So, err, why bother?

A substantial pay rise for NHS staff in England battling the coronavirus pandemic would cost the exchequer only a fifth of the headline price tag and boost Britain’s struggling economy, according to a report.

Setting out the economic case for raising the wages of England’s 1 million nurses, midwives, health professionals and NHS support staff, researchers from the London Economics consultancy said 81% of the cost of a 5% or 10% pay rise would be recovered by the government.

The study argues that if pay was increased, the Treasury would receive more in taxes paid by these workers and their employers,

16 thoughts on “So, err, why bother?”

  1. Or, in other words, a pay rise to NHS staff would be so inflationary that Rishi would be forced to recoup most of their increased pay in tax.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    So obviously the solution is to use the new tax to pay the NHS Staff even more. Which will generate even more tax. Which can be used to pay the NHS Staff even more.

    No doubt this can continue until the NHS wage bill is so large it causes the Earth to collapse into a singularity and so form the universe’s smallest Black Hole.

  3. Would this pay rise apply to the NHS staff who managed to let an 8 year girl bleed to death over the space of an hour after the Manchester Arena bombing? No tourniquet in the ambulance (presumably no bandage and stick to make one either) and no one in A&E thought to stem the blood flow from where the poor girls legs had been?

    Public inquiries are generally a way to put off bad news but at least this one seems to have uncovered gross incompetence. I don’t suppose they’ll be able to identify any specific people to blame however.

  4. 1.2 million NHS staff–50% + penpushers–that isn’t 1 million Nurses , Doctors, Midwives etc.

    Just over half a million.

  5. @ Mr King
    In the movies the hero tears the sleeve off his shirt to bandage his wounded comrade. Do paramedics not wear shirts?

  6. Another of these so called cases where an increase in govt spending would pay for itself. Despite the guardian and idiots like the potato banging this drum since the year dot, govt debt keeps on rising and outstripping tax revenues.
    Sorry not feeling generous towards the nhs with the pathetic indifference i’ve encountered in the last few months to a serious and very painful problem with my wrist.

  7. @Esteban

    Back in the 60s the top rate of UK tax was 95%. (See the lyrics for the Beatles song “Tax man”.)

  8. How about do it the other way round, don’t tax public sector workers below the normal cut off point for self assessment and split the difference giving them half of the admin savings instead?

  9. “ The study argues that if pay was increased, the Treasury would receive more in taxes paid by these workers and their employers”

    But the employer is the public sector, so any extra taxes paid by the employer (employer’s NI, apprentice levy) is an additional extra cost to the Treasury, not a recoupment of the wage hike.

    Is this report written by Murphy by any chance?

  10. “ The study argues that if pay was increased, the Treasury would receive more in taxes paid by these workers and their employers”

    “Buy this product and get 10% off! Yes, that’s right! Buy this product for £10 and we’ll give you £1 back! Better still, buy ten and we’ll give you TEN POUNDS!”

  11. Back in the 60s the top rate of UK tax was 95%. (See the lyrics for the Beatles song “Tax man”.)

    Actually, it was 3x worse than that. The top rate on earned income was 16/8 in the £ (83.3%), unearned income incurred a further 3/- (15%) – so you could end up keeping only 4d in the £ on the top slice of ‘unearned’ income.

  12. Put 30kwH into my contraption and 31kwH of energy comes out. This is my marvellous perpetual motion machine and you can invest now. Obvs the initial input comes from spunk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *