out of interest, did Labout attempt to change the no-dom rules during their recent 13 years in power?
No, they did not. Shame on them. But thats why I argue that tax should be less partisan a discussion than it is. Britain as a country has an odd attitude towards tax, seen from a Continental viewpoint. Reminds me of the Britsh attitude to sex, although that has probably changed since I left.
out of interest, did Labout attempt to change the no-dom rules during their recent 13 years in power?
No, they did not. Shame on them. But thats why I argue that tax should be less partisan a discussion than it is. Britain as a country has an odd attitude towards tax, seen from a Continental viewpoint. Reminds me of the Britsh attitude to sex, although that has probably changed since I left.
Yeah we had a bid old party when you left and it was a case of 'anything goes'..... ;-) Ill never look a chicken in the eyes again, or a pair of tweezers.
It's all changed in swinging liberated Britain.
Mind you nudity isn't allowed, new lap dancing clubs draw protests on the street, and politicians who have affairs are treated slightly differently to those in France. Other than that....
not sure if this has already been posted, but an interesting article in The Spectator (which i have no idea whether it has any political bias) on the non-dom issue
ed. for fairness, just read this is seen as a traditionally conservative favouring publication, shows how little i know
Boris Johnson used to be it's editor. Although I do not agree with the politics of the Spectator it is well written and can have good articles. I have even purchased it from time to time . The left of centre equivalent is the New Statesman .
Part of the fun of following diverse political journalists on Twitter is that you get instant reaction from all viewpoints to big political events . For me the TV debates on Twitter was a bit like following @Redmidland 's Charlton away match thread when another poster takes on the opposition's commentaries giving the different perspectives.
That is also what I like about this thread. Charlton Life at it's best.
fully agree, good read whatever your political persuasion
The Spectator is a cracking read even if you don't agree with its politics, it's tone is always persuasive, never hectoring although they do employ token wingnuts like that fuckwit James Delingpole.
Fraser Nelson is a great writer, a self confessed Tory yes, but impeccably fair to all sides and attacks on policy not personality.
Dear old Taki is outrageous but often very, very funny.
out of interest, did Labout attempt to change the no-dom rules during their recent 13 years in power?
No, they did not. Shame on them. But thats why I argue that tax should be less partisan a discussion than it is. Britain as a country has an odd attitude towards tax, seen from a Continental viewpoint. Reminds me of the Britsh attitude to sex, although that has probably changed since I left.
To be 100% factually correct, it was Labour who introduced the £30,000 non dom annual charge, recently upped again to £90,000 under the coalition. At the time the City reacted badly to its introduction IIRC.
Labour will always have a problem around this sort of thing. Don't be seen to tax those who are wealthier than average and they are seen as betraying the 'ordinary' members of society...do tax them and they are portrayed as anti-business, anti-entrepreneurial.
For every non Dom that does decide to leave the tax being paid on sometimes considerable UK source income is likely to be lost. Not to mention the effect of that person's investment in the UK in terms of spending (eg VAT) or job creation. If it's right that £8bn is paid by these people then its £8bn likely to have arisen here from their economic activity which grossed up is around £20bn.
These are all things that can't be calculated which it is possibly why Ed Balls said more or less as much earlier in the year. This policy is to appeal to the masses without regard to the effect on the economy. Personally I think Britain has benefited from this anachronistic rule over the years.
And yes domicile is a rule that has implications beyond tax under UK law but that's not to say that it has to be linked to the basis of taxation as well.
You can always threaten and scaremonger and it will always be a reason to avoid being fair (which normally suits the rich strangely enough). Labour say they have found a way to ensure that the country will not be likely to be out of pocket – then it is a question of how much additional funds will be brought in. If 1 penny more comes in it is worth it for the sake of fairness surely. Estimates suggest about £1 billion though. I like the way opponents are not looking into the detail of what is being said and trying to pick on statements made at different times that can easily be reconciled.
The cost shouldn't matter. Either it's justifiable or it isn't. If it's justifiable then argue is case and win the support. If it's not justifiable then get rid of it and look at any shortfalls and work out how to make them up. IMHO it's just a way for rich people to dodge tax and should have been ended a long long time ago.
You can always threaten and scaremonger and it will always be a reason to avoid being fair (which normally suits the rich strangely enough). Labour say they have found a way to ensure that the country will not be likely to be out of pocket – then it is a question of how much additional funds will be brought in. If 1 penny more comes in it is worth it for the sake of fairness surely. Estimates suggest about £1 billion though. I like the way opponents are not looking into the detail of what is being said and trying to pick on statements made at different times that can easily be reconciled.
Can you explain how we can look at the detail and where this information is please? In particular, what calculations Labour have put forward to demonstrate that this will bring in more money than it loses.
Isn't that what their opponents should be doing by asking the question? Then validly criticising the answer if it is not realistic. It could be an own goal if labour, later elaborate and show how it is likely there would be a revenue gain. Not sure they have that tactical awareness, but if they did, opponents will have walked right into it and a beneficial to labour element will get more exposure. I'd be showing how it would be done in a party broadcast - referencing the reaction from other parties.
As we have already seen, Balls hasn't got a clue at present. In his last interview he simply said 'Billions of pounds' in an up in the air Dr Evil from Austin Powers style.
4 months previously he said it would cost the country money.
We will see this a lot in the run up to election with all parties trying to jump on the current public topics of debate before they have had a chance to think it through.
I need to see more evidence that this is not based on classic Labour 'punish the successful and give to the poorer in society.' Who said the quote 'eventually socialism runs out of other people's money'? I don't want to see anyone avoiding tax but I also don't want to rely on hammering the wealthiest in the country because if they bugger off then we won't have the huge sum of money they contribute to the economy that probably ends up going towards the benefits that some people are so keen to raise.
We need to remember that these 'rich people' who people have such a problem with already pay a fortune in tax.
Point of fact - Labour is a capitalist party - not a socialist one. They would be more accurately termed Social Democrats. but they are not even exactly that. Their policies are similar to those of the conservatives in relation to curbing the deficit. Listen to other parties like SNP to see the contrast. They just seek to do it by what they see as fairer means, where the broadest shoulders carry the most weight. The fact of our recent recovery, shows the opposite has happened over the last 5 years. Don't let the truth stop you though. I think it is pretty much agreed by most people that non Doms should pay more. The argument is around whether there is a financial benefit to the country or not in making them.
If the thing is so great why doesn't everybody do it? It can't all hinge on the cost benefit analysis, there is a significant element of dealing with an anachronism.
Not sure anyone thinks it's great, but it's one of many anachronisms we have in this country.
Morris Dancers are an anachronism, dancing around in public places in funny clothes with offensive weapons and disturbing the peace should't be allowed. Ought to be arrested like anyone else would.
We should be the same as Sweden, it's illegal to move your feet to music in public without license. All these countries having different laws, it's not fair.
I didn't say ban anachronisms, but that it was an element of the proposal. Mind you I would ban fecking trick or treat for starters.
You say the party isnt but the leader certainly is.Ed is a socialist - he told Nic Cohen that in an interview.
NC: It’s interesting, I mean, Mr Miliband you’ve insisted the 50p tax band, for example, for the very highest earners is here to stay for reasons of quote “values and fairness”. Your Shadow Chancellor said in five years time you might not need it. Now I’m just wondering, is any tax rate set in stone? You know, even looking at the circumstances the country’s in. Is it not rather dogmatic of you? Are you too wedded to socialism to abandon it?
EM: Well, I’m wedded to fairness. And what I’ve said, and actually Alan Johnson has said this too, is when I think about the next election when we set our tax plans, is our priority really going to be to cut our top rate of income tax for people on over £150,000 a year, the top one per cent of the population. I think I can fairly sort of certainly say to you now, Nicky, that’s unlikely to be the biggest priority for the country.
NC: Absolutely understandably, this is a key question in ideological terms, is it there for ideological reasons or is it there for economic reasons?
EM: Oh, I think it’s there for economic reasons: cutting the deficit. But it’s also there for fairness reasons, because…
NC: For ideological reasons?
EM: Well, “ideological”’s one way of putting it, yeah. Because if I came along and said “well my priority’s to cut the top rate of income tax”, then you’d be saying to me, quite rightly, “well what spending are you going to cut to make up that gap, or who are you going to, who else are you going to raise taxes on?” And I do think it’s fair that people on over £150,000 pay their fair share. NC: Are you a socialist?
EM: Yeah, I am a socialist.
NC: Oh my goodness! We haven’t heard this from a Labour leader for a long long time. Can you just say it again? Can we run the tape?
EM: I’m not embarrassed about it. I’ll tell you why I’m not embarrassed about it. Am I a socialist? Look, my dad was a… he would have considered himself a socialist too, but he would have said…
NC: He was a Marxist.
