Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You mean two countries with publicly funded healthcare systems? Right...
    The French broadly run the health system like us albeit funding is a bit more private because for less important services you pay and the state then refunds you. Richer people only get 70% of the money back.

    Your fairly wrong on the German system though. Not only are most of the hospitals run by charities or private firms but it's funded by something akin to the workplace pension system we introduced a few years ago in the UK. German healthcare has much less influence from government and much greater consumer choice.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The French broadly run the health system like us albeit funding is a bit more private because for less important services you pay and the state then refunds you. Richer people only get 70% of the money back.

    Your fairly wrong on the German system though. Not only are most of the hospitals run by charities or private firms but it's funded by something akin to the workplace pension system we introduced a few years ago in the UK. German healthcare has much less influence from government and much greater consumer choice.
    I don't want consumer choice. I want a doctor to tell me what is the best cause of action for me to take. I also don't want to have to worry about money when I am seriously ill, I just want to focus on dealing with the illness. Having cancer treatment is nothing like deciding what TV to buy and from where.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's just not correct, on either point. Medicare in the US, for example, spends far less on bureaucracy than private firms do. Public sector organisations whether the NHS, nationalised rail companies in Europe or even the BBC are frequently able to provide a more efficient and better quality service than their private sector competitors.

    There seems to be a tendency to assume the private sector is more efficient without any eveidence backing it up. Sure, some things are done efficiently by the private sector and others are done so by the public sector. There's no real evidence to suggest that the public sector is more inefficient and studies on this topic have found little correlation.


    Tax cuts do not always increase revenues and tax rises do not always decrease revenue. In the lead up to World War II, tax levels rose and revenues increase. When Thatcher increased VAT, tax revenues increased. When Reagan cut income tax, tax revenues fell and only rose again once he raised indirect taxes a few years later.
    I was talking about this country, not the USA, but your example is not relevant anyway since Medicare is mostly an insurance scheme, not a public service. What a shock you're going to get if you ever get a real job and see how much wastage there is through box ticking rather than getting on with the job.
    Before WW2 we were recovering from the worst depression in history, where good growth is inevitable. VAT is an EU cost to normal families and puts small retailers out of business, and of course increasing it will increase revenues as people have to buy certain products. You really think Reagan cutting income tax caused a recession! I am talking about Labour 98% income tax and 50% corporation tax for examples.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    I was talking about this country, not the USA, but your example is not relevant anyway since Medicare is mostly an insurance scheme, not a public service.
    The principles of public v private sector remain constant, whichever country is used as an example.

    Public complained across Europe such as rail companies or energy companies etc are able to provide more efficient services than their private sector counterparts. Again, the NHS is among the most efficient healthcare services in the world, being twice as efficient as America's private system.

    Studies into efficiency have not found any evidence to support your assertion that private sector companies are more efficient.

    Even in this country, there is little evidence. The BBC is one of the most efficiently run services out there, regularly outperforming its private sector competitors.

    What a shock you're going to get if you ever get a real job and see how much wastage there is through box ticking rather than getting on with the job.
    Why do you think you know my employment status and history? You clearly do not. I have held numerous jobs in various sectors.

    You seem to be arguing based in stereotypes and conjecture whereas you haven't been able to provide any actual evidence that private sector organisations are more efficient and I've provided plenty of evidence to suggest they are not.

    Before WW2 we were recovering from the worst depression in history, where good growth is inevitable. VAT is an EU cost to normal families and puts small retailers out of business, and of course increasing it will increase revenues as people have to buy certain products. You really think Reagan cutting income tax caused a recession! I am talking about Labour 98% income tax and 50% corporation tax for examples.
    You said tax cuts always increase revenue. That's just false. I never said Reagan caused a recession but rather his income tax cut led to a drop in revenue which only increased after he raised a whole host of indirect taxes.

    You admit VAT raises revenue yet you stated tax rises reduce revenue...

    You do realise VAT is a tax? Also VAT is not an 'EU' cost.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The French broadly run the health system like us albeit funding is a bit more private because for less important services you pay and the state then refunds you. Richer people only get 70% of the money back.

