

They are advocating something giving all sorts of reasons why it's better, and yet every example says the opposite.

And that is not my assumption at all. Why would you think that?
Original post by Just a Bloke
I would say that it's fair that a wealthy person owes a third of his income to maintain the physical, cultural and human infrastructure upon which he built his wealth.

Or to fund the services that are abused by the lower classes despite them paying a meagre proportion of income tax themselves. Talk about inequality.
Original post by Aceadria
The key word is 'state-run'.


And state-run is universally inferior to privately-run?
Any of you free market libertarians even done A Level economics?
Any of you free market libertarians even done A level economics?
Original post by inhuman
And state-run is universally inferior to privately-run?


Depends on the context and the government.
Original post by MrSplash
Any of you free market libertarians even done A level economics?


Relevance?
Original post by Aceadria
Depends on the context and the government.


Indeed, so the post I said that to, was being silly.
Original post by Ladbants
If you earn £100000 a year, your take-home pay is only £65467 after income tax and national insurance. So you literally lose more than a third of your income to the government. Surely this is really unfair to those who have worked really hard. I would much prefer it if everyone just paid 20% of their income in tax


If you think about it, its isnt too bad (after IT, your left with £70,400 if exactly 100k gross, but am surprised that NI is almost £5000).in any case, if it helps provide more funding for hospitals, primary/secondary education, law enforcement, im for it.

also NI, what a lot of peopel don't realise, helps pay towards your state pension: more you pay now, the more the gov pays when your over 60ish
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Townart
Or to fund the services that are abused by the lower classes despite them paying a meagre proportion of income tax themselves. Talk about inequality.


If you want to make an argument along those lines then 1) define what you mean by 'abused' within the context of the services described, and then 2) substantiate with evidence the frequency and cost of the behaviour asserted.

With links for the latter, preferably.
Original post by inhuman
Indeed, so the post I said that to, was being silly.


Hardly. You're making assumptions and then basing your conclusions on said beliefs. This is a fallacy and not constructive to the argument. I never said that public-run is inferior to privately-run. Instead, it's the extent of the role of government that is my issue. As a society, we run to the state for help rather than attempting to find a solution ourselves. Large government does not and should be responsible for every aspect of society.
Original post by Aceadria
Hardly. You're making assumptions and then basing your conclusions on said beliefs. This is a fallacy and not constructive to the argument. I never said that public-run is inferior to privately-run. Instead, it's the extent of the role of government that is my issue. As a society, we run to the state for help rather than attempting to find a solution ourselves. Large government does not and should be responsible for every aspect of society.


I wasn't making an assumption at all. Please read and think before typing.

Many posts (and that post I quoted in particular) were assuming that of course a privately run health care system would be better than the public NHS, simply because private > public.

That is that.

The last part, well are you sure? As far as I can see, government influences almost everything we do. From land ownership and building permits for influencing how and where we live to employment laws regulating our day to day working life. Even what we do in our own home has certain laws e.g noise pollution or drugs are still illegal there.
Original post by inhuman
I wasn't making an assumption at all. Please read and think before typing.

Many posts (and that post I quoted in particular) were assuming that of course a privately run health care system would be better than the public NHS, simply because private > public.


It was stating that a privately run option would be superior to an inefficiently run public one (as is currently the case across many Western nations).

Original post by inhuman
The last part, well are you sure? As far as I can see, government influences almost everything we do. From land ownership and building permits for influencing how and where we live to employment laws regulating our day to day working life. Even what we do in our own home has certain laws e.g noise pollution or drugs are still illegal there.


And the majority of these remain unnecessarily burdensome.
Original post by Aceadria
It was stating that a privately run option would be superior to an inefficiently run public one (as is currently the case across many Western nations).



And the majority of these remain unnecessarily burdensome.


Again, you are just repeating what I said, but trying to make it sound like it's different. How is private > public any different to what you just said, except you used the word efficient where I used >?

And I was stating that that is not universally the case. Which it is not. And healthcare is actually the prime example where it is not.

You got a problem with admitting when you are wrong?

And well that's your opinion. Others have differing views.
Original post by inhuman
Again, you are just repeating what I said, but trying to make it sound like it's different. How is private > public any different to what you just said, except you used the word efficient where I used >?


Efficiency can be both negative or positive based on opinion. Cost cutting, for example, may be good for the owners of an organisation, but is it necessarily good for the employees?

Original post by inhuman
And I was stating that that is not universally the case. Which it is not. And healthcare is actually the prime example where it is not.


Still waiting on evidence of this.

Original post by inhuman
You got a problem with admitting when you are wrong?


Relevance to the discussion? Refrain from making this personal, please.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you