Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Johnson U-turn on the NHS surcharge for overseas NHS workers

245

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    There is more to tax than income tax. VAT is paid be everyone who spends money on (most) goods and services.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    Scott_xP said:
    a large majority allows backbenchers to be troublesome. Smaller majority concentrates minds of the partially faithful...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    There is more to tax than income tax. VAT is paid be everyone who spends money on (most) goods and services.
    And who do you think spends the most on VAT? Those spending lots of money or a little amount of money?

    I don't think a course of chemotherapy is covered by the taxes on a minimum wage job and minimum wage VAT expenditure etc - but nor does it need to be as we as a society have decided healthcare doesn't depend upon taxes for our citizens.

    Migrants need to buy in to that universality.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Andy_JS said:

    Professor Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University:

    "Infection Fatality Rate is less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000, somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%""

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

    youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

    One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.

    This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.

    Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    10 million anti-body tests secured by Government from Roche and Abbott.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Not necessarily. A very large number of people pay less in tax than they get from the NHS and elsewhere. A surcharge ensures they are paying.

    The justification for the difference is that we want our own citizens to get universal access to healthcare even if they're low earning and not paying tax but why should we be allowing low earning people who don't pay tax in and letting them use the NHS still?
    But what if you're a rich immigrant and you pay your taxes which more than cover the cost of your healthcare and you end up contributing more than the average British citizen, you're saying they should still pay more?
    If you're a rich immigrant and you pay your taxes and you pay your surcharge then you're contributing to the country that has taken you in. Welcome and thank you for your contribution to society.
    I thought you Tories believed in treating everyone the same? * Not forriners.
    I thought the Tories were the party of low taxes? * Not for forriners.
    Forriners, no yor plase! You dont belong here, be grateful and give us mor dosh!
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    17% Londoners have had the Rona, according to antibodies tests. More than Stockholm?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited May 2020

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder if Kle4 thinks this cost BoZo anything...

    £900m is you believe what the PM said yesterday
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    We knew it was coming but I received an update in the post today on one of my investments. On February 14th it was worth nearly £44000; today it is worth £36000.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited May 2020
    Andrew said:

    17% Londoners have had the Rona, according to antibodies tests. More than Stockholm?

    The lockdown in London wasn't much of a success if they have a higher rate than Stockholm.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Andrew said:

    17% Londoners have had the Rona, according to antibodies tests. More than Stockholm?

    Could be enough for herd immunity, if some experts are to be believed due to the heterogeneity of how it passes around in real people (as opposed to the models).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,458

    TGOHF666 said:
    Fake news. If they only watch their home country news online they dont have to pay a tv license.
    If they want to watch their home country news live on TV they do.
    I think Russian is the only foreign news on freeview? If they can afford Sky they can afford a TV license. So a pretty tiny minority of migrants.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Max, I'm very surprised it's going to be free. Is that with the current expansions?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    edited May 2020

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    No you are wrong. If you move to a country where they have a health contribution, you pay for your health that way, and the taxes that you also pay are correspondingly lower. You do not pay your health contributions and then pay a health tax on top of that.
  • tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    There is more to tax than income tax. VAT is paid be everyone who spends money on (most) goods and services.
    And who do you think spends the most on VAT? Those spending lots of money or a little amount of money?

    I don't think a course of chemotherapy is covered by the taxes on a minimum wage job and minimum wage VAT expenditure etc - but nor does it need to be as we as a society have decided healthcare doesn't depend upon taxes for our citizens.

    Migrants need to buy in to that universality.
    It's not covered by somebody on job seeker's allowance either, yet they don't pay twice.

    Just face it, you're pro discrimination and a hypocrite.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    They do by paying tax
  • tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    Why are you shouting at me?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,092
    Today being the first ever ‘International Tea Day’, the most important story from CNN today:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/tea-mental-health-benefits-wellness/index.html
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eristdoof said:

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    They do by paying tax
    So you're saying if someone isn't earning enough to pay much in taxes the NHS should turn them away?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited May 2020
    Did anyone catch the date on the London antibody survey? 17% would be 1.5 million infections - assuming "London" is 9 million, guess it depends which definition of the city you use.

