Clegg or Kenny??

[Marvin]

Marvin - I know the cuts will affect me - they will affect everybody. What's more, my wife works in the public sector. I've no doubt gained from they way it has become over bloated. But I've never formed my opinions out of self interest. My wife gets a gold plated public sector pension that will do me very well - but that doesn't make them fair.

We will all have a price to pay - but my point is that the public sector will have to bear the brunt of the cuts - because up to now it has remained largely unscathed, creating unfairness (ref pensions etc) which has to be addressed.

The banks should be screwed for their part - but we need to find a way of doing it which doesn't drive them away and subsequently generate less revenue. That's the sticky bit with a global system. Either way, screwing the banks wont in itself address the enormous defecit we've built up.

UTB

Alcoblade - Thanks for your e-mail and sorry I put your name wrong last time.

I agree with your sentiments all have to take some pain but at the minute to me the focus seems one way. I work in the public sector now but did work in the private sector for many years and didn't move for a pay rise and don't work less hard. I'm not quoting you when I put that just seems to be a general slant the governments putting on things at the minute. I'd accept a worse pension provision and even take a bit of a pay cut but as you may have guessed my jobs at risk despite where I work getting good national audit office reports, having low admin costs and doing something that needs to be done and me getting good appraisals. However we're now getting smeared a bit by certain ministers probably so they feel it will be easier to sack us but if they're going to do that to me I'd prefer a bit of humility and decency.

Paid for my season ticket already so might have some good footy to cheer me up might not as well

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Taxes. Which everyone in the public sector pays and which everyone in the public sector contributes to by buying goods from companies that make profits which are, in turn, taxed.
I remember Saint Vince telling us that the government needed to stop the likes of Tesco spiriting away their profits from tax but a bit like his pal Clegg I expect those principles to be long gone now.
I find the whole notion of a put upon private sector a bit disingenuous to say the least.

Exactly, Len.

The Government does not have any money of its own - it only has your money and my money whether we work in the public sector or the private sector.

 

[lenners]

Same old Len with his inability to answer a straight question.

I wont ask you one, I'll just state the facts for you to digest. The tax paid by public sector workers is on wages paid for by private sector revenue.

It's not rocket science.....

UTB

With that private sector revenue paid for, in part, by public sector workers who buy stuff. Like you said, not rocket science.
That's before you consider what public investment does for the private sector.
You just don't like the answers.

 

[raul]

In summary then, we are in the shit because some people work in the public sector, some people go on too many holidays and borrow whatever financial institutions will lend them (though they themselves are not at fault), and Gordon Brown.

When do we start giving single Mothers a good shoeing?

 

[Revolution]

When do we start giving single Mothers a good shoeing?

This coming Tuesday.

 

[alcoblade]

In summary then, we are in the shit because some people work in the public sector, some people go on too many holidays and borrow whatever financial institutions will lend them (though they themselves are not at fault), and Gordon Brown.

When do we start giving single Mothers a good shoeing?

Now you mention it.........

Where's Dazzler when I need him?



UTB

 

[alcoblade]

In summary then, we are in the shit because some people work in the public sector, some people go on too many holidays and borrow whatever financial institutions will lend them (though they themselves are not at fault), and Gordon Brown.

When do we start giving single Mothers a good shoeing?

But seriously, do you think that people borrowing beyond their means is solely the fault of the people lending the money?

UTB

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Lenny old chap. Its not rocket science is it?! A private sector employee will generate x pounds of revenue and buy stuff with it. A public sector employee will generate < x pounds and buy < stuff with it. The state has gotten too big. Either we can shrink it via a democratic process or we can stick our collective head in the sand and the bond market will force a resolution. If you want to know what that looks like go to Estonia where public sector workers have just taken a 40% cut in wages or a bit closer to home in Eire.

 

[JJ Sefton]

With that private sector revenue paid for, in part, by public sector workers who buy stuff. Like you said, not rocket science.
That's before you consider what public investment does for the private sector.
You just don't like the answers.

That doesnt add up though does it. You tax a producer so you can give money to people to buy his products and think this will make him better off?

 

[lenners]

That doesnt add up though does it. You tax a producer so you can give money to people to buy his products and think this will make him better off?

Come on, plenty of the tax goes back to business anyway either through supporting public sector workers who buy stuff from the private sector and often from infrastructure projects and the like which employ huge numbers either directly or indirectly.
The whole issue about what Clegg and the Tories are doing is whether they're pursuing a nonsensical scorched earth policy that will strangle demand in the economy by cutting too much too soon.
Going back to the Forgemasters decision, that's exactly the kind of decision that makes no sense. It was long-term, would benefit the economy long-term and so on. And it was a loan.
And all this targeting of the public sector etc and increasing taxes would carry much more credibility if we ever had a government that would tackle big business which avoids paying billions in tax.

