Are You A Sexpat Or Do You Ride The Backwards Morality Train?

[rooster59]

Britain's May to pledge 20-billion-pound health service cash boost: reports

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May leaves 10 Downing Street in London, June 13, 2018. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May will pledge a cash boost to the National Health Service, to be funded partly from tax hikes and partly from money that will no longer be going to the European Union after Brexit, newspapers reported on Saturday.

 

May will pledge to increase the NHS budget by 20 billion pounds ($26.6 billion) a year, or 384 million pounds a week, after Brexit, according to front-page reports in the Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and Observer, which were published late on Saturday.

 

The announcement, timed to mark the 70th anniversary of the NHS, which delivers care for free to everyone living in Britain, aims to foster unity in the government and the country after two years of bitter divisions over Brexit, the reports said.

 

An official spokeswoman from May's Number 10 Downing Street said she did not have the details available. She said the reports were the result of unofficial briefings by "spads," or special advisers.

 

Downing Street had earlier said May would deliver a speech about the NHS on Monday, giving no further details. Spads are known to sometimes brief the content of speeches to newspapers ahead of time for their own purposes.

 

The NHS budget increase was expected to take place over five years, reaching the full amount in 2023/24, the newspapers said.

Britain's official exit date from the European Union is March 29, 2019.

 

During the 2016 referendum campaign on EU membership, the pro-Brexit camp claimed that Britain was sending 350 million pounds a week to the EU and should spend that money on the NHS instead.

 

The claim was controversial because the figure of 350 million pounds did not take into account Britain's sizeable rebate or the payments that were flowing back from the EU to Britain, so it was widely seen as overstating Britain's contribution to the bloc.

 

The newspapers said the 384-million-a-week pledge was politically significant from May - who campaigned against Brexit in 2016 and has been under pressure from hardline Brexiteers ever since to prove her conversion to the cause - because it went above and beyond 350 million.

 

Jeremy Hunt, the health minister who also campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU, was quoted by the Sunday Telegraph as saying that the new pledge "can now unite us all."

 

The newspaper said the precise details of how the spending increase would be funded would be disclosed in a future government budget.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-17

[terryw]

A clear message to the Tory Remoaners, 'Do you like the NHS more than the EU?'

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, terryw said:

A clear message to the Tory Remoaners, 'Do you like the NHS more than the EU?'

 

Note the little comment about tax hikes? Well perhaps your question should be "like to pay more tax to fund the NHS and we'll put some of the "savings from the EU" we promised in too."

 

After Brexit and the next election, Tory or Socialist, the government are gonna screw everyone on tax increases to cover all the costs and impacts of Brexit. 

[marko kok prong]

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Note the little comment about tax hikes? Well perhaps your question should be "like to pay more tax to fund the NHS and we'll put some of the "savings from the EU" we promised in too."

 

After Brexit and the next election, Tory or Socialist, the government are gonna screw everyone on tax increases to cover all the costs and impacts of Brexit. 

Not to mention that the pound will plummet after Brexit,even further than it has already.

[alfieconn]

3 minutes ago, marko kok prong said:

Not to mention that the pound will plummet after Brexit,even further than it has already.

Have you got any facts on that or is it just a wild guess ? and when you say "after Brexit"is that 10 mins after, a day after or 10 years after ?

Edited June 17, 2018 by alfieconn

[marko kok prong]

34 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Have you got any facts on that or is it just a wild guess ? and when you say "after Brexit"is that 10 mins after, a day after or 10 years after ?

Well seeing as it was 50+ to the baht before the referendum,and is about 42 now one would think that come the day of actual exit,if that point is ever reached,one would expect it to fall further,of course i may be wrong,as for time frame,s well the markets generally react quite fast,so i would imagine a fairly quick fall.

[robertson468]

48 minutes ago, marko kok prong said:

Well seeing as it was 50+ to the baht before the referendum,and is about 42 now one would think that come the day of actual exit,if that point is ever reached,one would expect it to fall further,of course i may be wrong,as for time frame,s well the markets generally react quite fast,so i would imagine a fairly quick fall.

"One would think", "expect", "may be wrong" "generally react", "I would imagine".  So in reality you know sod all and you are just scaremongering like many other remoaners.  For all you KNOW, the £ might actually rise against some of the markets, particularly those that will be penalised by the USA through increase taxes on imports, which includes Asian Countries and the EU, and to a lesser extent the UK.

[alfieconn]

2 hours ago, marko kok prong said:

Well seeing as it was 50+ to the baht before the referendum,and is about 42 now one would think that come the day of actual exit,if that point is ever reached,one would expect it to fall further,of course i may be wrong,as for time frame,s well the markets generally react quite fast,so i would imagine a fairly quick fall.

So a wild guess then !!!!

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, marko kok prong said:

Well seeing as it was 50+ to the baht before the referendum,and is about 42 now one would think that come the day of actual exit,if that point is ever reached,one would expect it to fall further,of course i may be wrong,as for time frame,s well the markets generally react quite fast,so i would imagine a fairly quick fall.

I think that most of the fall in the value of Sterling is now built in, there's not much more seriously bad news that markets can expect so I think it's likely to be a slow decline over time until it reaches the bottom and it's not far off that currently. As companies start to move out or fold and that feeds through to GDP and a whole host of Markit surveys I think we could see up to another 5-10% of its value, based on what happens with the US and the EU.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, marko kok prong said:

Not to mention that the pound will plummet after Brexit,even further than it has already.

That won't make any difference to the money spent in the UK. Exchange rates would only affect things bought overseas and the NHS largest cost is staff.

20 billion puts Brown's 6 billion in the shade, but if they don't sack all the NHS management and put in some competent people, it will all be wasted just as Brown's money was. The NHS, when I was working in it, was run by, IMO, less than the best management. After Brown gave the NHS a load of cash, my hospital used a lot of their share to create totally un necessary and pointless sister positions. They did nothing to improve working conditions.

Edited June 17, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Krataiboy]

Is the Government's proposing to levy the new tax on the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners who retired to Thailand and other countries outside the EU?

 

If so, they should at least exempt us from the so-called "health tourism tax", which forces us to pay 150 percent of the cost of any NHS treatment we - particularly those of us too old to qualify for private health cover - may need.

 

Isn't it enough that our frozen state pensions continue to be taxed at source along with any other income arising in the UK - in my own case for over 15 years?

 

Other than the dubious privilege of paying through the nose for a British passport, what are we getting in return for our not inconsiderable ongoing contributions to the Exchequer's coffers? Next to nothing, is the answer - and with a lot worse to come, unfortunately.

 

Still in the pipeline, mericifully delayed by the Brexit debacle, is yet another egregious Government plan to rob us of the Personal Tax Allowance, currently worth 11,580 pounds a year. At a stroke this move would deprive many of us of more than a fifth of our total income.

 

Somebody should tell Mother Theresa, before the next general election comes around, there is only so much blood you can squeeze out of a stone.

[Basil B]

3 hours ago, alfieconn said:

Have you got any facts on that or is it just a wild guess ? and when you say "after Brexit"is that 10 mins after, a day after or 10 years after ?

probably a wild guess but the brexiters who say it will go up are living in cloud cuckoo land, it can go up, down or stay where it is is...

 

Remember we are in this mess due to the wild predictions and lies that were banded around in the referendum campaign...

 

[Jonmarleesco]

4 hours ago, marko kok prong said:

Not to mention that the pound will plummet after Brexit,even further than it has already.

Based on what evidence? Or is it a gut feeling? Because the pound is currently substantially higher than in the days following the vote. 

[rudi49jr]

5 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I think that most of the fall in the value of Sterling is now built in, there's not much more seriously bad news that markets can expect so I think it's likely to be a slow decline over time until it reaches the bottom and it's not far off that currently. As companies start to move out or fold and that feeds through to GDP and a whole host of Markit surveys I think we could see up to another 5-10% of its value, based on what happens with the US and the EU.

I think the difference between a so-called ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ brexit will also be quite significant in that respect, where a hard brexit will most likely have a much bigger negative impact on the value of the £.

[Trouble]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That won't make any difference to the money spent in the UK. Exchange rates would only affect things bought overseas and the NHS largest cost is staff.

20 billion puts Brown's 6 billion in the shade, but if they don't sack all the NHS management and put in some competent people, it will all be wasted just as Brown's money was. The NHS, when I was working in it, was run by, IMO, less than the best management. After Brown gave the NHS a load of cash, my hospital used a lot of their share to create totally un necessary and pointless sister positions. They did nothing to improve working conditions.

"They did nothing to improve working conditions."

 

 Just curious, but is the infusion of more cash to better the working conditions of the staff or provide better equipment, more facilities, and more personnel (if needed) to provide better and faster health care?

[dunroaming]

This really is insulting.  Does she actually think that the people are that stupid.  This came out a few days ago that she was going to pitch this as a win for the Brexiteers before pushing through some serious concessions.  Seen her being interviewed today and she is so vague on where the money is coming from apart from the fact that a large part of it will come from tax increases.  When pushed as to whether the tax rises would be for the higher paid or everyone, she again dodged the question.

 

Just for once, stop lying to the people!  

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, Trouble said:

"They did nothing to improve working conditions."

 

 Just curious, but is the infusion of more cash to better the working conditions of the staff or provide better equipment, more facilities, and more personnel (if needed) to provide better and faster health care?

Part of the "help for the NHS" is to relax the immigration rules to recruit many more doctors and nurses.  I assume some of the money will be for their recruitment and pay.

[bristolboy]

22 hours ago, terryw said:

A clear message to the Tory Remoaners, 'Do you like the NHS more than the EU?'

Paul Johnson, the head of the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government had accepted that Brexit would swipe £15bn a year from revenues – or £300m a week.

Furthermore, the “divorce bill”, plus commitments to replace Brussels funding in key areas, would swallow up all of the returning EU contributions until 2022.

“There is no Brexit dividend,” Mr Johnson said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-funding-latest-20-billion-theresa-may-tax-rises-brexit-dividend-a8402951.html

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Paul Johnson, the head of the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government had accepted that Brexit would swipe £15bn a year from revenues – or £300m a week.

Furthermore, the “divorce bill”, plus commitments to replace Brussels funding in key areas, would swallow up all of the returning EU contributions until 2022.

“There is no Brexit dividend,” Mr Johnson said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-funding-latest-20-billion-theresa-may-tax-rises-brexit-dividend-a8402951.html

Yet more biased opinion stated as fact, but ignoring this - it's why many are wondering why on earth the govt. said that is willing to pay a very large 'divorce bill' before negotiations on a trade agreement had even started!  But, to be fair to the uk govt., 'nothing's agreed until everything is agreed'.

 

Edit - Back on topic, I have to agree with Dunroamin's comment:-

 

"This really is insulting.  Does she actually think that the people are that stupid.  This came out a few days ago that she was going to pitch this as a win for the Brexiteers before pushing through some serious concessions.  Seen her being interviewed today and she is so vague on where the money is coming from apart from the fact that a large part of it will come from tax increases.  When pushed as to whether the tax rises would be for the higher paid or everyone, she again dodged the question. Just for once, stop lying to the people! " 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Yet more biased opinion stated as fact, but ignoring this - it's why many are wondering why on earth the govt. said that is willing to pay a very large 'divorce bill' before negotiations on a trade agreement had even started!  But, to be fair to the uk govt., 'nothing's agreed until everything is agreed'.

 

Edit - Back on topic, I have to agree with Dunroamin's comment:-

 

"This really is insulting.  Does she actually think that the people are that stupid.  This came out a few days ago that she was going to pitch this as a win for the Brexiteers before pushing through some serious concessions.  Seen her being interviewed today and she is so vague on where the money is coming from apart from the fact that a large part of it will come from tax increases.  When pushed as to whether the tax rises would be for the higher paid or everyone, she again dodged the question. Just for once, stop lying to the people! " 

 

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an economic research institute based in London, United Kingdom, which specialises in UK taxation and public policy.^[1] It is politically independent and produces both academic and policy-related findings.^[2]

