Petition for Brits old age pensions & healthcare after Brexit

[Gluestick]

[quote]Bevan said "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs".[/quote]

Actually, in as many words, first suggested by one Dr Karl Marx in his communist manifesto.

See here:

I agree about the Welfare State, which was the beginning of the social security system, which in itself, was more all-embracing.

Indeed, this followed up, albeit 40 odd years too late, Lloyd George and the Liberal Party's original concept of the Peoples Budget (enacted finally, of course by Asquith), which sought to "Tax the rich as they have never been taxed before!" Churchill - who was then a Liberal MP.

The core philosophy was redistribution of wealth by taxation: which didn't work; has never worked; and never ever will or could work. As we increasingly realise today.

Whilst I am a natural benign capitalist, I am in truth a sort of fair doos type person; having studied and researched British (and European) social history; and was and am outraged by living conditions and treatment of the so-called "poor" during the mid-to late Victorian period and in the 20th siecle up to World War Two.

Worth reading are of course, Emile Zola and Orwell's classic work, the Road to Wigan Pier: the photos will outrage anyone possessed of human conscience and compassion.

[mint]

Gluey, I always KNEW that your heart was in the right place[:D]

Yes, the Road to Wigan Pier was a seminal work at the time and I believe that Bevin and others were much influenced by Orwell's book.

I do believe absolutely in the necessity of a safety net for the poor and disadvantaged.  I find it completely unacceptable, for example, that the richest country in the world, the USA (hope nobody thinks I am deliberately trolling again..sigh) should not have a universal health care system for its people.

I had hopes that Obama would succeed where others before him had failed but alas he too bit the dust in this instance.

[Chancer]

[quote user="lindal1000"]CMU is now no more! I can't remember what the new acronym is, but basically everyone pays in..either through work or through a percentage of un earned income and now, those microenterpreneurs with low turnover but other income, will also have to pay a percentage on other income. Much farer.[/quote]

 

PUMA!

 

Yes it should be a much fairer system, probably wont go down too well with pensioners wanting free healthcare though. 2 years free of cotisations for everyone!!!!

 

https://www.urssaf.fr/portail/home/espaces-dedies/beneficiaires-de-la-puma-et-de-l/de-la-cmu-de-base-a-la-puma.html

 

This bit should have a few getting rid of their 4 by 4's and camouflaging their swimming pools [:P]

 

majorés des moyens d’existence et éléments de train de vie (les modalités d’évaluation doivent être fixées par un décret à paraitre).

[idun]

I do not care what it is called these days, I was just happy that it started. And paying, well some are exonerated and so they should be.

[EuroTrash]

Pensioners on an S1 used to be in a very privileged position because they had the best of both worlds in a sense. In the UK, houses are very expensive and healthcare is "free". In France, houses are relatively cheap and healthcare is relatively expensive. So a situation where you get the cheap house courtesy of France AND cheap healthcare courtesy of the UK was obviously a bargain. Unfortunately, people have taken advantage this and got themselves into a situation where they can't afford to live in either country at full cost, because they have created a lifestyle that is dependent on being subsidised. If the question is, do they have a permanent right to this subsidy regardless of changing circumstances, I would say the answer is no - why should they. Yes yes I know they paid NICs for all those years; NICs entitle you to healthcare in the UK, and if they go back they'll get that entitlement, so it's not as if they're being cheated out of their entitlement. But the problem is that they can't, and they risk being left between a rock and a hard place when all they did was see a chance and take it. So I do feel sorry for them and do I think maybe the UK should make some transition arrangements at least.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="mint"]Gluey, I always KNEW that your heart was in the right place[:D]

Yes, the Road to Wigan Pier was a seminal work at the time and I believe that Bevin and others were much influenced by Orwell's book.

I do believe absolutely in the necessity of a safety net for the poor and disadvantaged.  I find it completely unacceptable, for example, that the richest country in the world, the USA (hope nobody thinks I am deliberately trolling again..sigh) should not have a universal health care system for its people.

I had hopes that Obama would succeed where others before him had failed but alas he too bit the dust in this instance.

[/quote]

Interestingly, I noted during Dubya's tenure, the White House website reported the large rise in child poverty! Dubya made no comments, naturally!

Trouble is, mint, since reaching a reasonable level, UK society has gone backwards at an ever accelerating rate towards the Draconian excesses of mid-Victorian England.

The Great Divide between haves and have nots becomes more apparent each and every week.

Clueless career politicians twiddle with tax laws, social security benefits and fiscal budgets, without achieving any real measurable change or improvement.

Since Social Security is now the largest chunk of the annual government spend, it can only be financed by taking money under false pretences (roads and tax e.g.) and not actually doing anything substantive but rather patching over the cracks. Which is precisely why, despite the vast revenue income to Government from road fund tax, fuel duties and VAT etc, UK roads are appalling and worsening week by week.

The NHS and education have been political footballs since circa 1980 vast sums have been wasted on management consultants and "New Amazing Plans", aimed only, in truth, in squeezing a quart from a pint pot.

Social Security benefit is the most abused national concept. I could provide many real life examples. One may suffice. Knew some people in France, near us at the time, she was ex local authority, early retired on health grounds, full pension. Couldn't work, back In addition, she had lifetime invalidity benefit. Dreadfully obese, simply put, ate far too much.

However, none of this prevented this poor "sick" invalid from going up and down a ladder when they were painting their house...

How can the nation state which boasts of being one of the richest countries in the World - Britain - turn a blind eye to rapidly increasing child poverty, abuse and malnutrition? How can it blindly accept elderly people faced with the Heat or Eat conundrum and regularly die in droves from hypothermia in bad Winters?

Greed, venality, corruption at the highest levels; on the one hand uber-wealthy avoiding tax and becoming richer by the minute. On the other, a nation which just this week reported executive already obscenely bloated pay had increased by 10% - again! - in the last year: yet the risible "National Living Wage" is just £7.20/hour.

[EuroTrash]

Can't argue with that Gluestick. But the problem with taxing the obscenely high earners more "fairly", as the rest of us would see it, is that they skip off to a country where they'll be taxed less, so you end up with less tax revenue not more - as France discovered to its cost.

[mint]

State of the nation, OUR nation, nicely summed up, Gluey.

I am profoundly sad and highly indignant at the same time.............on and utterly impotent[:'(]

[Gluestick]

[quote user="EuroTrash"]Can't argue with that Gluestick. But the problem with taxing the obscenely high earners more "fairly", as the rest of us would see it, is that they skip off to a country where they'll be taxed less, so you end up with less tax revenue not more - as France discovered to its cost.[/quote]

(Gluey places qualified accountant's hat on![:)])

Simply a question of taxing the SOURCE of their wealth! When it is based in the UK.

If it is earned in the UK or indeed, anywhere; if they are resident or quasi-resident in Britain.

That odious slimy creep Philip Green is an excellent exemplar. Ex-Pat of sorts, whilst his equally odious wife is a resident of Monaco. Screwed the poor pensioners and then bought a sparkling new yacht! Having a few years earlier remitted £1 billion pounds as a Dividend to his wife, totally free of all UK taxation.

As the also equally odious US hotelier, Leona Helmlsey stated once, "Taxes are for the little people!" Still, at least the US IRS caught up with this massive tax cheat and she went to clink.

Now ET, I do not believe in extremely high taxes; since this as you say discourages real new fresh wealth creation and thereby real employment. Indeed, I have written much over the years on what is called Laffer's Curve, or the Law of Diminishing Returns. Became interested when his then boss and I had a long fruitful afternoon's meeting at my London office many years back.

[idun]

I  am getting more than irritated with the tone on this thread now.

The moral high ground, which I aspire to and do not always succeed, is a good thing and then  I read what I feel is tosh on so many levels.

If I continue I shall rant, because I am very annoyed now, so shall come back to this later, which may not be today.

[andyh4]

NormanH wrote:

To be precise, I pay tax in the UK, (as well as being taxable in France) so contribute to the NHS which is financed by general taxation as well as NI contributions, but don't have an S1 as France pays my health-care since I also have a small French pension.

So I have to pay the three charges in my link above, and I get nothing for my tax (not even the right to vote...)

That is ok since I have had fantastic care.

I feel it would be reasonable for UK pensioners resident in France to pay these charges too.

What irritates me however is the attitude of some British pensioners who pay no NI in the UK, and may even not pay taxes there, but who expect to have their health paid for by those who continue to do so.

Reading the petition above "British pensioners living in the European Union (EU) could lose their right to free or low-cost healthcare when Britain leaves"shows the attitude and inaccuracies.

Leaving aside the question of Mutuelles, Heathcare is always paid for by someone, and its being 'free' is never a right.

Norman

Now that the hoo-ha has died down a bit regarding the "rights" to "free" healthcare, I return to your post.

There is a problem within the EU for those who change their healthcare regime during their lives.

Each country has its own rules and means of funding healthcare. Anyone switching from one system to another is likely to find that there are problems and disadvantages attached. The most obvious one is the UK pensioner landing in France, who had 100% healthcare provision through the tax system (to which many will be contributing rather less than average), who now gets +/-70% cover which they may choose to improve by using some form of top up insurance/mutuelle.

In your case you find yourself paying UK taxes (to support healthcare and a range of other things such as defence and education) but at the same time being charged for healthcare in France and (I assume) still purchasing a top up as well.

In my case I have to purchase German health insurance, that buys me 100% cover (or nearly) throughout Europe (as far as I can see) except in France, where it only purchases 70% cover and I too purchase additional insurance to cover the gap. (I don't complain about it, but it still seems to be an anomaly).

The obvious way to improve this situation, would be to ensure that people enrolled and paid for the system in the country in which they are resident. This would resolve the UK objectors who seem to have problems with pensioners who pay little/no UK tax but draw on the resources through an S1. these people would then not have an S1 and would pay through the French system of taxation and contributions. It would "solve" the anomaly of my situation and might even save me a few euros. However it would not change your position here a portion of your income is taxed in the UK but you are required to pay social charges in France.

I also see a problem of people who would engineer their residence. (I already know of one person who does this to minimise his total tax liabilities - quite possibly not quite within the rules). Many people actually live in just one place but equally quite a number do not and they could use this mobility to hide/massage their residency to get the most advantageous deal out of healthcare and taxes/ contributions. For people who are mobile. residency is/can be really quite difficult to establish. We all know the 183 day "rule" that actually is very difficult to track down in any legislation or treaty. Indeed the UK uses as just one basis of residency a 90 day rule.

So if residency is not going to work well, what then? The only solution that I can find is a pan European healthcare system where it does not matter where you live, what your tax regime is, what your nationality is. Essentially this would be a system funded across the whole of Europe, funded from Brussels.

In other words this would be a pan-EU tax/contribution system to a pan-EU healthcare system.

While I can see the advantages to people like you and I (not necessarily financial) and others who move to other countries, we remain a very small minority and I do not think the population at large are ready for Brussels to impose taxes across the EU.

In the mean time I think we just have to live with our lot - unfair though it may appear (me) or indeed actually be (you).

[NormanH]

A good idea....but not quite in the spirit of the times [:(]