    Your fairly wrong on the German system though. Not only are most of the hospitals run by charities or private firms but it's funded by something akin to the workplace pension system we introduced a few years ago in the UK. German healthcare has much less influence from government and much greater consumer choice.
    The notion of 'consumer choice' in healthcare is rather bizarre. You're not ordering a meal at a restaurant or choosing a phone to buy. You are asking a specialist, who's knowledge far exceeds your own to reccomend the best treatment for you.

    The NHS ranks above either system anyway.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The principles of public v private sector remain constant, whichever country is used as an example.
    It obviously isn't, as some countries use the public sector wisely, others (like us) waste money on hugely unnessecary health and safety, box-ticking and generally pointless timewasting. Time is money to the private sector.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You admit VAT raises revenue yet you stated tax rises reduce revenue...You do realise VAT is a tax? Also VAT is not an 'EU' cost.
    You clearly didnt read my previous answer. VAT clearly is an EU tax as they introduced it and set the minimum level. It doesn't help retailers who are a big part of our economy, but does increase revenue.
    Let's stick with corporation tax, income tax and all the others Labour want to introduce, including on wealth and financial transactions.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    It obviously isn't, as some countries use the public sector wisely, others (like us) waste money on hugely unnessecary health and safety, box-ticking and generally pointless timewasting. Time is money to the private sector.
    It is, given that many of our public services are far more efficient than their private sector competitors.

    The principles of public v private do not change depending on the country. The NHS remains more efficient than private sector alternatives.

    You state conjecture such as 'time is money to the private sector' yet you don't provide any evidence that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Again, studies into this issue just have not found a link.

    This notion that the public sector is really inefficient is based more off myth rather than any substantive evidence.

    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    You clearly didnt read my previous answer. VAT clearly is an EU tax as they introduced it and set the minimum level. It doesn't help retailers who are a big part of our economy, but does increase revenue. Let's stick with corporation tax, income tax and all the others Labour want to introduce, including on wealth and financial transactions.
    What are you talking about? Countries across the world use VAT, including hundreds that are not in the EU. Thatcher raised VAT, not the EU. Cameron raised VAT, not the EU. VAT levels are largely set by our government, not the EU.

    There is no evidence that reducing income tax and corporation tax increases revenues and equally no evidence of the reverse always being the case. In fact I have provided counter examples of taxes being raised and revenues increasing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Raising tax levels does not usually decrease tax revenue either.
    .
    Just noticed this

    Could you show me a case where raising the tax levels hasn’t decreased tax revenue?
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The BBC is one of the most efficiently run services out there, regularly outperforming its private sector competitors.
    Incredibly efficient at spouting Blairite propaganda.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why do you think you know my employment status and history? You clearly do not. I have held numerous jobs in various sectors.

    You seem to be arguing based in stereotypes and conjecture whereas you haven't been able to provide any actual evidence that private sector organisations are more efficient and I've provided plenty of evidence to suggest they are not.
    It's self-evident to anyone with any proper experience or has seen how their councils and hospitals are run.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You said tax cuts always increase revenue. That's just false. I never said Reagan caused a recession but rather his income tax cut led to a drop in revenue which only increased after he raised a whole host of indirect taxes.
    Obviously every time taxes are cut revenue doesn't increase because it isn't the only factor. If there is a global recession, there is less to tax, but lower taxes and regulation correlate to growth. Fact.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just noticed this

    Could you show me a case where raising the tax levels hasn’t decreased tax revenue?
    Yes in the build up to WWII, taxes were raised and revenues soared. I'm sure you'll say that doesn't count though. Tax rates in Scandanavia are higher than they are here and more tax revenue is raised.

    Thatcher raised VAT, revenues increased. Often right wing leaders do not cut total tax rates. They just shift the burden from direct taxes to indirect taxes. Like Thatcher and Reagan did.

    I know the political right think they are being all clever when they say that tax cuts pay for themselves, but they really are not.

    It's an example of a myth, which through repeated use has become a self fulfilling prophecy.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It is, given that many of our public services are far more efficient than their private sector competitors.

    The principles of public v private do not change depending on the country. The NHS remains more efficient than private sector alternatives.

    You state conjecture such as 'time is money to the private sector' yet you don't provide any evidence that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Again, studies into this issue just have not found a link.

    This notion that the public sector is really inefficient is based more off myth rather than any substantive evidence.


    What are you talking about? Countries across the world use VAT, including hundreds that are not in the EU. Thatcher raised VAT, not the EU. Cameron raised VAT, not the EU. VAT levels are largely set by our government, not the EU.

    There is no evidence that reducing income tax and corporation tax increases revenues and equally no evidence of the reverse always being the case. In fact I have provided counter examples of taxes being raised and revenues increasing.

    The EU introduced VAT, they set it as a minimum of 15%. Stop lying and pretending you are an expert on everything when in reality you spend all day waiting to troll on an internet forum.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Incredibly efficient at spouting Blairite propaganda.



    It's self-evident to anyone with any proper experience or has seen how their councils and hospitals are run.




    Obviously every time taxes are cut revenue doesn't increase because it isn't the only factor. If there is a global recession, there is less to tax, but lower taxes and regulation correlate to growth. Fact.
    You don't really have any evidence to support your positions and instead are relying on stereotypes. You keep asserting that public sector organisations are inefficient without any evidence to demonstrate that they are less efficient than private sector organisations.

    You keep stating that tax cuts increase revenue but haven't really provided any evidence for that either. Infact, I've provided evidence to counter both of these positions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes in the build up to WWII, taxes were raised and revenues soared. I'm sure you'll say that doesn't count though. Tax rates in Scandanavia are higher than they are here and more tax revenue is raised.

    Thatcher raised VAT, revenues increased. Often right wing leaders do not cut total tax rates. They just shift the burden from direct taxes to indirect taxes. Like Thatcher and Reagan did.

    I know the political right think they are being all clever when they say that tax cuts pay for themselves, but they really are not.

    It's an example of a myth, which through repeated use has become a self fulfilling prophecy.
    Ok, I’m actually quite happy to accept that.

    That being the case then- why does the opposite happen too, eg tax revenue rising under the Tories when they cut it?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    The EU introduced VAT, they set it as a minimum of 15%. Stop lying and pretending you are an expert on everything when in reality you spend all day waiting to troll on an internet forum.
    This just is not true.

    Thatcher raised VAT from 8% to 15%.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Ok, I’m actually quite happy to accept that.

    That being the case then- why does the opposite happen too, eg tax revenue rising under the Tories when they cut it?
    This explains it well

    https://fullfact.org/economy/did-cut...ise-8-billion/

    When the Tories cut the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, lots of people deferred their income, leading to an artificially low revenue one year and an artificially high one the next.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This just is not true.
    So when you hear something that goes against your narrative instead of bothering to research or consider it you call me a liar. What a sad cretin you are to lie and not even have the courtesy to read other's responses, just repeat your lies because you want a near-communist party to be elected so you don't have to pay tuition fees.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Ok, I’m actually quite happy to accept that.

    That being the case then- why does the opposite happen too, eg tax revenue rising under the Tories when they cut it?
    Countries like Norway have natural resources like oil and fish as their main industries (we do too but don't use them) so companies can't move abroad and have to accept the tax. The UK is largely based on services and some manufacturing.

    VAT is totally different since it hits consumers, who need to buy certain goods, and retailers which can be overtaken by the commercial giants.

    Unless you want to be protectionist, keeping general taxation low boosts the economy. Even Jean Claude-Junker understood that.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    So when you hear something that goes against your narrative instead of bothering to research or consider it you call me a liar. What a sad cretin you are to lie and not even have the courtesy to read other's responses, just repeat your lies because you want a near-communist party to be elected so you don't have to pay tuition fees.
    I have read your replies and responded to your arguments with evidence.
    Thatcher raised VAT to 15%, not the EU. Claiming that the EU raised VAT and not Thatcher, is quite simply incorrect.

    It seems that you can't handle fact-based arguments though and have resorted to chucking personal insults at me, because that's a sure way to win any debate, apparently.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I have read your replies and responded to your arguments with evidence.
    Thatcher raised VAT to 15%, not the EU. Claiming that the EU raised VAT and not Thatcher, is quite simply incorrect.

    It seems that you can't handle fact-based arguments though and have resorted to chucking personal insults at me, because that's a sure way to win any debate, apparently.
    If you read what i wrote, quote where I "claimed the EU raised VAT and Thatcher didn't".

    You cant. i said the EU introduced it initially and currently require a minimum level of 15% or higher on some goods.

    As you're such a EUrophile and at the same time think high taxes helps the economy, what do you think of EU President Jean Claude Juncker running a tax haven in Luxembourg?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.