£100000 is only £65000 after taxes

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?



Still waiting on evidence of this.



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

You got a problem with admitting when you are wrong?

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.

False premise to say that high earners work harder. Clearly the reason why higher earners are taxed more is because they are better able to bear the burden.

Can people please use this very handy character ',' when typing numbers that have more than or equal to 3 zeros please.

Do you have a problem asking this Q to everyone?


Posted from TSR Mobile

You could make a statement like that about anything.

Ikr? or even 'k'

Posted from TSR Mobile

They were clearly implying it would be better*. Again why can you not admit you were wrong? And it is highly relevant because you are making a huge discussion just to avoid saying "I was wrong". A pointless one at that.

I and others have provided numerous arguments and examples in this thread as to why a private health care system is terrible. Not going to repeat myself to someone too arrogant to admit they were wrong.

*To clear this up, you said this is why insurance exists. I pointed out the NHS is insurance, it is just public not private. You then said that public is the key word - dare tell me that that was not supposed to mean private would be better in your eyes?

If you are so adamant on getting me to admit something, prove me wrong. If you are unable to do so, please move on.



Reading through the thread, not a single concrete, evidence-based answer has been provided. Opinion and simply making a statement does not necessarily constitute fact.



The point was in reference to the NHS specifically; not a blanket statement about health insurance.

Nobody cares about your opinion either then

Still waiting on evidence of this.

Large government does not and should be responsible for every aspect of society.

Let's take the American system which is far more privatized than our own. People such as yourself seem to assert that the free market and private sector is far more efficient than the public sector for everything.

However, as a proportion of GDP, Americans spend 17% on healthcare. Briton's spends 9%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

The privatized American system costs almost twice as much as our nationalized system and provides a lower standard of care as well as leaving millions unable to afford healthcare. That's far more inefficient than our state run service.

You'll probably revert to the typical argument of 'oh but the problem is that America's system isn't free market enough', reminiscent of how certain left wing groups always claim the problem is that Labour isn't left wing enough.

If you want a truly free market health system then do you agree that we should abolish the requirement for people to have a license to become a doctor?

After all, imposing a license counts as a restriction on the free market.

Should we also remove the requirement for drugs to be clinically tested and checked before they are allowed to be sold?

After all imposing any sort of checks and tests intervenes in the free market?

Should we simply allow any person to perform cancer treatment without a license or training?

The reality is that the free market model simply does not work for healthcare. It raises, not reduces the cost to individuals and provides a poorer quality service as well as leaving millions without access to any healthcare.

By nature, healthcare must be heavily regulated. It's not like buying a mobile. If you buy a phone and it's rubbish you may lose a bit of money, if you buy dodgy medicine because it hasn't been tested, the consequences could be far more severe.

I have provided evidence to show that the free market model does not work for healthcare. You have provided no counter evidence. You simply put ideology ahead of evidence.

No one is saying it is. What people are saying is that for certain sectors, the free market is better, such as electronics, clothes, food etc. However for other sectors the free market model doesn't work as well and the state can provide a better, more efficient service, such as healthcare, energy and rail transport.

On the other hand you seem to be asserting that the private sector is always better than the state. You put ideology ahead of evidence.

This is a highly flawed argument on a number of levels, Bornblue. Firstly, the American system, although to a large extent private, is expensive due to public (government) insurance. The Affordable Care Act, for example, was aimed at reducing premiums and extending health insurance to low income families. Instead, premiums are increasing and the tax payer will have to shell out an extra 1 trillion dollars over a ten year period. Secondly, simply stating that 'the American system costs more and provides a lower standard of care' ignores the real cause of low life expectancy rates. High levels of stress, diets, higher consumption levels of legal and illegal drugs are just a few causes, which are not necessarily relevant to the health system. This has nothing to do with patient care.



Interesting. Didn't know you were capable of reading my mind.