    Best figures I can find on deaths are ONS excess mortality, 9300 as of May8th.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The fact that the government sees it as a good thing to tax people for being foreigners is very telling. Like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, the concept is presumably to treat it as a sin tax.

    But like ending freedom of movement, I expect the government sees it as a sign of how welcoming they are to immigrants.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    How is this going to be explained?

    London = 17% with antibodies with lockdown.
    Stockholm = 7% with antibodies with no lockdown.
  • With Hancock talking about London immunity, I wonder if this is an early sign of regional lockdowns. London is clearly far ahead of the rest of the country.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    Why are you shouting at me?
    I was emphasising words that you seemed to be struggling to comprehend. Its not difficult. People choosing to come here are asked to choose to contribute to our healthcare system that we have pre-established from day one for them.
  • tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    With Hancock talking about London immunity, I wonder if this is an early sign of regional lockdowns. London is clearly far ahead of the rest of the country.

    A government minister said a few days ago that there wouldn't be regional differences in the way the lockdown is modified.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Andy_JS said:

    How is this going to be explained?

    London = 17% with antibodies with lockdown.
    Stockholm = 7% with antibodies with no lockdown.

    Swedes are more socially distant naturally and have been socially distancing anyway.

    As a friend of mine from Stockholm put it: We've been asked to be 2 metres apart from each other. Why do we need to be closer to each other than normal?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081
    Andy_JS said:

    Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:

    "Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

    youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

    We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.

    As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
  • Andy_JS said:

    With Hancock talking about London immunity, I wonder if this is an early sign of regional lockdowns. London is clearly far ahead of the rest of the country.

    A government minister said a few days ago that there wouldn't be regional differences in the way the lockdown is modified.
    They also said they wouldn't U-turn on a surcharge for the NHS.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Andy_JS said:

    With Hancock talking about London immunity, I wonder if this is an early sign of regional lockdowns. London is clearly far ahead of the rest of the country.

    A government minister said a few days ago that there wouldn't be regional differences in the way the lockdown is modified.
    They also said they wouldn't U-turn on a surcharge for the NHS.
    No they didn't, they said they were keeping it under review.
  • tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
    Okay three times then, why do they have to pay again? Why discriminate based on where you come from, you said you're against that.

    Your entire argument is entirely contradictory. You contradict yourself readily to explain away Tory policy.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    HYUFD said:
    What percentage said they’d heed the call?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:
    Interestingly, those polls are broadly in line with the by state approval numbers, with Trump doing best in PA and worst in WI.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    I see my comparison of Boris Johnson's performance as PMQs yesterday to Crassus at Carrhae has stood the test of time.
  • Andy_JS said:

    With Hancock talking about London immunity, I wonder if this is an early sign of regional lockdowns. London is clearly far ahead of the rest of the country.

    A government minister said a few days ago that there wouldn't be regional differences in the way the lockdown is modified.
    They also said they wouldn't U-turn on a surcharge for the NHS.
    No they didn't, they said they were keeping it under review.
    Explain it away, you're like a CCHQ bot.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    If the London rate is 17% overall, I wonder what it is for people under 50? Probably much higher because they won't have been self-isolating to the same extent as older people.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    The fact that the government sees it as a good thing to tax people for being foreigners is very telling. Like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, the concept is presumably to treat it as a sin tax.

    But like ending freedom of movement, I expect the government sees it as a sign of how welcoming they are to immigrants.

    Well it clearly doesn't put off people from coming here, does it?
  • HYUFD said:
    What percentage will take it up? I hazard it's less than 1%.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,934

    Saw something today that PMQ figure of £900m for exempting NHS workers from surcharge was wrong.

    Anyone know if its a lot lower?

    I think that figure turned out to be for 5 years.
    Kudos to Seema Malhotra (Shadow Employment Minister) for digging out the right number, and mainly for being sceptical enough to check in the first place.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone en this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
    Okay three times then, why do they have to pay again? Why discriminate based on where you come from, you said you're against that.

