Moral Tax Payments ?

Dear Don,

I think you acquaintance will struggle to get hte authorities to take him seriously. But the truth is that while in my view he is going too far, many people actually dodge what is properly due  - often in little things, such as buying tobacco from the Continent, and yet still expecting the Health Service to pick up the pieces later on if somethings goes wrong.

I do wonder if the government could not issue long term savings bonds [say 50 or 99 years] that might go someway to alleviating the national debt, just as War Bonds were sold to help finances during the World Wars of the Twentieth Century?

I plan to leave my body to medical science, once they have taken away the useful organs  but then I don't have much spare cash!

One thing that does get me is the residents abroad still get to use the NHS. I believe the situation needs to be rationalised to prevent health tourism. 

Another proposal I have for the NHS is that were blame is proven in a road accident, the full costs of treatment for the injured party should be repaid to the NHS from the insurance of the negligent party.

Similar conditions might be applied in the case of industrial injuries and illness due to work related injury, where negligence is shown.

There are ways of tightening up the system, and getting things more under control ...

ATB from George

I think he's throwing money down a hole - most Western economies are already essentially bankrupt, held off only by their printing presses.  And to entrust the politicians to be good stewards of money is like asking a pedophile to babysit your children...it just ain't gonna happen; they need it to purchase votes.

But it's his money, and if that's his choice then so be it. But moral? I'd say daft, but moral...not so much.

Well said--all three of you so far.  There is no question that government cannot be trusted to take money by legal force and use it well.  Another way I look at it here in the 'States has to do with the hypocrites who castigate wealthy people for only paying capital gains taxeds on earnings from investments, the capital of which has itself already been taxed when earned.  Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the World, says that the wealthy should be taxed more.  Fine, I have no particular love for rich people--but then neither do I resent their wealth per se.  But if Buffet feels that way: (1) U.S. law permits overpayments (or contributions, if you will) to the general fund of the Treasury--so pay up Warren, you old hypocrite--before you criticize others for trying to legally minimize their own taxes; and (2) His company is currently fighting a billion-dollar tax case against the government.  Jesus Christ!  You can't make this stuff up!  Next thing you will see in this country is states which have been careful with their money (such as Texas) being taxed to pay off the profligate overspending of states ruled by Democrats--such as California, New York, and--you guessed it--Illcrookednois.  I figure California is to the United States and Texas, respectively, as Greece is to the EU and Germany.

Under our new "Affordable Health Care Act", states are mandated to do all sorts of things--but unions, as well as the states represented by the Majority Leader of the Senate and the former Speaker of the House (both Democrats) are exempted.  Pure, unadulterated cronyism and corrruption.

Tax and moral issues aside, giving up a car for a bike is absolutely one of the best things one can do for their happiness, health and wealth. Why would you think him mad for this?

Not speaking for Don, but I suspect the tone of his post was that the "madness" lay in the self-sacrificial aspects of his friend's behavior--and not so much in its healthier side-effects.

When my wife and I moved to the Texas Coast, our four children all warned us that "global warming" (now changed by his Obamaness to the more acceptable term "climate change"), would eventually result in rising waters inundating our home.  (I seem to remember that Obama promised that voting for him would, among other things, stem the rising of the waters)    But I told all our kids we were moving to a warmer area so they would have a place to come when the ice sheets started moving South.  I blame it all on Al Gore--who now resembles something of a Walrus or a Blue Whale in his own right.

If he has too much money, tell him to give it to a charity instead.

George

re your suggestion about insurance carrying the NHS costs of healthcare after a road accident. In principle this seems clear and simple. In practice it would be impossible for several reasons and establish a very uncomfortable precedent with regard to the NHS.

Problems

1) What is proof of 'fault'? Lots of rich solicitors ensue... Few things are so black and white. What if the weather contributed, or road design, or some degree of blame is shared (as is so often the case)? Of course we could remove the blame question and make all drivers liable for accident related healthcare costs but see paragraph 5 below.

2) Insurance costs rise hugely, more uninsured drivers follow. Object defeated.

3) When does healthcare for the injured party(ies) begin and end? What about rehab? How long would the liability of the insurer vs the NHS service last? What if they suferred from previous health problems which are then made worse? Who carries those costs? More rich solicitors.

4) One of the important things about NHS healthcare vs privately funded healthcare is that to a very large extent treatment decisions are based on need not want. If you have private treatment, such as paid by somebody else's insurance, you are at risk of having treatment decisions influenced by other factors. If the insurers have deep pockets (filled by our premiums of course) then you may well be at risk of over-treatment as the NHS seeks to maximise the payback and doctors have the normal resource considerations removed from treatment decisions. Over-treatment can cause significant harms (see the US system). Conversely If the insurer was responsible for all treatment costs it would not be long before insurance companies would apply pressure on the NHS to reduce/remove costs. This break the NHS principles of equity; treatment decisions would be based on factors other than purely clinical ones and doctors treating this unique group of patients would be under pressure to do things differently for those individuals compared to the patient in the adjacent bed.

5) Where does this principle of blame end? What about the NHS carrying the costs of sports injuries that are entirely the fault of the individual; would they need insurance to cover costs? Cyclists? Pedestrians who may cause an accident? Councils who fail to grit the pavement? The 'thin-end-of-the-wedge' argument extends to any situation where someone can be 'blamed'. The further extension is that everybody who can afford it just has a personal health insurance policy for everything...hey presto the US system. The uninsured or uninsurable get squit of course!

Bear in mind that car insurers (and councils etc) do pay personal injury claims already, and some parts of this are used to contribute to healthcare in the private sector such as physio, removing that burden from the NHS (or augmenting it). The critical point is that this is additional to, not in place of, NHS access. Rising costs in this area are a cause of concern (over-claiming and over-treating etc) and are one of the significant drivers of rising driver insurance cost. This is not the same as the NHS sending the bill after treatment.

