Thursday, 1 December 2011

so SICK of it...

What are the benefits of competition?
-better quality
-competetive prices (therefore lower)
-greater choice for consumers and workers
-higher incentives for companies to invest in innovation
-better information for consumers

What are the market failures within the healthcare market? To what extent do you think that public sector provision (in the form of the NHS) is the most effective type of intervention?
-long waiting-lists
-disproportionalities among different hospitals in different regions
-inefficient way of spending money
Privatisation allows competition and therefore improves the quality of service. However, it can lead to higher costs of this service (no government funds and subsidies).  Government could also set a special tax on health care or subsidy more (but this is of course opportunity cost).

Is this just the first step towards privatisation of healthcare?

In my opinion it could lead to a greater division of health care system in the UK. People who will be able to afford private health care will go to private clinics and people with lower incomes will use public hospitals, which would improve the situation for both.

Do you think private ownership of hospitals with significant debts is a good strategy?

In my opinion private ownership gives the opportunity to solve the difficult financial situation both for patients and owners. Everybody would gain because if a hospital is in deep debt it is not able to provide best-quality service and, therefore, patients loose. So, if there is a possibility of changing this situation (making profits from the company’s perpective) it will be worth for them to invest their money in a indebt hospital and help the patients.

Why do you think Unison have argued that Circle’s takeover is ‘an accident waiting to happen’?

Because sometimes privatisation leads to a situation when clients are forgotten and they lose because profits matter the most for the owner. Morover, Circle had no previous experience of running a public hospital and, now they will have to deal with huge debts.

Does privatisation mean that profits will be more important than patient care?

Very often to make a profit you have to treat the patient better because he/she is your customer, therefore he/she demands a good-quality service and if you a company does not realise this they will not make profits. Especially, in health-care patients are very important. However, in order to provide better service and reduce the deep debt, a new owner will have to make cuts and save money, possibly causing harm to the patient.

That's what I think, 


paying 50p ...

What are the main arguments in favour of keeping the 50p tax rate?
-higher revenues for the government (“50p tax rate will raise an additional £12.6bn over the next five years even if people choose to leave the country to avoid it”)
-tax revenues could be used to develop the economy, fight the recession etc.
-moral and fair

What are the main arguments in favour of scrapping the 50p tax rate?
-high-income people could flee the country
-disincentive for foreign investors and workers
-disincentive for entrepreneurship
-lower competiveness

What does the Laffer curve show? Is it relevant in the case of the 50p top rate of tax? What does it suggest about the ability of the tax to generate income?

The Laffer curve shows the relationship between the tax rate and the tax revenue. It can be seen that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increase, but after a certain point (T*) people would be discouraged to work and the tax revenue would fall. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% , then all people would stop working because they would have to give everything they earned to the government.

 It is relevant in the case of 50p top tax rate because it shows that after a certain level, a tax rate could harm the economy. The problem is that it is very difficult to estimate the (T*) rate and many factors affect the predictions.

A possible non-symmetric Laffer Curve with a maximum revenue point at around a 70% tax rate

How does the top rate of tax affect the international competitiveness of the UK economy?
The 50p tax decreases the international competiveness of the UK because it creates disincentives for investors and enterpreneurs to come to the UK.

Why is there a trade-off between raising tax revenue and boosting economic growth through the use of the 50p tax rate?

There is a possibility that high-income people would flee the country in order to avoid high taxes or work less. Moreover, they could spend less (lower demand), because their disposable incomes would be lower. It could also discourage entrpreneurs to start new businesses or invest in others.

Why is there concern about the highest rate of tax actually causing tax revenue to fall?
Because many people would have the incentive to flee the country or work less, to pay the lower tax.

What are the equity arguments concerning the scrapping of the 50p tax and raising the tax threshold?
-all people should pay the same percentage of their incomes
-high income people pay much more anyway

Is there an equity argument in favour of the 50p tax rate?
-high-income people should pay higher taxes to reduce income disportions
-if one tax rate is to be decreased the other shoul be reduced also

That's what I think,