|
 |
Foundations of prosperity and the fiscal time bomb
Plus: Is it time to replace the NHS with a social health insurance system?
|
| |||||||||||||||
Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility released its latest “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report. As usual, it made for sobering reading.
The most important takeaway is that the OBR sees public spending rising from 45 to 60 percent of GDP over the next 50 years, thanks largely to the fiscal impact of an ageing population and rising debt costs, while tax revenue flat-lines at about 40 percent of GDP. The result is public debt spiralling to three times national output.
Of course, any such modelling is very sensitive to the assumptions behind it. But even if the details should be taken with a pinch of salt, the underlying reality – that we are running a pay-as-you-go welfare state with a rising number of retirees for every worker – cannot be ignored.
Covering a 15 percent of GDP fiscal gap with increased taxes isn't a realistic prospect. The whole hard-left tax agenda would only get you a fraction of the way there. It would actually take something like doubling income tax and national insurance for everyone – and hoping people don't just stop working.
On the spending side, it is fairly obvious where we want to end up – but much harder to work out how to get there. Essentially, we need to shift to a pre-funded model for various old age benefits, so that spending on the elderly is funded from balances accumulated (and invested) during people's working lives. The trouble is the transition – how do you manage young workers paying simultaneously for today's OAPs while also funding their own retirement?
Perhaps the most striking thing in the OBR report, though, is the following conclusion on productivity growth: "A full 1 percentage point increase, equivalent to a return to pre-financial crisis rates of productivity growth, could keep debt below 100 per cent of GDP throughout the next 50 years."
In other words, get back to where we were 15 years ago in terms of economic growth, and the fiscal sustainability problem largely goes away. That this is not every government's biggest priority – not just rhetorically, but in terms of concrete action – will never cease to amaze me.
A new essay by Sam Bowman, Ben Southwood, and Samuel Hughes – released this week to much online acclaim – suggests going for growth need not even be that hard. The central claim of their "Foundations" is that much of our growth-sapping lack of investment has one simple cause: the fact that our planning system and other regulatory structures systematically prevent profitable investments (in real estate, energy, and transport infrastructure) from taking place.
In the short run, a huge amount of market-driven economic activity simply doesn't take place. Longer term, we are left with expensive, unreliable energy that undermines industry, housing costs that leave people little to spend or invest elsewhere, and fewer of the agglomeration effects that drive innovation and productivity in modern economies.
The government's new plan for urban densification – trailed in the press this weekend – is a very good start, and potentially heralds a more radical approach than I expected. But if we want to return to robust growth and avert long-run fiscal disaster, it will need to be accompanied by a much wider programme of land-use and (crucially) energy market liberalisation.
Tom Clougherty
IEA Executive Director & Ralph Harris Fellow
P.S. The best way to support our vital research and educational programmes is to become a paid IEA Insider. For a limited time, new paid subscribers will receive a copy of Steve Davies’ new book Apocalypse Next: The Economics of Global Catastrophic Risks) and a 15% discount.
“Scrapping” the NHS & the Gender Pay Gap Myth, IEA Podcast, Acting Director of Communications Reem Ibrahim, Executive Director Tom Clougherty, and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz, IEA YouTube
Replace the NHS to save lives, says new IEA paper
 |
Reforming the National Health Service into a social health insurance (SHI) system could boost UK health outcomes to European levels.
There has been a huge shift in public opinion, with Britons now increasingly likely to say the NHS is worse than healthcare systems in other European countries.
In the last year before Covid, the UK had the second-highest rate of treatable avoidable mortality Western Europe.
The NHS has consistently ranked poorly in international comparisons for decades.
In terms of clinical outcomes, other systems tend to outperform the NHS, and they have done so for as long as we have data. This is not simply the result of better funding.
Countries including the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and (the former) East Germany have already reformed NHS-type systems into SHI systems.
“Want Better British Healthcare? Watch This Now”, IEA YouTube
The IEA’s report was featured in a debate on the Jeremy Vine Show on Channel 5:
‘Scrap NHS to halt high levels of deaths that are avoidable’, IEA research in The Telegraph.
“Should we replace the NHS?”, IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz on LBC:
“Replace the NHS with social health insurance”, IEA research in the Express.
Replace the NHS with Social Health Insurance says think tank, IEA research in City AM.
“Older and poorer” – the UK’s future?, IEA research referenced in CityAM.
“The charts show that the NHS should be privatised”, IEA research in the Telegraph.
The report was also referenced in GB News, Times Radio, LBC, BBC Radio Bristol, and in About Manchester, the Carer, Mahalsa, and the Daily Brit.
Should we replace the NHS? | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
by Dr Kristian Niemietz | ||||||
|
News, Views & Upcoming Events
“Reeves’s ‘£10bn windfall’ explained – and why it won’t reverse winter fuel cut”, IEA Economics Fellow Julian Jessop referenced in iNews
 |
“Let’s be honest… the government is gaslighting us on working from home”, IEA Public Policy Fellow Matthew Lesh, CityAM
 |
“If the BBC is as great as you say it is, why do we force people to pay for it?”, IEA Acting Director of Communications Reem Ibrahim, GB News
 |
“Pandemic to Inflation: Unraveling the Pandemic's Monetary Meltdown”, IEA YouTube
“Yes, the UK needs more investment – just not necessarily by government”, IEA Economics Fellow Julian Jessop, CityAM
 |
“Labour's WFH overhaul could harm British firms: French-style worker's rights plans will see Brits getting the 'right to switch off' and ignore bosses - but government insists productivity will be boosted”, IEA Executive Director Tom Clougherty referenced in the Daily Mail
 |
“Brexit Britain smashes eurozone in key metric as EU wages flounder”, IEA Economics Fellow Julian Jessop referenced in the Express:
 |
You’re currently a free subscriber to Insider. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Paid subscribers support the IEA's charitable mission and receive special invites to exclusive events, including the thought-provoking IEA Book Club.
We are offering all new subscribers a special offer. For a limited time only, you will receive 15% off and a complimentary copy of Dr Stephen Davies’ latest book, Apocalypse Next: The Economics of Global Catastrophic Risks.
| ||||||||||
