228066 Bullies, 4776 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 31 to 40 of 99
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 5678 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 6:39am

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    The 70's were long before my time. Is there any actual evidence to support the claim that the super rich would leave?
    Yes, they left in droves. By the end of the 1970s, after a term of Labour government, the country was begging the IMF for a bailout and there were constant strikes. Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979 on the basis that most British people were sick and tired of watching the country being dragged into terminal decline by militant unions and money-losing nationalised industries that required constant subsidy to stay afloat.

    So how do we cut the deficit? Where is all the money being spent? Is the public sector really that bloated?
    i) Read the jobs pages of the Guardian. It's full of the kind of unproductive jobs I was talking about earlier.

    ii) Compare number of days off sick taken in the public sector to the private sector.

    iii) Look at the difference in pension costs between full-time, permanent public sector workers and everybody else. They're much more generous terms, and they're entirely funded by the taxpayer. This is getting to be a bigger deal as the baby-boomers retire.

    Government spending in the UK accounts for about 50% of our economy. In 'communist' china, it's only about a quarter to a third of their economy.

    That's not a typo. A bigger proportion of our economy is under political control than in China. That's what I call a bloated public sector.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  2. adskibullus is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    435

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 7:33am


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Yes, they left in droves. By the end of the 1970s, after a term of Labour government, the country was begging the IMF for a bailout and there were constant strikes. Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979 on the basis that most British people were sick and tired of watching the country being dragged into terminal decline by militant unions and money-losing nationalised industries that required constant subsidy to stay afloat.



    i) Read the jobs pages of the Guardian. It's full of the kind of unproductive jobs I was talking about earlier.

    ii) Compare number of days off sick taken in the public sector to the private sector.

    iii) Look at the difference in pension costs between full-time, permanent public sector workers and everybody else. They're much more generous terms, and they're entirely funded by the taxpayer. This is getting to be a bigger deal as the baby-boomers
    So there's a good chance that they would leave, this is bad.

    What's your source for the number of days taken off ill by public sector workers? Also about pensions is it not fair to say that they have better pensions to counter that they earn less than they would working in the private sector.

    I know teachers say that with their level of qualification they could earn more in the private sector but teach because its a vocation that they want instead of pure money earning.

    Seems like alot of the lefties workin the public sector.
  3. judoka_uk is offline
    judoka_uk's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,619

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 8:11am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    It's all well and good saying that private health care and mutuals can provide health care but what would be in place to protect the workers who paid in if these mutuals go bust? Like when firms who provided private pensions went bust and left many people who were due for retirement out of pocket.
    Well generally they competed on safety and quality, so people only paid their money into mutuals and friendly societies that were well run and safe.

    Of course it is possible for them to go bust and now and again pension funds do go bust, but it's a relatively rare occurrence and as with any financial investment you have to accept that there is no such thing as risk free.

    The greater issue is that if we keep on having the state pay for things there is a very real danger that the government will go bust. The tax base is too small and too mobile to support the size of government we already have, expand it and companies and rich people will leave.

    Given that 30,000 people pay 11% of all income tax, it would only take a few thousand leaving to dramatically increase the amount of tax we would have to pay to make up for what they used to pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    Ok so I now see that UK uncut aren't as honest as they seem and have their own agenda. But the coalition government are still cutting benifits to the most vulnerable members of society. Take for instance the budget for social services in London. The richest areas like kennisgton are having the smallest reduction in budget where's as some of the poorest and most troubled areas like hackney are having huge budget reductions, meaning less social workers doing more work and more vulnerable people suffering.
    Does it not make sense that the richest part of London would spend very little on benefits and so would make the majority of cuts to it's overall budget in places other than benefits?

    That's the reason Kensington's social services budget has small cuts and Hackney's has large cuts, because Kensington spends most of it's budget on things other than social services and Hackney spends most of it's budget on social services.

    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    Why not tax the super rich that bit extra? They can afford it, would they really leave the country if they had to pay more tax?
    Because making someone else bear the burden for unaffordable government spending is what has gotten us into this mess. The top 1% already pay 26% of all income tax and the top 0.1%, pay 11% of income tax. The richest already pay huge amounts of tax.

    Tax people who are rich enough to move and whose ability to make money is mobile and they will leave. We don't have to get into abstract economics and discuss the Laffer curve, or even look at history, you simply have to look across the channel at France, right now.

    The socialist government introduced a 75% tax rate for earnings over a million Euros and bam, France's richest man, Bernard Arnault, leaves the country.

    Even those who are rich, but not super rich are leaving, actor Gérard Depardieu has quit the country for Belgium and put his multi million pound Paris home on sale.

    People who are rich enough to leave will simply not sit there and be fleeced and given how significant the contribution of the rich is no country, especially not ours, can afford to hike up it's tax rates and then watch the people who pay the most tax walk away.

    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    The coalition government want to make the poor poorer which just leads to more desperation and more crime .
    Why on earth would they want to make the poor poorer what could they possibly have to gain by that?
  4. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 8:33am

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    What's your source for the number of days taken off ill by public sector workers?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ve-a-year.html

    This analysis goes deeper and tries to excuse the difference by saying that people in the private sector 'may not feel able to take time off when they are ill', as if that's a problem with the private sector workers.

    http://fullfact.org/factchecks/publi...ck_leave-27245

    The average number of days sick leave in the public sector is about 12 days a year.

    Where I work (in the private sector) it's 3 days a year.

    Also about pensions is it not fair to say that they have better pensions to counter that they earn less than they would working in the private sector.
    No, it's not fair to say that. Public sector wages are now higher than the median private sector wage, and many public sector workers are doing jobs which wouldn't exist in the private sector because no customer who has a choice in the matter actually thinks what they do is useful (re-read the Guardian jobs page).

    I know teachers say that with their level of qualification they could earn more in the private sector but teach because its a vocation that they want instead of pure money earning.
    That's just delusion on their part. Partly because the average teacher is less academically well qualified (in terms of degree class, and prestige of institution) than you find in the best paid parts of the private sector, and partly because, as one might expect from people who've never left school, they're massively overestimating the value of paper credentials awarded by academics as compared to things like work ethic.

    And if they don't care about money, why are they always threatening to go on strike in order to get more money ?

    Seems like alot of the lefties working the public sector.
    Hold that thought.

    It's almost as if there's a mysterious connection between people deriving their income from public spending.. and those same people investing lots of time creating all kinds of tortuous and self-righteous political justifications for increased public spending...

    It's kind of obvious, no ? You're being continually fed 'spin' about economic reality by big swathes of the professions that you rely on for much of your information: The BBC, the educational professions, and employees of large government departments.
    It's not about the truth, it's about these people protecting their working conditions and pensions at your expense.
    Last edited by Cullion; 12/28/2012 8:51am at .
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  5. adskibullus is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    435

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 10:21am


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Although legally reducing the tax you pay is legal it's morally wrong. Of course the government need to cut the budget deficit but shouldn't they also be looking at ways of plugging these loop holes so that the system is more fair. Why cut public sector jobs when the private sector is struggling, this just adds to more unemployment and more people on JSA.
  6. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 10:41am

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    Although legally reducing the tax you pay is legal it's morally wrong.
    That's absurd. The government takes money by force and wastes massive amounts of it on simple incompetence and handing it out to special interest groups with good political contacts. Of course it isn't immoral to avoid being leeched on by such a system.

    Of course the government need to cut the budget deficit but shouldn't they also be looking at ways of plugging these loop holes so that the system is more fair. Why cut public sector jobs when the private sector is struggling, this just adds to more unemployment and more people on JSA.
    Because many of the public sector jobs aren't productive and the tax & debt burden required to sustain them is a big part of what is making the private sector struggle.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  7. adskibullus is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    435

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 11:10am


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    That's absurd. The government takes money by force and wastes massive amounts of it on simple incompetence and handing it out to special interest groups with good political contacts. Of course it isn't immoral to avoid being leeched on by such a system.