Bruce

Well argued Bruce.  Very  informative.

Don, sunny downtown York

Bruce,

You obviously know a great deal about this area in the UK--whereas I do not.  I am curious, though--when someone is injured and NHS expends a great deal for hospital and doctor costs, (forget about the ridiculousness of trying to compensate for "pain and suffering" as we do in the U.S.  Isn't NHS (or whoever pays the medical bills) subrogated by law to anything the injured person receives--specifically as compensation for medical treatment?

Thanks,

Russ

The more we taxpayers give these muppets in Whitehall the more of our money they waste.

Just look at the balls up with this rail contract,how many millions of OUR money have they wasted on it ?

Your neighbour needs a good talking to as he has lost the plot IMO.

Mista H

Putting aside the arguments, this already happens. 

The NHS can and does send bills for the cost of treatment in certain circumstances and these are routinely picked up by insurers along with the other heads of loss.

George, (and others)

Mant thanks for your contributions to date, they are all very interesting.

My neigbour's main point, so far as I can tell, is as follows

we all pay taxes

The government uses these to provide services for the benefit of the whole community sg defence, education, health care, policing etc

The taxes are collected is many ways, all designed to be relatively painless and affordable as percieved by different political groups

A big chunk of our current (UK) revenue comes from motorists in the form of Road Fund Licence and fuel taxation.

The net benefit of this tax to the exchequer is c.£30bn a year.

If we ALL gave up motoring, the Gov. would have to find some other way to collect £30bn eg a hike in incometax.

He just felt that he AND ANYONE ELSE who was giving up a car (or reducing their household fuel bills or anything else that made a contibution to the general exchequer) should continue to pay the otherwise saved tax.

I personally think he's mad, but that he does have a point ie, many of these so-called eco-warriers are enjoying a tax saving at the expense of others, but such tax-savings are unsustainablCheers

Don

Russ

I'm not quite sure I understand the terminology in your question. Hopefully this will answer it though.

The NHS certainly does not have legal rights to mop up an insurance payout in 'compensation' for the care it gives.

By definition NHS care is free care and your eligibility for treatment is unaltered by wether you have insurance for that event or not. Any payout that buys additional or alternate care is buying private care by definition, although the NHS may act as a 'private provider' (effectively providing a service specifically comissioned by the insurer) in some cases and be paid for doing so.

In many ways I think the different philosophy of the NHS is summed up by the fact that the idea that we could calculate the costs of a particular treatment is basically alien.

Any clearer?!

Bruce

If you give up driving a car and cycle instead then you do not need to buy petrol so you are therefore not paying the tax that would be collected. You are also not paying for the petrol either so you are removing revenue from the oil companies. They will therefore have to lay off workers causing more unemployment and will also make less profits to pay to pension companies.

Ok, we have elections every 4 or 5 years which enables us to chose, to a certain extent where we spend our collective funds (eg defence roads, rail, health etc) and also how we procure these collective services eg exclusively and directly by by (lazy/inefficient ?) civil servants, or exclusively by greedy global entrepeners who employ immigrant labour at below poverty wages.................or some in-between mix.

I personally think that some collectively funded infrastructure schemes are virtually essential to our well-being, even if their procurement is less than 100% efficient.

But I do agree with your point that politicians should be better custodians of our resources

cheers

Don

I have (slighty) adusted the abstracted text.

I think this is what happens in Canada, with Alberta basically subsidising a few of the other Provinces.

cheers

Don

Yeah, but you'll presumably spend your money on something else (less noxious and destructive, hopefully), and therefore create activity, taxes and jobs in that sector. 

We are wealthy as a society because of what we  create, not because of what we consume.

Spot on Russ, he could easily use his car sensibly AND go for a bike ride in the evening. The roads around here aren't really very safe for cyclists. Most injuries could be clasiffied as "self-inflicted" given that the dangers are pretty well self evident.

Cheers

Don

Winky, Bananahead,

He couldn't identify, at present, any other activity where the contribution to the general fund was so great for so little return.

He felt he should make the contribution he has previously made through car/fuel tax and spend the remaining savings on better food (not taxed) and non-fictional books (not taxed). therby re-directing funds to keep farmers and teachers in useful employment rather than car workers and oilmen.

Ok, i've over-simplified his points of view, but i'm sure I have conveyed his general drift.

Cheers

Don

So if an inattentive driver runs me down and kills me, my death was a suicide? Because I should have seen it coming? Placing the responsibility for managing the risks of an inherently dangerous activity (driving) upon the potential victim, rather than the person deliberately and consciously creating those risks is morally reprehensible. 

The roads are perfectly safe for cyclists. The bloody drivers may not be, though. Hell, the drivers are enough of a risk to themselves and each other that I sometimes wonder why anybody drives or rides in a car at all. There is nothing else so many people choose to do that it anywhere near as dangerous as car travel.

I think cars should have a small but invariably lethal explosive charge inside instead of airbags. These could be detonated in the same way as the airbags are activated, and this would keep drivers awake!

ATB from George

Sorry Bruce, completely and utterly wrong. The NHS can and does recover those costs through insurance payouts in appropriate circumstances, and does so on a daily basis. It does so entirely in accordance with statute.

Winky,

I am merely pointing out risk factors. you have lived in the UK, you know that the roads are generally narrow and the space allocated to cycles is limited. Cyclists are at risk. It is my opinion (not a legal interpretation of the law) that cyclists are taking on a known risk in thUK. Not nice, but real. Despite this, we allow them to be treated on the NHS and we prosecute drivers who are negligent. Not much confort I know, and hence not a risk I would be willing to take.

Cheers

Don