EM:…we need to have public ownership of everything. I don’t… or many of the most important things of society. I don’t subscribe to that view. What I do say is that there are big unfairnesses in our society, and part of the job of government is to bring about social justice and to tackle those unfairnesses. And that’s why I’m a politician, that’s why I’m in politics.
NC: By saying “I am a socialist”, you will have warmed the hearts of many potential voters.
EM: Excellent.
NC: But also chilled the hearts of many potential voters. That’s the line that you walk. Let me talk about the mistakes as well, and the accusation that Labour lost its soul. You’ve spoken about Iraq. We did we… why were we complicit in torture, this country, under a Labour government? Are you ashamed?
EM: [Goes on about torture here, where he says “I don’t accept that we were complicit in torture. I know something about this because my brother was, er, Foreign Secretary…” etc. Then back on to domestic policy...]
NC: Gordon Brown didn’t speak to Jonathan Powell for thirteen years, he didn’t speak to Robin Cook for years and years. I was speaking to a Labour advisor the other day who I won’t mention, who said that she heard the worst language she’s ever heard from another human being from Gordon Brown towards her on the phone. She was so shocked. Did you not think at the time “my boss is a bit of a nutter”?
EM: No.
NC: What about all these books? Not speaking to somebody for thirteen years, normal behaviour?
EM: I’m my own person, but he’s someone who cared passionately…
NC: But hand on, is not speaking to somebody in your own office for thirteen years normal behaviour?
EM: Well I don’t believe he did that, but anyway.
NC: Jonathan Powell says he did.
EM: Well anyway, look, I think that, um, we’re not here to talk about Gordon Brown, we’re here to talk about me…
Must say, don't know about others but as someone who by the large can't stand virtually all politicians and all the left wing / right wing / pr spin BS, i'm finding i'm getting drawn into the debate / 'political arena' more than i have ever done in the past.
I have just seen a photo of the Prime Minister electioneering at an infants' school. Doesn't the country need running for the next month or so?
Or if it does,why can't it just carry on being run by non politicians and whoever is doing it while Dave, George, Danny and the Eds and the other 645 of them are all out canvassing for votes? Now that's what I call a plan....
The country isn't being run bar the basic essentials - We are in PURDAH.
Indeed parliament has been dissolved. Technically we have no Government. We are in Prorogation which is also a small hamlet just outside Dymchurch. (I made that last bit up!)
out of interest, did Labout attempt to change the no-dom rules during their recent 13 years in power?
No, they did not. Shame on them. But thats why I argue that tax should be less partisan a discussion than it is. Britain as a country has an odd attitude towards tax, seen from a Continental viewpoint. Reminds me of the Britsh attitude to sex, although that has probably changed since I left.
To be 100% factually correct, it was Labour who introduced the £30,000 non dom annual charge, recently upped again to £90,000 under the coalition. At the time the City reacted badly to its introduction IIRC.
Labour will always have a problem around this sort of thing. Don't be seen to tax those who are wealthier than average and they are seen as betraying the 'ordinary' members of society...do tax them and they are portrayed as anti-business, anti-entrepreneurial.
Actually, to be 100% factually correct, there is a scale of charges.
Here's the list:
Non-doms who have lived in the UK for seven of the last nine years must pay £30,000 each year to maintain their tax status.
Those living in the UK for 12 of the last 14 years must pay £50,000 to do so.
Non-doms living in the UK for 17 of the last 20 years must pay £90,000 to keep their non-dom status.
It seems a paltry 5,000 people pay these charges (in addition to their other UK taxes), raising an estimated £300m this year for the Treasury.
So, of the reported 114,000 non-doms, I'm guessing most will not have been in the UK for 7 years or more and will not be paying an annual charge. But will still be paying tax on their UK earnings presumably.
(According to the BBC quite a few foreign doctors and nurses working for the NHS have non-dom status. I wonder if they'll go home if the Eds get in? Is the NHS safe with Labour after all?)
I'm guessing that if you've been here more than the years stated, you lose the non-dom status anyway?
I have just seen a photo of the Prime Minister electioneering at an infants' school. Doesn't the country need running for the next month or so?
Or if it does,why can't it just carry on being run by non politicians and whoever is doing it while Dave, George, Danny and the Eds and the other 645 of them are all out canvassing for votes? Now that's what I call a plan....
The civil service can run things - there's enough of 'em!
"The cost of treating British people who become ill while travelling in Europe is five times higher than the cost of treating ill visitors from other European countries in the UK, official figures show.
