Public sector watch
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
No mate, you are the one with the comprehension problems.
Still, no point arguing with an idiot. Aaaarm Ooot.
If you can explain to me how a Command Economy works (where theoretically everything is Public Sector and there is no Private Sector to fund Public Sector) I'll happily shut up Still, no point arguing with an idiot. Aaaarm Ooot.
Countdown said:
johnfm said:
Are you being intentionally daft as some sort of Internet persona? Or are you actually this daft in real life?
I don't think aim daft (well, not in this topic ). I have a degree in Economics and 20-odd years of working in Finance. I don't expect everybody to be an expert in Economics. However what IS daft is when they patently don't know what they're talking about but INSIST that they do.johnfm said:
Are you really unable to undertake a simple analysis of what happens to direct tax revenues between publicly and privately funded employees?
Clue: in one case the total direct tax revenue increases. In the other it doesn't.
No, I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish. Tax revenues increase as the supply of goods and services (GDP) within the Economy increases. It is completely irrelevant whether that production/consumption occurs within the Private Sector or the Public sector. Again for those people who don't understand economics;Clue: in one case the total direct tax revenue increases. In the other it doesn't.
Total hypothetical govt tax account balance stands at £990,000 at this point
Private Sector
I earn £30,000 and pay £10,000 tax. Tax balance now at £1,000,000
You pay Bupa for nursing > Bupa pays employee £30,000> Employee pays tax of £10,000
Total tax account now stands at £1,010,000
Public sector
as before, starting Total tax balance stands at £1,000,000
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay NHS tax balance now £970,000 > NHS pays Employee > Employee pays tax tax balance now £980,000 OR
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay Circle Healthcare Ltd > CHL pays Employee > Employee pays tax
So, there is no difference in the
Person buying the service
Person providing the service
Amount of tax generated
I think what you are describing is the idea that the nurse spending her net income by consuming things generates not only additional indirect taxes, but the flow of her net income into private companies generates additional tax revenues as those companies generate taxable returns from the cash they receive from the nurse.
You seem to be saying that, eventually, the nurse recycle tax revenue leads to greater tax receipts as she spends it in the economy, which grows and thereby generates more tax revenue.
Edited by johnfm on Friday 21st June 08:08
mph1977 said:
pork911 said:
sd477667 said:
And what of those public sector bods in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that don't fight are in no danger yet still receive bonuses? Those involved in creating a £35bn black hole with whacky procurement practices, what about them? They should be charged for their incompetence then taken out and shot by the soldiers whose lives their incompetence put in danger.
Of course we need binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians etc but there are all the other non essential types and only a weapons grade retard would think that all state jobs are essential and can't be done away with tomorrow without anybody noticing.
High time we had state austerity as we haven't come close yet.
but do we need all the binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians we have and do they have to be paid as much as they do given the 'public service' badge that's so often worn so heavily? Of course we need binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians etc but there are all the other non essential types and only a weapons grade retard would think that all state jobs are essential and can't be done away with tomorrow without anybody noticing.
High time we had state austerity as we haven't come close yet.
"Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt promises 'very, very serious consequences' for anyone found to have covered up failings in the NHS. Care Quality Commission is working with employment lawyers to take action against Cynthia Bower and Jill Finney who were named in a damning report. Cover-up bosses could lose £1.5million pension pot."
pork911 said:
mph1977 said:
pork911 said:
sd477667 said:
And what of those public sector bods in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that don't fight are in no danger yet still receive bonuses? Those involved in creating a £35bn black hole with whacky procurement practices, what about them? They should be charged for their incompetence then taken out and shot by the soldiers whose lives their incompetence put in danger.
Of course we need binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians etc but there are all the other non essential types and only a weapons grade retard would think that all state jobs are essential and can't be done away with tomorrow without anybody noticing.
