Interesting.
Re Social Housing. I certainly agree there needs to be more, it would keep the cost of renting much more reasonable long-term as well imv. I do worry that in the long term the housing stock that was in government/Public hands then goes into private ownership and the amount of social housing stock goes down leading to more of what we have now (high demand for social housing partly leading to high cost of housing generally and exhorbitant rents for those who cannot afford them and should be able to access social housing). I think the short-term gain of allowing some families to take ownership and responsibility for their own homes (which of course frees up local goverment spending on their upkeep as well as allows government to pocket a one-off windfall) is likely to lead to more housing stock lost from the social housing system that could be used to house those that NEED it as you say. Unless newer homes are being built for social housing purpose at a fraction of the cost that is being generated in the right-to-buy scheme it looks likely to cost us all a lot more in the long-run.
The problem with this (and the last) right to buy scheme is that most councils with lots of social housing and all housing associations are very left leaning. This leads to them behaving in ways contrary to their own best interests and those of the people they are supposed to help as a way of opposing a Conservative government. It's probably not your cup of tea but if you read Margaret Thatcher's memoirs there's some fascinating stuff on the way local councils behave - much of it pretty much forced the creation of the Community Charge.
If I understand the message between the lines with this policy, the government will allow any housing association that doesn't reinvest into new houses to dwindle out of existence. This may mean a short term cost to the housing market but with a better long term result. I believe they will legislate that local councils have to reinvest.
Private Healthcare: When you say you've seen it pay for itself in your workplace can you explain what you mean by that? (I don't have private healthcare myself so i don't know enough to know exactly what you mean by this).
Also, what are the emergencies that occur that means your family has to use NHS instead of the private healthcare you already pay for?
A couple of examples:
One of our directors is very much the public face of our business. He's been in the industry as long as I've been alive and everyone in the industry knows (or knows of) him. He's highly respected and massively important to us - we're in a very competitive industry and he often makes the difference. A few years ago he needed a hip operation and eventually wasn't able to travel more than around 10-15 miles in a car due to the pain but we needed him to go to and from customers/suppliers as he normally does. He had a new hip fitted and was on the move within 8 weeks (the op has a 6 week recovery time). On the NHS he would have had to wait another 5-6 weeks before having the operation and was told by the specialist (who also works for the NHS) that the quality of the physio you see can easily add or remove a week or two to recovery time. We would have paid his health insurance 10 times over to get the benefit we did.
Another director has a wife with epilepsy. She went through a fairly bad phase and needed a lot of care (not constant, but he was in the office less than he'd have liked). Her specialist on the NHS was setting appointments 6 months away. By going through our private health insurance she was seen within 2 weeks and had changed medication and was nearly back to normal in two months.
All emergency treatment goes via the NHS - I don't know of any private hospitals with an A&E department. Once in an NHS hospital I would be guaranteed my own room and would be on the preference list (first seen after emergencies) for the specialist. Having your own room may not seem like much, but having spent 3 days in the same ward as an old man with no control of his bowels I can tell you it's invaluable. For anything other than an emergency I'm at the front of any waiting lists and usually would go to a private outpatients hospital.
I assume the hippy would use a bike, walk on the pavement, use a bus or a train? The reason I brought up roads. streetlighting and defence earlier is that they are very good examples of things that cannot be split down to use. Some things simply cannot be distributed on a per use basis.Getting back to an earlier post of your Re Taxation, exempting oneself from the 'system' and asking for a tax break:
In your scenario yours say that your son will never use the state school system and hence you think you should be due a tax refund/break.
How far do you think is fair/reasonable/practical with regards to this?
For example, if somebody is completely into an 'Eco-lifestyle' and doesn't believe in the use of cars and hence the road system, can they in your opinion say they need a tax refund that equates to what they would have contributed to the building and maintenance of the road system? Can they say that seeing as they live a fully self-sufficient lifestyle requiring no car use and no road use that they should receive a partial tax rebate based on what is spend by governments on roads? Also what if an extreme hippy believes that all wars are wrong and that they don't believe their government should take their taxes and spend some of it on the army/defence? In fact, what if they were very much against the Iraq war (the 2003 one) and that they wanted a tax rebate on what was spent on it over the years as they did not believe it was a good use of their taxes and they were against the government having an army anyway?
You brought up and interesting point about tax and spend and what is good use of the income taken in taxes and i'm just trying to get a feel for where the lines can be drawn, in your opinion.