The Department of Health data, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that it cost £30m in 2013-14 to meet the costs of European visitors using the National Health Service. This is less than one-fifth of the £155m cost to other states in the European single market for treating ill British tourists.
The figures for costs are for the medical treatment of European Economic Area tourists under the European health insurance card (Ehic) and cover visitors rather than residents or temporary migrants, but critics say they “puncture a big hole” in claims that health tourism is costing Britain dearly.
A £200-a-year health “surcharge” was introduced this week for all new migrants from outside the EEA who stay in the UK for longer than six months. The surcharge, which is £150 a year for overseas students, is payable upfront andcovers migrants for the duration of their visa.
Ministers have said the Department of Health is working on plans to charge those non-EU patients who are not subject to the health surcharge 150% of the cost of NHS treatment. EU migrants working in Britain pay for NHS treatment through their tax and national insurance contributions.
The detailed DoH figures show that Spain and France, the most popular European holiday destinations for British tourists, had the largest bills, nearly £40m each, for their medical treatment. French tourists cost the NHS almost £5m, while those from Spain incurred costs of only £3m under the Ehic scheme.
One explanation for the gap is possibly that Britain has a poor record in recovering the cost of treating European nationals under the scheme. The DoH has said that the £30m figure may be less than 20% of the total estimated chargeable costs.
But the pattern could be also taken to reflect the greater flow of British tourists to other European countries, and the age of British visitors to countries such as Spain, who are more likely to require medical treatment during their visit.
The gap is largest in the cases of Austria and Germany. Austria’s health service spent 43 times more – £5.6m – on treating British travellersthan the NHS did on those from Austria – £130,000. Germany, which is visited by 2 million Britons every year, had to pay 34 times more than the NHS – £22m compared to £643,000.
The largest bills faced by the NHS under the scheme are for visitors from Ireland (£9.3m), France (£4.8m), Belgium (£3.6m), Spain (£3m), the Netherlands (£1.6m), Italy (£1.2m) and Poland (£1.3m)."
"The cost of treating British people who become ill while travelling in Europe is five times higher than the cost of treating ill visitors from other European countries in the UK, official figures show.
The Department of Health data, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that it cost £30m in 2013-14 to meet the costs of European visitors using the National Health Service. This is less than one-fifth of the £155m cost to other states in the European single market for treating ill British tourists.
The figures for costs are for the medical treatment of European Economic Area tourists under the European health insurance card (Ehic) and cover visitors rather than residents or temporary migrants, but critics say they “puncture a big hole” in claims that health tourism is costing Britain dearly.
A £200-a-year health “surcharge” was introduced this week for all new migrants from outside the EEA who stay in the UK for longer than six months. The surcharge, which is £150 a year for overseas students, is payable upfront andcovers migrants for the duration of their visa.
Ministers have said the Department of Health is working on plans to charge those non-EU patients who are not subject to the health surcharge 150% of the cost of NHS treatment. EU migrants working in Britain pay for NHS treatment through their tax and national insurance contributions.
The detailed DoH figures show that Spain and France, the most popular European holiday destinations for British tourists, had the largest bills, nearly £40m each, for their medical treatment. French tourists cost the NHS almost £5m, while those from Spain incurred costs of only £3m under the Ehic scheme.
One explanation for the gap is possibly that Britain has a poor record in recovering the cost of treating European nationals under the scheme. The DoH has said that the £30m figure may be less than 20% of the total estimated chargeable costs.
But the pattern could be also taken to reflect the greater flow of British tourists to other European countries, and the age of British visitors to countries such as Spain, who are more likely to require medical treatment during their visit.
The gap is largest in the cases of Austria and Germany. Austria’s health service spent 43 times more – £5.6m – on treating British travellersthan the NHS did on those from Austria – £130,000. Germany, which is visited by 2 million Britons every year, had to pay 34 times more than the NHS – £22m compared to £643,000.
The largest bills faced by the NHS under the scheme are for visitors from Ireland (£9.3m), France (£4.8m), Belgium (£3.6m), Spain (£3m), the Netherlands (£1.6m), Italy (£1.2m) and Poland (£1.3m)."
You mean UKIP are lying then. And the Tories and all the other little englanders. I'm shocked. Really shocked.
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
I've no more idea than anybody. But as the report says, a plausible explanation, is that we don't bother to charge, as has been said all along.
"One explanation for the gap is possibly that Britain has a poor record in recovering the cost of treating European nationals under the scheme. The DoH has said that the £30m figure may be less than 20% of the total estimated chargeable costs."
Comments
Ill never look a chicken in the eyes again, or a pair of tweezers.
It's all changed in swinging liberated Britain.
Mind you nudity isn't allowed, new lap dancing clubs draw protests on the street, and politicians who have affairs are treated slightly differently to those in France. Other than that....
Fraser Nelson is a great writer, a self confessed Tory yes, but impeccably fair to all sides and attacks on policy not personality.
Dear old Taki is outrageous but often very, very funny.
Labour will always have a problem around this sort of thing. Don't be seen to tax those who are wealthier than average and they are seen as betraying the 'ordinary' members of society...do tax them and they are portrayed as anti-business, anti-entrepreneurial.
These are all things that can't be calculated which it is possibly why Ed Balls said more or less as much earlier in the year. This policy is to appeal to the masses without regard to the effect on the economy. Personally I think Britain has benefited from this anachronistic rule over the years.
And yes domicile is a rule that has implications beyond tax under UK law but that's not to say that it has to be linked to the basis of taxation as well.
If it's not justifiable then get rid of it and look at any shortfalls and work out how to make them up.
IMHO it's just a way for rich people to dodge tax and should have been ended a long long time ago.
4 months previously he said it would cost the country money.
We will see this a lot in the run up to election with all parties trying to jump on the current public topics of debate before they have had a chance to think it through.
I need to see more evidence that this is not based on classic Labour 'punish the successful and give to the poorer in society.' Who said the quote 'eventually socialism runs out of other people's money'? I don't want to see anyone avoiding tax but I also don't want to rely on hammering the wealthiest in the country because if they bugger off then we won't have the huge sum of money they contribute to the economy that probably ends up going towards the benefits that some people are so keen to raise.
We need to remember that these 'rich people' who people have such a problem with already pay a fortune in tax.
Mind you I would ban fecking trick or treat for starters.
NC: It’s interesting, I mean, Mr Miliband you’ve insisted the 50p tax band, for example, for the very highest earners is here to stay for reasons of quote “values and fairness”. Your Shadow Chancellor said in five years time you might not need it. Now I’m just wondering, is any tax rate set in stone? You know, even looking at the circumstances the country’s in. Is it not rather dogmatic of you? Are you too wedded to socialism to abandon it?
EM: Well, I’m wedded to fairness. And what I’ve said, and actually Alan Johnson has said this too, is when I think about the next election when we set our tax plans, is our priority really going to be to cut our top rate of income tax for people on over £150,000 a year, the top one per cent of the population. I think I can fairly sort of certainly say to you now, Nicky, that’s unlikely to be the biggest priority for the country.
NC: Absolutely understandably, this is a key question in ideological terms, is it there for ideological reasons or is it there for economic reasons?
EM: Oh, I think it’s there for economic reasons: cutting the deficit. But it’s also there for fairness reasons, because…
NC: For ideological reasons?
EM: Well, “ideological”’s one way of putting it, yeah. Because if I came along and said “well my priority’s to cut the top rate of income tax”, then you’d be saying to me, quite rightly, “well what spending are you going to cut to make up that gap, or who are you going to, who else are you going to raise taxes on?” And I do think it’s fair that people on over £150,000 pay their fair share.
NC: Are you a socialist?
EM: Yeah, I am a socialist.
NC: Oh my goodness! We haven’t heard this from a Labour leader for a long long time. Can you just say it again? Can we run the tape?
EM: I’m not embarrassed about it. I’ll tell you why I’m not embarrassed about it. Am I a socialist? Look, my dad was a… he would have considered himself a socialist too, but he would have said…
NC: He was a Marxist.
EM:…we need to have public ownership of everything. I don’t… or many of the most important things of society. I don’t subscribe to that view. What I do say is that there are big unfairnesses in our society, and part of the job of government is to bring about social justice and to tackle those unfairnesses. And that’s why I’m a politician, that’s why I’m in politics.
NC: By saying “I am a socialist”, you will have warmed the hearts of many potential voters.
EM: Excellent.
NC: But also chilled the hearts of many potential voters. That’s the line that you walk. Let me talk about the mistakes as well, and the accusation that Labour lost its soul. You’ve spoken about Iraq. We did we… why were we complicit in torture, this country, under a Labour government? Are you ashamed?
EM: [Goes on about torture here, where he says “I don’t accept that we were complicit in torture. I know something about this because my brother was, er, Foreign Secretary…” etc. Then back on to domestic policy...]
NC: Gordon Brown didn’t speak to Jonathan Powell for thirteen years, he didn’t speak to Robin Cook for years and years. I was speaking to a Labour advisor the other day who I won’t mention, who said that she heard the worst language she’s ever heard from another human being from Gordon Brown towards her on the phone. She was so shocked. Did you not think at the time “my boss is a bit of a nutter”?
EM: No.
NC: What about all these books? Not speaking to somebody for thirteen years, normal behaviour?
EM: I’m my own person, but he’s someone who cared passionately…
NC: But hand on, is not speaking to somebody in your own office for thirteen years normal behaviour?
EM: Well I don’t believe he did that, but anyway.
NC: Jonathan Powell says he did.
EM: Well anyway, look, I think that, um, we’re not here to talk about Gordon Brown, we’re here to talk about me…
Really enjoying this thread too.
Or if it does,why can't it just carry on being run by non politicians and whoever is doing it while Dave, George, Danny and the Eds and the other 645 of them are all out canvassing for votes? Now that's what I call a plan....
Here's the list:
Non-doms who have lived in the UK for seven of the last nine years must pay £30,000 each year to maintain their tax status.
Those living in the UK for 12 of the last 14 years must pay £50,000 to do so.
Non-doms living in the UK for 17 of the last 20 years must pay £90,000 to keep their non-dom status.
It seems a paltry 5,000 people pay these charges (in addition to their other UK taxes), raising an estimated £300m this year for the Treasury.
So, of the reported 114,000 non-doms, I'm guessing most will not have been in the UK for 7 years or more and will not be paying an annual charge. But will still be paying tax on their UK earnings presumably.
(According to the BBC quite a few foreign doctors and nurses working for the NHS have non-dom status. I wonder if they'll go home if the Eds get in? Is the NHS safe with Labour after all?)
I'm guessing that if you've been here more than the years stated, you lose the non-dom status anyway?
NHS staff will be liable for tax on NHS income regardless of their domicile status because the source of income is in the UK.
"The cost of treating British people who become ill while travelling in Europe is five times higher than the cost of treating ill visitors from other European countries in the UK, official figures show.
The Department of Health data, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that it cost £30m in 2013-14 to meet the costs of European visitors using the National Health Service. This is less than one-fifth of the £155m cost to other states in the European single market for treating ill British tourists.
The figures for costs are for the medical treatment of European Economic Area tourists under the European health insurance card (Ehic) and cover visitors rather than residents or temporary migrants, but critics say they “puncture a big hole” in claims that health tourism is costing Britain dearly.
A £200-a-year health “surcharge” was introduced this week for all new migrants from outside the EEA who stay in the UK for longer than six months. The surcharge, which is £150 a year for overseas students, is payable upfront andcovers migrants for the duration of their visa.
Ministers have said the Department of Health is working on plans to charge those non-EU patients who are not subject to the health surcharge 150% of the cost of NHS treatment. EU migrants working in Britain pay for NHS treatment through their tax and national insurance contributions.
The detailed DoH figures show that Spain and France, the most popular European holiday destinations for British tourists, had the largest bills, nearly £40m each, for their medical treatment. French tourists cost the NHS almost £5m, while those from Spain incurred costs of only £3m under the Ehic scheme.
One explanation for the gap is possibly that Britain has a poor record in recovering the cost of treating European nationals under the scheme. The DoH has said that the £30m figure may be less than 20% of the total estimated chargeable costs.
But the pattern could be also taken to reflect the greater flow of British tourists to other European countries, and the age of British visitors to countries such as Spain, who are more likely to require medical treatment during their visit.
The gap is largest in the cases of Austria and Germany. Austria’s health service spent 43 times more – £5.6m – on treating British travellersthan the NHS did on those from Austria – £130,000. Germany, which is visited by 2 million Britons every year, had to pay 34 times more than the NHS – £22m compared to £643,000.
The largest bills faced by the NHS under the scheme are for visitors from Ireland (£9.3m), France (£4.8m), Belgium (£3.6m), Spain (£3m), the Netherlands (£1.6m), Italy (£1.2m) and Poland (£1.3m)."
Great bit of misleading reporting though
"One explanation for the gap is possibly that Britain has a poor record in recovering the cost of treating European nationals under the scheme. The DoH has said that the £30m figure may be less than 20% of the total estimated chargeable costs."