Tell us what we need to pay for good public services | Letters
Like a lot of people, I was very interested in the Institute for Fiscal Studies' criticisms of the parties' policy proposals - given that the latter would no more than somewhat ease the position of our severely cash-strapped health and social care services (Report, 27 May). Could the IFS now do us all a favour before this election gets underway and tell us once and for all what they think it would cost to "fully meet our public care needs" (viz, the figure which would meet all major needs, fully cover ongoing costs, and ultimately repay borrowing for associated capital expenditure) - as, for example, "a percentage increase on existing direct tax rates". Would, say, another 10% in all rates (2p on the 20% rate, 4p on 40% and 4.5p on the 45% rate) meet the bill? Or would the figure be more like 20% on all rates? Or some yet higher figure?
At least we would then reach square one in deciding what we should do to fully sort this out, at and beyond this election: pay the estimated direct tax increases; find other ways of raising revenue; get people to take out more private insurance; or contemplate continued strain on our ill and our frail old people till kingdom come?. I'm surprised that none of the reporters at the IFS presentation actually raised this. Come to think of it, the Guardian's own economic commentators may have their own estimates. In any event could someone, somewhere please enlighten us, preferably before we take to the booths?
Bernard Cummings
Erith, Kent