    Your entire argument is entirely contradictory. You contradict yourself readily to explain away Tory policy.
    Only three times? So if they buy a home they don't need to pay stamp duty?

    So if they buy fuel they don't need to pay fuel duty?

    So if they sell shares they don't need to pay CGT?

    So if they run a business they don't need to pay Corporation Tax?

    So if they die they don't need to pay estate taxes?

    Bargain!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    No they didn't, they said they were keeping it under review.

    No, they didn't.

    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1263451251494342657
  • tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone en this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
    Okay three times then, why do they have to pay again? Why discriminate based on where you come from, you said you're against that.

    Your entire argument is entirely contradictory. You contradict yourself readily to explain away Tory policy.
    Only three times? So if they buy a home they don't need to pay stamp duty?

    So if they buy fuel they don't need to pay fuel duty?

    So if they sell shares they don't need to pay CGT?

    So if they run a business they don't need to pay Corporation Tax?

    So if they die they don't need to pay estate taxes?

    Bargain!
    You've gone off the deep end again. It's obvious to anyone sane what I meant.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    If the Oxford model is in any way correct, then London's immunity to Corona could now be very high indeed.

    Sky high.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:

    "Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

    youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

    We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.

    As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
    I think your maths are correct.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    tlg86 said:

    The fact that the government sees it as a good thing to tax people for being foreigners is very telling. Like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, the concept is presumably to treat it as a sin tax.

    But like ending freedom of movement, I expect the government sees it as a sign of how welcoming they are to immigrants.

    Well it clearly doesn't put off people from coming here, does it?
    Quite - no idea why they have allowed the bullying metro twitterati to bully them on this - it's not compulsary.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    You can see why Boris Johnson tries to avoid scrutiny and is trying to stuff yes men into key scrutiny roles.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone en this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
    Okay three times then, why do they have to pay again? Why discriminate based on where you come from, you said you're against that.

    Your entire argument is entirely contradictory. You contradict yourself readily to explain away Tory policy.
    Only three times? So if they buy a home they don't need to pay stamp duty?

    So if they buy fuel they don't need to pay fuel duty?

    So if they sell shares they don't need to pay CGT?

    So if they run a business they don't need to pay Corporation Tax?

    So if they die they don't need to pay estate taxes?

    Bargain!
    You've gone off the deep end again. It's obvious to anyone sane what I meant.
    Yes you were asking why an action would have another tax. And the answer is because they almost all do. We get "taxed twice" on buying homes, selling shares, even dying. So why shouldn't those coming to this country contribute to the NHS?

    What logical argument is there against asking for a contribution from immigrants but supporting a contribution taken from corpses?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Was Matt reading my posts yesterday?

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1263507646876921857
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    edited May 2020
    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.

    Edit: Oops sorry I misread the Penn State result.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,753

    HYUFD said:
    What percentage said they’d heed the call?
    I'd take a wild guess that high % of that 77% were neither students or furloughed workers.

    Digging down on the numbers the highest % by age (59%) thinking it very fair were 65+.
    Quelle surprise.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:

    "Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

    youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

    We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.

    As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
    I think your maths are correct.
    It depends on your definition of 'infection'

    The interview with Gupta is very interesting.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited May 2020
    eristdoof said:

    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
    If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College with 279 to 259 for Biden if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    edited May 2020
    Scott_xP said:

    No they didn't, they said they were keeping it under review.

    No, they didn't.

    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1263451251494342657
    They were reviewing the surcharge on NHS staff, not the overall existence of it. A price increase applies only to those surcharged.

    Which it appears they've now changed to exclude NHS staff...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited May 2020

    If the Oxford model is in any way correct, then London's immunity to Corona could now be very high indeed.

    Sky high.

    Let's hope so. We need to get London back to normal again as soon as possible, and to be able to do it without mass surveillance and/or vaccination would be a very good thing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2020
    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder if Kle4 thinks this cost BoZo anything...

