So resident doctors are paid £38,800 a year, and they want a 29% pay rise, which is an additional £11,252 a year, taking them to £50,052. There are around 71,000 resident doctors currently in the UK, which means #Labour will need to find £798.892,000 to pay for it. So the question is: What drugs are you willing to give up to pay for it? What welfare payments? What other public money can they claw back to pay for this?
I await some wanker to post "TAX THE RICH!" apparently the rich are only 1% of the population so I love how dumbarses think the rich can pay for everything, just like they expect the state to pay for everything.
theguardian.com/society/2025/j…
Resident doctors’ 29% pay claim is non-negotiable, BMA chair says
Exclusive: Tom Dolphin says rise needed to redress real-terms earnings loss since 2008 and strikes could last yearsDenis Campbell (The Guardian)
Thomas
in reply to dick_turpin • • •dick_turpin
in reply to Thomas • •It's irrelevant unless you believe that 1% has more money than the government.
This is where that argument falls down. It's not about "He has more money than me so he should give more!" It's about how many calls are there on the public purse. I want to live in a country with no or very little tax. The UK is the most heavily taxed country in the world. We pay tax on our earnings, tax every year to own a car, and are taxed every time we put fuel in the car. We're taxed if we buy a burger. We're taxed again and again on just about everything, even though we've already paid tax on what we earned. Pensioners are taxed if their income is above the personal allowance, which is currently £12,570, and if you've tried to build a little nest egg with savings or an ISA you'll be a target for the taxman. It's no wonder the so-called rich try to find legal ways to avoid tax. There'll be nothing left after all the people with their hands out have finished.
Adam Dalliance
in reply to dick_turpin • • •It doesn't actually cost anything like that though. This is the myth of thinking of government finance like a household or a business.
A third of that money comes immediately back to the exchequer as income tax those doctors pay. 20% of most of the rest comes back as VAT on whatever the doctors spend the money on. A third of what remains comes back in income tax on whoever receives the money the doctors spend.
Within half a dozen transactions pretty much all of the money is already back at the government in increased tax receipts.
We should surely tax the rich, but we don't need to do so in order to pay doctors.
Adam Dalliance
in reply to Adam Dalliance • • •This is also why austerity fails completely. Every pound the government "saves" in spending results in lower tax receipts from less money in the economy and a poorer citizenry. Saving money costs you money and spending money increases your tax receipts.
Government economics is not like a household or a business.
dick_turpin
in reply to Adam Dalliance • •I'll concede that they'll [potentially] get a third back through direct taxation, but the financial commitment will still increase above the current level. Your idea that they'll get the rest back via VAT, etc, is potentially wishful thinking. Not everyone drinks, drives or buys cakes.
Home economics does work; Thatcher proved that.
A cut in government spending doesn't decrease tax revenue unless a redundant public sector worker fails to secure another job. Then again, austerity doesn't have to mean job cuts; there are plenty of commitments that can be shelved that have no bearing on revenue income.
I don't think we need austerity at the moment; what we do need is to keep expenditure under control.
Adam Dalliance
in reply to dick_turpin • • •The money in the economy is created by government spending. If you reduce government spending you reduce the money supply which shrinks the economy and reduces tax receipts.
It is true that if the junior doctors horde their money in offshore bank accounts instead of spending it in the UK then it won't be taxed.
dick_turpin likes this.