    Because many of the public sector jobs aren't productive and the tax & debt burden required to sustain them is a big part of what is making the private sector struggle.
    How do you define productive? The public sector provides a service it cannot be run on or be judged by its profits or losses. You can't put a price on the services the public sector provides.

    Although I do realise the public sector does waste alot If money. I know somebody who's had a year off fully paid from their NHS job due to stress. Still why cut the public sector so hard when the private sector can't accommodate them. Surely it would have been better to make cuts slowly while focusing on boosting the economy by forcing banks to lend money to small businesses, and encourage entrepreneurial ideas.

    How do we trim the fat from the public sector without harming front line services? Are we suggesting privatisation of the public sector? If we are will this have negative effects on the services given? Would you feel comfortable have a doctor basing your treatment on cost of an operation etc?
  8. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 11:26am

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    How do you define productive?
    Does this person do something useful? Does this person seem to take much more time to do their job than somebody would to do a similar job in the private sector because of archaic working practices and union-imposed regulations ?

    The public sector provides a service it cannot be run on or be judged by its profits or losses. You can't put a price on the services the public sector provides.
    Yes I can, and in most cases it's really easy because there are private sector equivalents I can compare them to. In some cases I can just look at the wage bill for a function and think 'do I actually want to pay somebody to do that at all ?'
    In some of those cases the answer is no.

    How do we trim the fat from the public sector without harming front line services?
    Radically change the pension entitlements of new employees to come into line with the private sector.

    Re-read the Guardian jobs page. Every time you come across a job that doesn't really sound very essential, then I propose we just don't have one at all.

    Are we suggesting privatisation of the public sector?
    In a few cases. In other cases I'm suggesting that the public sector is doing things we don't need it to do at all (e.g. Guardian jobs pages), or that in some cases the staff are not giving as good value for money as private sector staff doing similar jobs (throwing more sickies, overly generous pension schemes etc..).

    Would you feel comfortable have a doctor basing your treatment on cost of an operation etc?
    The NHS already does that.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  9. adskibullus is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    435

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 11:47am


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I have no idea what half of the jobs in the guardian actually mean so I've got no way of distinguishing if there worthy or not. Also they all advertise under agencies so I can't see weather there private or public sector.

    It does piss me off when I see that teachers are striking over the fact that they haven't had a pay rise in 3 years when people in my industry have had a 30% pay cut our wages are what they were 10 years ago! Although you could argue that the recessions wasn't cause buy publuc sector workers it was rotten bankers so why should they pay for others mistakes?
  10. judoka_uk is offline
    judoka_uk's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,619

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 11:55am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    Although legally reducing the tax you pay is legal it's morally wrong. Of course the government need to cut the budget deficit but shouldn't they also be looking at ways of plugging these loop holes so that the system is more fair. Why cut public sector jobs when the private sector is struggling, this just adds to more unemployment and more people on JSA.
    Unfortunately we're looking at a situation where ideology becomes irrelevant, because the maths renders arguments about morality of tax avoidance null and void.



    We simply cannot afford to pay for all the things government does and even if we expropriate all the assets and wealth from 'the rich' it still wouldn't plug the hole.

    The Coalition's cuts are small and slow, they actually plan to reducing public sector borrowing, note just borrowing not debt, slower than Labour's Alistair Darling planned to do before they lost the election.



    Whichever party is in power is going to have to radically start scaling back the amount government spends, because if they don't in 10-15 years we'll be in a worse shape than Greece. Then the politicians will have to do things people really aren't going to like such as completely privatising the NHS, tolls on the whole road network, dragging people on 20k a year into the 40% tax bracket etc... etc...

    It's going to get really nasty and it's not going to be avoided by arguments about morality or fairness, because maths isn't moral and it isn't fair it's just the maths.
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 5678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.