So resident doctors are paid ยฃ38,800 a year, and they want a 29% pay rise, which is an additional ยฃ11,252 a year, taking them to ยฃ50,052. There are around 71,000 resident doctors currently in the UK, which means #Labour will need to find ยฃ798.892,000 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/jโฆ
Resident doctorsโ 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)
At least, it's Keir delivering on Brexiter's promises.
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 ยฃ12,570, 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.
Li ~ Crystal System
in reply to dick_turpin • • •okay so the government has some money, the rich has some money, you give the money from the rich to the government, and now the government has more money than it did before
they do not in fact need "more than the government" taxing the rich gives them more ontop of what they already have..
.. this argument makes no sense .. (of course it doesn't-)
and its not 'they have money money they should give more' its that they have so much that its literally impossible to spend in their lifetime,
and all of it just sits there effectively, not circulating, and therefore contributing to inflation;
taxing the rich would mean that is in circulation, causing deflation, causing things to cost less in general-
(i mean; if you believe in that kind of thing anyway-)
#notmyreligion
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.
Li ~ Crystal System
in reply to dick_turpin • • •isn't it interesting how its always suggesting to 'give up' things that actually help and benefit people; and never on the systems and institutions designed to cause as much harm as possible ?
how about lets 'give up' on cops, prisons, and military, border control & customs (to name a few-) .. should make up about that difference id say- while we're at it, we can just give ubi to everyone, and now all the costs around trying to determine who ""deserves"" help, can be spent on actually helping people,
festive zivirkari likes this.