    I didn't say u-turning wouldn't cost him anything. I also never said he wouldn't u-turn, nor did I even comment on whether I thought u-turning in this instance was a good idea or not (though I have said I am far from opposed to u-turning as a principle), or if the proposed policy was a good idea or not. I did say I didn't believe u-turning one day or not, or one week or not, would make a difference in lessening a loss of political capital (unless very long term, eg taking something from an opposition pre-election then doing it much later)

    What I commented on was the spinning 'not u-turned yet' into a news story by creative use of language on 'doubling down'.

    So I really don't know what point you even think you are making. That I was wrong about something I wasn't even saying?

    And I feel confident about that because I have happily admitted to being wrong many times previously, nor could I have a motivation of defending Boris given all the times I've said I think he's an arse.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
    If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
    Trump may have a chance of taking New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota from the Democrats. The demographics suit him in all those states, whereas Arizona is moving in the other direction.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Andy_JS said:

    How is this going to be explained?

    London = 17% with antibodies with lockdown.
    Stockholm = 7% with antibodies with no lockdown.

    Our lockdown was pretty lax and a lot of people got it early on.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I see my comparison of Boris Johnson's performance as PMQs yesterday to Crassus at Carrhae has stood the test of time.

    Not a lot of people know this but the emperor Caracalla was murdered by a pissed off soldier while taking a shit behind a bush at Carrhae (modern Harran) in 217AD.

    Just thought I would give you that for your stock of Carrhae similes in case it becomes relevant at a future point in Boris's career.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Scott_xP said:

    No they didn't, they said they were keeping it under review.

    No, they didn't.

    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1263451251494342657
    Yes they did. Repeatedly check Hansard or media interviews. Going ahead with an increase is neither here nor there as the increase applies to the other migrants not healthcare ones.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    MaxPB said:

    You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.

    Yes, I hope Priti resigns as well, would cap a good day for the government IMO.
    Agreed. Patel is thick, incompetent and nauseating.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone en this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
    Okay three times then, why do they have to pay again? Why discriminate based on where you come from, you said you're against that.

    Your entire argument is entirely contradictory. You contradict yourself readily to explain away Tory policy.
    Only three times? So if they buy a home they don't need to pay stamp duty?

    So if they buy fuel they don't need to pay fuel duty?

    So if they sell shares they don't need to pay CGT?

    So if they run a business they don't need to pay Corporation Tax?

    So if they die they don't need to pay estate taxes?

    Bargain!
    He obviously meant, why do they nead to pay a higher level than a citizen?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    edited May 2020
    FD">
    eristdoof said:

    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
    If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
    Massive ‘if’ there. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_biden-6841.html ,

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_biden-6807.html
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
    If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College with 279 to 259 for Biden if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
    Yes, I have admitted that I misread one of the poll results.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2020
    Scott_xP said:
    I'm amazed this was the straw that broke the camel's back for them, but I suppose anything can push people too far sometimes.
    I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but surely Corbyn managed to secure some u-turns during his tenure? (and no, adopting things a little like what he suggested as a normal event, during an emergency pandemic, does not count). Even Corbyn had some decent ideas.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:

    "Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

    youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

    We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.

    As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
    Your calc looks right to me. 67 million pop gives max 67k deaths at 1 in 1000 risk and max 6700 at 1 in 10000 risk, if everyone infected.

    Assuming the quote is accurate, when basic sanity checking is skipped like that, it does make you wonder about the entire analysis - first thing for any model output: is this in any way plausible?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eristdoof said:

    tlg86 said:

    I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?

    Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
    Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
    Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.

    Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
    No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
    If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.

    So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
    No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.

    Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
    But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.

    Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.

    If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?

    On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
    Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.

    Everyone en this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.

    Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
    But why do immigrants have to pay in twice? Please address the question.
    Only twice? So if they're paying Income Tax and National Insurance they don't need to pay VAT?
    Okay three times then, why do they have to pay again? Why discriminate based on where you come from, you said you're against that.

    Your entire argument is entirely contradictory. You contradict yourself readily to explain away Tory policy.
    Only three times? So if they buy a home they don't need to pay stamp duty?

    So if they buy fuel they don't need to pay fuel duty?

    So if they sell shares they don't need to pay CGT?

    So if they run a business they don't need to pay Corporation Tax?

    So if they die they don't need to pay estate taxes?

    Bargain!
    He obviously meant, why do they nead to pay a higher level than a citizen?
    Why does a homebuyer have to?
    Why does a businessman have to?
    Why does a corpse have to?

    The Exchequer needs money to fund the NHS etc
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
    If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College with 279 to 259 for Biden if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
    Yes, I have admitted that I misread one of the poll results.
    It would though be the 2nd closest EC margin since WW2 after 2000
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    HYUFD said:
    What percentage will take it up? I hazard it's less than 1%.
    Well it's fair for someone else to do it of course. I'm busy that day though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:
    What a curious question. Any chance people might differ on whether the appeal is fair because of who is making it?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Scott_xP said:
    Seems strange London should see one quarter of the deaths of New York City while having nearly twice the infection rate.

    Someone's not measuring this right.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    HYUFD said:
    What percentage said they’d heed the call?
    I'd take a wild guess that high % of that 77% were neither students or furloughed workers.

    Digging down on the numbers the highest % by age (59%) thinking it very fair were 65+.
    Quelle surprise.
    No one is stopping them volunteering. Given how misty-eyed many of them get about fruit-picking in their youth, you'd have thought they'd be straining at the leash to get involved.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    So Starmer's success today has been to undermine the public finances and increase the size of the UK deficit? Yep, that sounds like Labour all right :wink:

    The Tories have been leading the way on that front for several months!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    IshmaelZ said:

    I see my comparison of Boris Johnson's performance as PMQs yesterday to Crassus at Carrhae has stood the test of time.

    Not a lot of people know this but the emperor Caracalla was murdered by a pissed off soldier while taking a shit behind a bush at Carrhae (modern Harran) in 217AD.

    Just thought I would give you that for your stock of Carrhae similes in case it becomes relevant at a future point in Boris's career.
    I didn't know that and am glad I now do. Those Roman Emperors, such scamps.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    What a curious question. Any chance people might differ on whether the appeal is fair because of who is making it?
    Appealing for people to *consider taking a paid job*? Why is that even a thing to ask questions about?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Scott_xP said:
    Off to the Brexit Party with him then
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
    If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
    Trump may have a chance of taking New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota from the Democrats. The demographics suit him in all those states, whereas Arizona is moving in the other direction.
    Maine? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/me/maine_trump_vs_biden-6922.html
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    PB Tories will insist they always opposed this policy.

    I didn't oppose it or support it, though I felt the moral outrage was overdone.

    It is a little poor how Boris has behaved over this. Patel has defended Government policy, and been hung out to dry publicly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1263509559404122113?s=20

    Perhaps all people wanted to do was take back control. They don't mind immigration - its uncontrolled immigration they don't like.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    Scott_xP said:
    That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Foxy said:

    You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.

    Yep. Theresa May would not have done this. Johnson has done the right thing.

    Starmer has developed quite an interesting tactic at PMQs. Its not just Punch and Judy, or even a QC forensically questioning a hapless suspect.

    Starmer is using PMQs in a way that I cannot recall in recent times. He is using it to lead the agenda. First this reverse on policy, but also the heffalump trap set for 1 June if we do not have an effective Tracing system in place.

    You can just close your eyes and see the advisors trying to get some pretence of that in place for that deadline. Meanwhile the heffalump will blunder into another one.

    Its like watching my cat play with a mouse. Gripping and appalling at the same time.

    I think Starmer is seeking to build a narrative for the time when the really tough decsions have to be made. It's all about framing Johnson as out of touch, reactive and not on top of his brief. He happens to be winning the bouts each week as well, but that is by the by. The hope, I suspect, is that when lockdown does end, when the furlough is wound down and when no deal with the EU gets closer, people will see the calls the government makes in a very different light because they do not trust the government to make the right calls.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,092

    Andy_JS said:

    Professor Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University:

    "Infection Fatality Rate is less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000, somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%""

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

    youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI

    One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.

    This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.

    Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
    It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.

    The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
This discussion has been closed.