It baffles me how individuals ignorant of free market economics assume that such a concept involves an 'either/or' consequence. The role of the government is not removed completely, but reduced to a minimum and excluded from the setting of prices. In the case of licencing, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that increased government approval for an individual to do a job is counter-inductive. In the case of doctors, removing the requirement would be foolish. But reducing it drastically and creating an independent body responsible for setting the standards is far more beneficial, in my opinion.



How?



Of course we should not. The issue is not whether they should be tested; but who should be responsible for it. Again, an independent association, separate to both the state and the pharmaceutical companies is the right strategy.



How?


I've answered this point previously.



The real reality is that there is a great deal of ignorance about what free market really means. You, like many, assume that it means the removal of a government from managing healthcare. Instead, it suggests that the consumer should be responsible for choosing his or her healthcare and the state's role should be kept to a minimum. The American case has shown on a number of occasions that with increased government intervention, the cost of healthcare has actually increased, making the situation more dire (see above for evidence).



Again, the issue is not so much whether regulation needs to exist. It's to what role the state should have in its regulation. Pro-public individuals feel the state is the only one who can correctly fill this role - but a look into the FDA's running of affairs shows it's clearly not the case.



I'm still waiting for the evidence. So far you have only made statements and used ad hominem attacks to try and get me to agree with you. You may quote me when you're ready.

Thus having the requirement for someone to possess a doctor's license before performing medical treatment, runs counter to the free market ideology as it restricts the ability of someone to purchase healthcare from someone without a license. Similarly, having a requirement that drugs must be clinically tested restricts the free market as it prevents people from buying and using drugs that have not been.
They are restrictions, which run counter to the idea of a 'free market'. There is nothing that states that a free market only opposes governmental interference, it opposes all interference, so the market can be truly free.

Yet you yourself accept that there does need to be a certain amount of regulation, wonderfully defeating your own argument.

As a side point, who will fund the 'independent associations' anyway if not the tax payer?

But back to your original argument. The American system is the closest thing we have to a truly privatized free market healthcare system and that is far more inefficient and costly than our system and it has been for decades, long before the Affordable Care Act. People in the USA can choose their insurance, yet it costs them more than our tax payer funded service and it provides a worse service.

How about you show me evidence of a privatized health system which is far more efficient and provides a better service than the NHS?

You simply put your ideology ahead of all the evidence which conflicts it. You 'believe' in the free market even when there is no evidence, and plenty of counter evidence to discredit your view. In some things the free market is better, in others, the state is but you are incapable of assessing evidence independently.
You constantly shift the goalposts to avoid ever having to admit that the state could be better and more efficient at anything.

Having an independently-run association that organises giving out licences does not interfere in the setting of prices. You still have not shown how it does this.

There are a number of ways this could be funded. Tax exemptions, annual fees, member-only events, etc...

This has already been argued and you seem to have completely ignored my previous post.

You're dodging the question: where is the evidence you have beaten on about in almost every post in this thread?

So, I'll put it to you again: Where is the so-called evidence you have gone on and on about? I've asked for it a number of times and still not gotten it.

You misunderstand how tax works...

Everybody has a £10,000 personal allowance (income which is not taxed) - this will increase to £11,500 in 2017
Then you pay 20% on the first 43,000 you earn (this will increase to 45k in 2017
You ONLY pay 40% tax on anything above £43,000 after your 10k personal allowance

So if someone earnt £100,000:
100,000 - 10,000 PA = 90,000 taxable income
90,000 - 43,000 = 47,000 to be taxed at higher rate

The 47k will be taxed at 40%, the 43k is taxed at 20% and you pay nothing on the first 10k

So...

43,000 x 0.2 = 8,600 tax
47,000 x 0.4 = 18,800 tax
total tax = 27,400 for the year

So excluding NI contributions your take home from 100k would be £72,600 not £65,467, that's a pretty big difference tbh

YES this is a large reduction from 100k but you would really be absolutely fine living anywhere in the country (even London) on 72,600... IMO it's much preferable to earning 10k and taking home 10k...