High time we had state austerity as we haven't come close yet.
but do we need all the binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians we have and do they have to be paid as much as they do given the 'public service' badge that's so often worn so heavily? Of course we need binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians etc but there are all the other non essential types and only a weapons grade retard would think that all state jobs are essential and can't be done away with tomorrow without anybody noticing.
High time we had state austerity as we haven't come close yet.
turbobloke said:
"Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt promises 'very, very serious consequences' for anyone found to have covered up failings in the NHS. Care Quality Commission is working with employment lawyers to take action against Cynthia Bower and Jill Finney who were named in a damning report. Cover-up bosses could lose £1.5million pension pot."
1) Good if true. I presume as much whitewash as they think they can get away with but would be delighted to be wrong.2) How the hell can anyone amass a £1.5M pension pot? £50k pa for 30 years- what 20-30 year old has a pension anywhere near that? I think NHS pension plans require a little adjustment for the real world.
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
system which deems the worth ...........as 27k + shift allowance ... ( e.g. Nurses, ODPs and Paramedics )
Plus superb pension, huge job security, promotion prospects, fully funded CPD.............Tell the whole story.
job security = minimal - if a manager decides they want rid they can do it very easily, all they need to do is make an issue of any omission you make or decide that any complaint or concern from a colleague or patient is something thy 'take this very seriously '
promotion prospects = minimal the pyramid narrows very tightly above band 5 in Nursing ,ODP and Ambulance settings and narrows very tightly at above band 6 for physio, OT and midwifery ( physios and OTs generally receive minimal shift allowances - so the band 5 nurse often earns more at the cost of his /her weekends and nights ) the typical RN staffing pyramid for a ward is something like 15-20* band 5 , 2 or 3 * band 6 , 1 * band 7 - and it's might be slightly more generous pro rata in 'department' settings ( e.g. ED, Critical care, theatres - but that can often include posts at 6 and 7 established as practitioner posts e.g. ENP in the ED or ASP in theatres)
fully funded CPD = sorry that's bulls
t, last fully funded external accredited CPD I did was in 2003 - while fees may have been paid since i've had to do anything externally accredited in my own time. Mandatory internal training = done in own time other than CPR - as it;s all paper based / on line .... mph1977 said:
pension - good but not superb
Other's views might vary on that. You agree that you omitted the 'good' pension, though.mph1977 said:
job security = minimal
When's the last time you heard of the NHS laying off thousands of workers a la Rover, Peugeot, Lloyds, et al?mph1977 said:
promotion prospects = minimal
Not the same as non-existent, is it?mph1977 said:
fully funded CPD = sorry that's bullst
My sister gets it, my ex gets it, my friend gets it; I'm convinced they're not the only 3 in the country. Fees paid, time off for exams & courses.tjohnfm said:
Total hypothetical govt tax account balance stands at £990,000 at this point
Private Sector
I earn £30,000 and pay £10,000 tax. Tax balance now at £1,000,000
You pay Bupa for nursing > Bupa pays employee £30,000> Employee pays tax of £10,000
Total tax account now stands at £1,010,000
You had £20k left after you paid tax. So where did BUPA get £30k from to pay their employee? Private Sector
I earn £30,000 and pay £10,000 tax. Tax balance now at £1,000,000
You pay Bupa for nursing > Bupa pays employee £30,000> Employee pays tax of £10,000
Total tax account now stands at £1,010,000
Would this be a better example?
1. You earn £30k, you pay BUPA £5k for nursing services. £5k to G4S and £5k to Eton School
2. You earn £30k, Govt taxes you at 50% and pays NHS £5k, the Police £5k, and your local Comp £5k.
The Govt will TAX bith sets of nurses, Police & G4S, and both sets of teachers. It will use that money to provide THEM with with Public Services
johnfm said:
Public sector
as before, starting Total tax balance stands at £1,000,000
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay NHS tax balance now £970,000 > NHS pays Employee > Employee pays tax tax balance now £980,000 OR
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay Circle Healthcare Ltd > CHL pays Employee > Employee pays tax
From looking at your calculations the £20k deficit is the same as the £20k that is missing from the first (BUPA) calculation ?? Maybe if you could explain where BUPA got the £30k from to pay it’s employee (because that would appear to be the same as the £10k you paid in tax plus the £20k deficit in the second example.)as before, starting Total tax balance stands at £1,000,000
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay NHS tax balance now £970,000 > NHS pays Employee > Employee pays tax tax balance now £980,000 OR
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay Circle Healthcare Ltd > CHL pays Employee > Employee pays tax
johnfm said:
This, of course, totally ignores the additional credits to the tax balance from the consumption taxes of the £20,000 net income that the nurse then spends in the economy. But this, again, would merely be recycled tax revenue.
I think what you are describing is the idea that the nurse spending her net income by consuming things generates not only additional indirect taxes, but the flow of her net income into private companies generates additional tax revenues as those companies generate taxable returns from the cash they receive from the nurse.
You seem to be saying that, eventually, the nurse recycle tax revenue leads to greater tax receipts as she spends it in the economy, which grows and thereby generates more tax revenue.
No. What you’re referring to is the “Keynesian Multiplier” effect. This is a completely different aspect of economics. A simple example would be how an injection of £1 into the economy can create £5 worth of economic goods;I think what you are describing is the idea that the nurse spending her net income by consuming things generates not only additional indirect taxes, but the flow of her net income into private companies generates additional tax revenues as those companies generate taxable returns from the cash they receive from the nurse.
You seem to be saying that, eventually, the nurse recycle tax revenue leads to greater tax receipts as she spends it in the economy, which grows and thereby generates more tax revenue.
Govt borrows £1 and builds a road
Roadbuilder spends 90p on machinery/tarmac etc
Suppliers spend 80p on their input goods
And so on…..
The amount of goods/services produced are £1 + 90p + 80p…..
At each stage the Govt levies tax and (in theory) this should be used to repay the original £1 borrowing.
Just on a general note - ALL money is recycled, there is no such thing as "Public sector" money being just "recycled" private sector money. For example, if we assume no State Sector a 100% efficient free market would operate as follows; You pay the baker, he pays the electrician etc etc etc until somebody pays you for a service that you provide.
Rovinghawk said:
Plus superb pension, huge job security, promotion prospects, fully funded CPD.............
Tell the whole story.
Pension's very good (depending on which scheme you're in). LGPS is ridiculously good.Tell the whole story.
Job security - it DOES depend which branch of HMG you work in but I'd agree that it's probably better than Private sector
Promotion prospects - very little at the moment unless you chop and change jobs. Otherwise it's dead men's shoes.
Fully funded CPD?
Maybe, if it was statutory stuff like safeguarding, but the "nice to have" stuff like MBAs etc are rare (they were rare 20 years ago when I started - usually it was 50:50)Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
pension - good but not superb
Other's views might vary on that. You agree that you omitted the 'good' pension, though.mph1977 said:
job security = minimal
When's the last time you heard of the NHS laying off thousands of workers a la Rover, Peugeot, Lloyds, et al?mph1977 said:
promotion prospects = minimal
Not the same as non-existent, is it?mph1977 said:
fully funded CPD = sorry that's bullst
My sister gets it, my ex gets it, my friend gets it; I'm convinced they're not the only 3 in the country. Fees paid, time off for exams & courses.tMy Mrs is a Mental Health Nurse and pays far more into her pension than I do into my private one. Yes she'll get a better pension to me, but she's put a lot of her own money in to get it. 2 local mental health trusts have just merged, just about everyone is having to re-apply for their own jobs, there have been big job losses, and the ward she's on is chronically under staffed but there's been no recruitment of trained staff for 2 years. No pay rise for the last three years and I think 1% is on the horizon. All her training is in her own time, and if you don't keep up with it you can't go into work. Due to staff shortages she's having to go into work in the middle of a weeks holiday to do interviews for a new untrained member of staff, for which she'll get TOIL that she can't take due to the staff shortages.