 

[lenners]

Lenny old chap. Its not rocket science is it?! A private sector employee will generate x pounds of revenue and buy stuff with it. A public sector employee will generate < x pounds and buy < stuff with it. The state has gotten too big. Either we can shrink it via a democratic process or we can stick our collective head in the sand and the bond market will force a resolution. If you want to know what that looks like go to Estonia where public sector workers have just taken a 40% cut in wages or a bit closer to home in Eire.

I don't think anyone's disputing that the debt has to be dealt with, the issue is how.
The Forgemasters decision wasn't a good example of how to do it.

 

[JJ Sefton]

"Come on, plenty of the tax goes back to business anyway either through supporting public sector workers who buy stuff from the private sector and often from infrastructure projects and the like which employ huge numbers either directly or indirectly."

But none of that is to do with growth is it? Its carving up a cake which is fixed in size. We need a bigger cake. This is where the issue of productivity comes in. You say that taking £X from a producer in tax to pay a public sector worker who then uses this to buy goods from the producer is the same as a producer paying an employee £X who then uses this to buy goods from the producer.

It isnt. In the first instance the money has been funnelled through the public sector and in the second its stayed in the private sector (where it all comes from in the first place anyway). The fact is that the public sector is less productive than the private sector. Thus, the bigger share the public sector is of your economy the less productive its going to be and productivity, doing more with less, is the source of wealth and economic growth.

"The whole issue about what Clegg and the Tories are doing is whether they're pursuing a nonsensical scorched earth policy that will strangle demand in the economy by cutting too much too soon."

This idea of 'strangling demand' is a curious one. This is not money being taken out of an economy, its money being taken away from the government. Unless you think that 'the government' and 'the economy' are the same thing then all that is happening is that demand is shifting from the government to the private sector.

Thats is if were talking about tax. If we look at borrowing it stacks up even less well. All borrowing does is pull tomorrows consumption into today. If we keep borrowing as we are all we are doing is sacrificing tomorrows consumption for today. And if you really want to see money disappearing from the economy, think about the fact that by 2013 9p in every pound paid in tax will be spent, not on doctors and teachers, but on servicing British government debt. That really is money leaving the economy.

The typical get out here is to label the spending as 'investment', a term stretched beyond the point of meaninglessness by Brown over the last few years. A genuine investment is something that increases the long run productive capacity of the economy. It generates a return, in other words. But if its going to generate a return then why does it need government money? Surely, if theres money in it, the evil capitalists will be swarming like flies round shit to get a piece of the action?

 

[Micalijo]

"Come on, plenty of the tax goes back to business anyway either through supporting public sector workers who buy stuff from the private sector and often from infrastructure projects and the like which employ huge numbers either directly or indirectly."

But none of that is to do with growth is it? Its carving up a cake which is fixed in size. We need a bigger cake. This is where the issue of productivity comes in. You say that taking £X from a producer in tax to pay a public sector worker who then uses this to buy goods from the producer is the same as a producer paying an employee £X who then uses this to buy goods from the producer.

It isnt. In the first instance the money has been funnelled through the public sector and in the second its stayed in the private sector (where it all comes from in the first place anyway). The fact is that the public sector is less productive than the private sector. Thus, the bigger share the public sector is of your economy the less productive its going to be and productivity, doing more with less, is the source of wealth and economic growth.

"The whole issue about what Clegg and the Tories are doing is whether they're pursuing a nonsensical scorched earth policy that will strangle demand in the economy by cutting too much too soon."

This idea of 'strangling demand' is a curious one. This is not money being taken out of an economy, its money being taken away from the government. Unless you think that 'the government' and 'the economy' are the same thing then all that is happening is that demand is shifting from the government to the private sector.

Thats is if were talking about tax. If we look at borrowing it stacks up even less well. All borrowing does is pull tomorrows consumption into today. If we keep borrowing as we are all we are doing is sacrificing tomorrows consumption for today. And if you really want to see money disappearing from the economy, think about the fact that by 2013 9p in every pound paid in tax will be spent, not on doctors and teachers, but on servicing British government debt. That really is money leaving the economy.

The typical get out here is to label the spending as 'investment', a term stretched beyond the point of meaninglessness by Brown over the last few years. A genuine investment is something that increases the long run productive capacity of the economy. It generates a return, in other words. But if its going to generate a return then why does it need government money? Surely, if theres money in it, the evil capitalists will be swarming like flies round shit to get a piece of the action?

Why don't HSBC announce that they are building a nuclear power station then?

This particular industry has to be initiated by government policy in my opinion. Private sector cannot lend unless they have 100% cast iron guarantee that nuclear power is the policy for years and years. This requires I think government to be involved at that start.

The argument over whether or not we go for nuclear power or not is a different one of course and may have affected this decision but I don't think so.

 

[lenners]

Of course it's to do with growth. If you slash the public sector too much, too soon, put too many out of work, don't ensure that longer-term projects worthy of public support still get it (ie Forgemasters) you're only heading in one direction and it isn't some private sector led utopia.
You don't get a bigger cake by slashing the number of people able to pay for a bite.
And it's always worth remembering that a lot of private business relies on public sector investment.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Of course it's to do with growth. If you slash the public sector too much, too soon, put too many out of work, don't ensure that longer-term projects worthy of public support still get it (ie Forgemasters) you're only heading in one direction and it isn't some private sector led utopia.
You don't get a bigger cake by slashing the number of people able to pay for a bite.
And it's always worth remembering that a lot of private business relies on public sector investment.

You get a bigger cake, as Ive said, by shifting people from the unproductive public sector to the productive private sector.

"You don't get a bigger cake by slashing the number of people able to pay for a bite."

Youre unlikely to get it by bankrupting the country either.

You say that "a lot of private business relies on public sector investment" but you have to ask where this money comes from. The answer is the private sector.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

At the core of Tory thinking, always has been and always will be, is the belief that the public sector is largely unnecessary. It costs too much, it generates no income and there isn't a great deal of money to be made from it for their traditional supporters. It also means that you have to keep tax levels at a reasonably high level in order to fund it, whereas they prefer money in the pocket for people to pay for services that they need, rather than all pay up front. It means, of course, that those with the wonger keep it and don't subsidise those that haven't got it through the tax system.

 

[Deleted member 2102]

Of course it's to do with growth. If you slash the public sector too much, too soon, put too many out of work, don't ensure that longer-term projects worthy of public support still get it (ie Forgemasters) you're only heading in one direction and it isn't some private sector led utopia.
You don't get a bigger cake by slashing the number of people able to pay for a bite.
And it's always worth remembering that a lot of private business relies on public sector investment.

The last two fiscal retrenchments in the early 80s and mid 90s were immediatly followed by a period of above trend growth.

 

[Jon Bon]

Jesus fucking christ, don't you people have jobs to do (public/private sector or otherwise)? Spending all morning on here arguing the toss, you don't work in banking do you..?

Anyway, that's my token lunchtime post done. Back to the public sector grind now...

 

[alcoblade]

Jesus fucking christ, don't you people have jobs to do (public/private sector or otherwise)? Spending all morning on here arguing the toss, you don't work in banking do you..?

Anyway, that's my token lunchtime post done. Back to the public sector grind now...

So you've been using the internet for personal use from your public sector workplace? There's no wonder we're going down the pan.



UTB

 

[Jon Bon]

So you've been using the internet for personal use from your public sector workplace? There's no wonder we're going down the pan.



UTB

Not necessarily. I could have been posting using my phone whilst sat on the bog having a dump, which I believe in the private sector is called 'multi-tasking'....

 

[alcoblade]

Not necessarily. I could have been posting using my phone whilst sat on the bog having a dump, which I believe in the private sector is called 'multi-tasking'....

If you're having a dump, do it on works time. Now that is a universal law.

UTB

 

[DuncDisorderly]

If you're having a dump, do it on works time. Now that is a universal law.

UTB

Its the only activity of the day where you pay attention to finishing the paperwork properly...

 

[lenners]

You get a bigger cake, as Ive said, by shifting people from the unproductive public sector to the productive private sector.

"You don't get a bigger cake by slashing the number of people able to pay for a bite."

Youre unlikely to get it by bankrupting the country either.

You say that "a lot of private business relies on public sector investment" but you have to ask where this money comes from. The answer is the private sector.

It's a circular argument about investment and I'm yet to hear of the construction firm, for one example, shouting from the rooftops that we should never be spending big on the Olympics, for another example.
We would essentially see the public sector completely differently anyway. I see it as a vital component in a healthy society, without which we'd revert to a pretty nasty, cut-throat collection of individuals which Thatcher thinks we all are anyway.
The biggest culprits in all this will remain big business who rely on the public sector to keep society functioning smoothly to collect their huge profits but then see no problem in hiding as much as possible from the taxman.
It's a funny old world.

 

[alcoblade]

It's a circular argument about investment and I'm yet to hear of the construction firm, for one example, shouting from the rooftops that we should never be spending big on the Olympics, for another example.

And on a similar theme, I've never seen a Rurkey voting for Christmas. It'snot rocket science.

We would essentially see the public sector completely differently anyway. I see it as a vital component in a healthy society, without which we'd revert to a pretty nasty, cut-throat collection of individuals which Thatcher thinks we all are anyway.

I don't think that there are really many people around, other than ideologists, who would disagree. But there's a small matter of paying for it all. Asking our kids to pay for what people can't afford today seems just about as unfair as it could get. And accepting that the public sector is vital to healthy society doesn't mean that the larger it gets, the better is it. It's clearly too big right now. One in four pounds spent on it is borrowed. It's not rocket science....

The biggest culprits in all this will remain big business who rely on the public sector to keep society functioning smoothly to collect their huge profits but then see no problem in hiding as much as possible from the taxman.

I don't know about "the biggest culprits of all", afterall they raise the revenue that pays yours and my wife's salary. But we can all agree that tax evasion, wherever possible, should be stamped out.

UTB

 

[lenners]

Re-read my posts Alco, I didn't say the debt doesn't need dealing with. The issue is how.
And let's not forget the role the blessed private sector had in getting us to this situation, with all that wonderful 'wealth creation'.

 

[alcoblade]

Re-read my posts Alco, I didn't say the debt doesn't need dealing with. The issue is how.
And let's not forget the role the blessed private sector had in getting us to this situation, with all that wonderful 'wealth creation'.

The issue is how - with everyone facing a cut complaining that it shouldn't be them. I'd agree for supporting manufacturing businesses more though. But that really is the thin end of a large wedge.

However much you refuse to recognise it, big business created the wealth that we all enjoy. That doesn't absolve it of the responsibility of its' share of what went wrong.

UTB

 

[JJ Sefton]

"It's a circular argument about investment and I'm yet to hear of the construction firm, for one example, shouting from the rooftops that we should never be spending big on the Olympics, for another example"

Of course theyre not, would you expect them to? No one is against public spending when they are getting some of it. But as a London Council Tax payer I can tell you that I am pretty cheesed off with my taxes being yanked up to keep Balfour Beatty and Seb Coe in work.

"We would essentially see the public sector completely differently anyway. I see it as a vital component in a healthy society..."

I do as well and Ive never said different. There are some functions that only a public sector can provide. We disagree on quite what it should do, I think it should do less. We also differ on whether we live in the real world, where we have just had a recession which has shrunk the private sectors ability to carry the public sector thus necessitating cuts, or dreamland where this doesnt matter and we can keep on going as we have been.

 

[lenners]

I just see life through a different lens Alco. I don't see big business as a panacea for all our ills but do see it as part of many of the ills we have.
They sure helped get us where we are today.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I just see life through a different lens Alco. I don't see big business as a panacea for all our ills but do see it as part of many of the ills we have.
They sure helped get us where we are today.

Why do you think that 'private sector' = 'big business'? Most private sector employment is in SME's (Small to Medium Enterprises). They create 65% of new British jobs in the average year.

 

[lenners]

"It's a circular argument about investment and I'm yet to hear of the construction firm, for one example, shouting from the rooftops that we should never be spending big on the Olympics, for another example"

Of course theyre not, would you expect them to? No one is against public spending when they are getting some of it. But as a London Council Tax payer I can tell you that I am pretty cheesed off with my taxes being yanked up to keep Balfour Beatty and Seb Coe in work.

"We would essentially see the public sector completely differently anyway. I see it as a vital component in a healthy society..."

I do as well and Ive never said different. There are some functions that only a public sector can provide. We disagree on quite what it should do, I think it should do less. We also differ on whether we live in the real world, where we have just had a recession which has shrunk the private sectors ability to carry the public sector thus necessitating cuts, or dreamland where this doesnt matter and we can keep on going as we have been.

But as I said, it's a circular argument. Building the Olympics stuff has no doubt massively helped London's economy, particularly its private sector.
Talking of the real world, which real world were the banks and their business pals living in?
It's funny how the public sector will now be the villains, just like the poor and people on benefits will be targeted and not those big businesses who avoid billions in tax.
Probably just a co-incidence.