The Institute's aim is to "advance education for the benefit of the public by promoting on a non-political basis the study and discussion of and the exchange and dissemination of information and knowledge concerning national economic and social effects and influences of existing taxes and proposed changes in fiscal systems."^[3]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies}

[dick dasterdly]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an economic research institute based in London, United Kingdom, which specialises in UK taxation and public policy.^[1] It is politically independent and produces both academic and policy-related findings.^[2]

The Institute's aim is to "advance education for the benefit of the public by promoting on a non-political basis the study and discussion of and the exchange and dissemination of information and knowledge concerning national economic and social effects and influences of existing taxes and proposed changes in fiscal systems."^[3]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies}

The institute is clearly unbiased.....which is why the head of the IFS states his opinion as if it were fact....

 

Like the rest of us, they have no idea as to the final 'deal.

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

The institute is clearly unbiased.....which is why the head of the IFS states his opinion as if it were fact....

 

Like the rest of us, they have no idea as to the final 'deal.

Except of course he specifically referred to statement from the conservative government that can be independently verified. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Is the Government's proposing to levy the new tax on the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners who retired to Thailand and other countries outside the EU?

 

If so, they should at least exempt us from the so-called "health tourism tax", which forces us to pay 150 percent of the cost of any NHS treatment we - particularly those of us too old to qualify for private health cover - may need.

 

Isn't it enough that our frozen state pensions continue to be taxed at source along with any other income arising in the UK - in my own case for over 15 years?

 

Other than the dubious privilege of paying through the nose for a British passport, what are we getting in return for our not inconsiderable ongoing contributions to the Exchequer's coffers? Next to nothing, is the answer - and with a lot worse to come, unfortunately.

 

Still in the pipeline, mericifully delayed by the Brexit debacle, is yet another egregious Government plan to rob us of the Personal Tax Allowance, currently worth 11,580 pounds a year. At a stroke this move would deprive many of us of more than a fifth of our total income.

 

Somebody should tell Mother Theresa, before the next general election comes around, there is only so much blood you can squeeze out of a stone.

One answer would be for every pensioner living outside the UK to return to the UK to live, which would cost them billions in pensioner costs, not to mention the trillions in health costs as hundreds of thousands of old people swamped the NHS. Wouldn't be long before they were giving incentives for pensioners to live overseas.

May could certainly say goodbye to a decent economy as welfare costs skyrocketed.

They get away with it because they don't have to deal with hundreds of thousands of old people struggling to survive overseas, whatever unfair policies they implement.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One answer would be for every pensioner living outside the UK to return to the UK to live, which would cost them billions in pensioner costs, not to mention the trillions in health costs as hundreds of thousands of old people swamped the NHS. Wouldn't be long before they were giving incentives for pensioners to live overseas.

May could certainly say goodbye to a decent economy as welfare costs skyrocketed.

They get away with it because they don't have to deal with hundreds of thousands of old people struggling to survive overseas, whatever unfair policies they implement.

So, in other words you raised the possiblity of this because....?

[Krataiboy]

On 6/18/2018 at 1:56 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

One answer would be for every pensioner living outside the UK to return to the UK to live, which would cost them billions in pensioner costs, not to mention the trillions in health costs as hundreds of thousands of old people swamped the NHS. Wouldn't be long before they were giving incentives for pensioners to live overseas.

May could certainly say goodbye to a decent economy as welfare costs skyrocketed.

They get away with it because they don't have to deal with hundreds of thousands of old people struggling to survive overseas, whatever unfair policies they implement.

Returning to the UK simply is not an option for many UK nationals living in Thailand and other non-EU countries.

 

While foreign migrants -and even, astonishingly, returning ISIS recruits - are shown the welcome mat, returning nationals like us are treated as pariahs to be repelled by a formidable array of financial and other obstacles only the relatively wealthy are able to surmount. 

 

Quite honestly, the way the UK is going, even if I had the means I don't have the desire to spend my twilight years in a country which has become a sad shadow of the place I left two decades ago to be with my Thai wife and family.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Krataiboy