So for every flapjack inspector or diversity co-ordinator there's often an overworked and underpaid member of the public sector with still relatively poor working conditions, battling away against the system, often at great personal sacrifice.
eccles said:
So for every flapjack inspector or diversity co-ordinator there's often an overworked and underpaid member of the public sector with still relatively poor working conditions, battling away against the system, often at great personal sacrifice.
Denying that would be as poor as justifying the non-jobs by mentioning the genuine workers.I consider that 'public sector watch' is about the hangers-on rather than the worker bees.
My post earlier was in response to what I considered to be disingenuous & misleading statements.
Rovinghawk said:
I consider that 'public sector watch' is about the hangers-on rather than the worker bees.
There are significantly more worker bees than hangers-on in non-jobs. However I agree that, no matter how few, they need to be replaced. It's impossible to surgically remove the deadwood because of the way they are embedded into the system The only solution I can think of is to make the massive (arbitary) cuts that the Tories are making in order to force LAs to rationalise their service delivery.Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
It's impossible to surgically remove the deadwood because of the way they are embedded into the system
Why were 'diversity training coordination managers' hired in the first place? Why can they not be made redundant or moved into real jobs?To put it another way; do you want your Local Authority to deliver the Service "You" want or the Service "They" think "You" want? Assuming you are a Taxpayer I would guess that it's the former rather than the latter. So surely they need understand "Your" needs/wants etc?
Rovinghawk said:
non-jobs (which you accept exist) hired in the first place?
You don't need to convince me - I know they exist. Personally I blame the increase in LA funding during the New Labour years which led to significant "mission creep" by LAs. Rather than concentrating on the essentials (and reducing CT) they seemed to start spending onj "Nice to have Nanny State" stuff.Rovinghawk said:
OK- Why were '5-a-day coordination managers' and other similar non-jobs (which you accept exist) hired in the first place? Why can they not be made redundant or moved into real jobs?
Having said all that I don't think there are THAT many non-jobs, in proportion to the total workforce. Some elements of the Public Sector seem to have more than others. NDPBs / Quangos seem to exist solely to p155 money up the wall, whereas a big part of LAs work seems to be looking after the elderly/kids/roads etc which IMO is quite important.Countdown said:
Private Sector
You pay Bupa for nursing > Bupa pays employee > Employee pays tax
Public sector
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay NHS > NHS pays Employee > Employee pays tax
Money that has already been taxed then goes to BUPAYou pay Bupa for nursing > Bupa pays employee > Employee pays tax
Public sector
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay NHS > NHS pays Employee > Employee pays tax
Compulsory Tax goes to NHS nurse and she gives some of it back
johnfm said:
This, of course, totally ignores the additional credits to the tax balance from the consumption taxes of the £20,000 net income that the nurse then spends in the economy. But this, again, would merely be recycled tax revenue.
I think what you are describing is the idea that the nurse spending her net income by consuming things generates not only additional indirect taxes, but the flow of her net income into private companies generates additional tax revenues as those companies generate taxable returns from the cash they receive from the nurse.
You seem to be saying that, eventually, the nurse recycle tax revenue leads to greater tax receipts as she spends it in the economy, which grows and thereby generates more tax revenue.
Following that train of thought to its logical conclusion.I think what you are describing is the idea that the nurse spending her net income by consuming things generates not only additional indirect taxes, but the flow of her net income into private companies generates additional tax revenues as those companies generate taxable returns from the cash they receive from the nurse.
You seem to be saying that, eventually, the nurse recycle tax revenue leads to greater tax receipts as she spends it in the economy, which grows and thereby generates more tax revenue.
Edited by johnfm on Friday 21st June 08:08
Up JSA and Inc Support to £1m a year - after all, it will go back into the economy won't it?
Giving Vikki Pollard £1m it is much more likely to be spent than some Toff getting £1m isn't?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff