About to get much easier for companies to sack folk
Discussion
0000 said:
Countdown said:
If the Government disappeared tomorrow the services currently regarded as Public Sector would still exist, (albeit for most people they would be less affordable and, consequently demand would probably fall)
An awful lot wouldn't exist and certainly wouldn't exist in the same way; welfare, planning departments, public transport. I don't think it's as clear cut as saying private sector taxes don't fund the public sector. It's a mixed picture - some sections people would probably be happy to pay more for better service, while others would fall by the wayside.Countdown said:
But i think your original point was that only private sector taxes fund the Public Sector, and that clearly isn't the case.
All taxation is ultimately derived from the private sector. Imagine an economy with 100 private sector employees and 20 public sector employees.The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
Gaspode said:
All taxation is ultimately derived from the private sector. Imagine an economy with 100 private sector employees and 20 public sector employees.
The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
All taxation is ultimately derived from the individual. Where the individual works is almost irrelevant. The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
heebeegeetee said:
All taxation is ultimately derived from the individual.
I think you'll find that private sector companies pay a fair amount of tax.heebeegeetee said:
Where the individual works is almost irrelevant.
Not if you are one of the private sector taxpayers whose tax is used to pay the tax of the public sector employees.Gaspode said:
Not if you are one of the private sector taxpayers whose tax is used to pay the tax of the public sector employees.
It goes both ways. Business runs the UK, and always has done. This country is more in the hands of the business world than any other in Europe, imo. The taxes of individuals goes to support both private and public sectors. Whether we like it or not, one way or the other we all fund the Fred Goodwins, whether they're private or public or whether they're a success or a failure. heebeegeetee said:
All taxation is ultimately derived from the individual. Where the individual works is almost irrelevant.
Gaspode is right.The public sector employee paying tax is merely giving back some of the private sector tax receipts they received as salary. Ultimately if they were paid less but not taxed on it, it would amount to the same thing.
There is no magic government money pot, much as Gordon Brown thought there was.
Gaspode said:
All taxation is ultimately derived from the private sector. Imagine an economy with 100 private sector employees and 20 public sector employees.
The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
In your example the Public Sector workers are employed via the Govt. If the Govt did not exist the PubSec jobs would still exist but you would pay them directly rather than through tax. As I stated above there is no difference in the taxes paid by a BUPA doctor or the taxes paid by an NHS doctor. It's only the way in which the service is procured.The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
To suggest the "private sector" wholly funds the"public sector" is wrong. You gave an example of a theoretical 100% State-controlled economy, where all production of goods & services is controlled/directed by the State. It would be massively inefficient but it demonstrates how the Public Sector is funded by ALL taxpayers.
Gaspode said:
All taxation is ultimately derived from the private sector. Imagine an economy with 100 private sector employees and 20 public sector employees.
The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
The total income /budget of the Govt is not £6000, it's £8,200. £6k from the private sector £1.2k from the public sector. And the tax raised is proportional to the number of employees in each sector.The 100 private sector employees earn 100 per year and pay 60 per year in direct and indirect taxation. The Government now has an income of 6000 per year. The Public sector now funds services it provides, and pays 2000 of the 6000 to its employees, from whom it recovers 60 x 20 = 1200 per year in direct and indirect taxation.
The Public sector budget thus comprises a total income of 6000 per year with a net spend of 800 on salaries and the rest on service provision (and debt repayments for money it has borrowed in previous years). What part of the 6000 is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
Countdown said:
The total income /budget of the Govt is not £6000, it's £8,200. £6k from the private sector £1.2k from the public sector. And the tax raised is proportional to the number of employees in each sector.
Income is not the same as budget, though! Again, I repeat the question, what part of the 1.k in tax retrieved from the gross salaries paid to public sector worker is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
Edited by Gaspode on Wednesday 30th May 06:24
Edited by Gaspode on Wednesday 30th May 06:25
Murph7355 said:
Gaspode is right.
The public sector employee paying tax is merely giving back some of the private sector tax receipts they received as salary. Ultimately if they were paid less but not taxed on it, it would amount to the same thing.
There is no magic government money pot, much as Gordon Brown thought there was.
No, there is no magic money pot, as Gordon Brown found out when he gave the private sector a tad more freedom and who responded by going cap in hand after they blew their brains out on ineptitude.The public sector employee paying tax is merely giving back some of the private sector tax receipts they received as salary. Ultimately if they were paid less but not taxed on it, it would amount to the same thing.
There is no magic government money pot, much as Gordon Brown thought there was.
All money comes from private individuals. Whether the individual works for a mobile phone company, or a junk food producer, or a financial company lending money to people who will not pay it back, or a cartel, or a health worker or a refuse worker clearing the prodigious waste produced by the private sector, whoever they work for they are all private individuals and this is where all money comes from.
Gaspode said:
Income is not the same as budget, though! Again, I repeat the question, what part of the 1.k in tax retrieved from the gross salaries paid to public sector worker is not ultimately derived from private sector taxation?
Edited by Gaspode on Wednesday 30th May 06:24
Edited by Gaspode on Wednesday 30th May 06:25
tbh. We are discussing a hypothetical example and, in an ideal world, income DOES equal budget (otherwise you get into debt).I have tried to answer your question - again not sure why you don't understand. Total tax ( and total spend on public services) is NOT 6k. It will be 6k plus 1.2k = 7.2k. The services provided out of the 7.2k will be "consumed" by BOTH the private sector taxpayers and the public sector taxpayers. Ergo both sectors contribute towards public sector costs.
You are only considering the 6k raised from private sector taxation. Where does the 1.2k raised from employees in the public sector go??
heebeegeetee said:
No, there is no magic money pot, as Gordon Brown found out when he gave the private sector a tad more freedom and who responded by going cap in hand after they blew their brains out on ineptitude.
All money comes from private individuals. Whether the individual works for a mobile phone company, or a junk food producer, or a financial company lending money to people who will not pay it back, or a cartel, or a health worker or a refuse worker clearing the prodigious waste produced by the private sector, whoever they work for they are all private individuals and this is where all money comes from.
You really have been brainwashed by the media and muppets like Tony Blair haven't you. This is probably the single most frightening thing about the parlous state we are in - alcoholics first need to acknowledge they have a problem.All money comes from private individuals. Whether the individual works for a mobile phone company, or a junk food producer, or a financial company lending money to people who will not pay it back, or a cartel, or a health worker or a refuse worker clearing the prodigious waste produced by the private sector, whoever they work for they are all private individuals and this is where all money comes from.
1) how much actual tax money has currently been lost as a direct result of the banking industry? (Let's ignore for the moment why the govt felt it necessary to step in)
2) what is the total tax take from the banking industry over the same period, and also (to pick an arbitrary range) between 1997 and 2007?
3) what was our budget deficit running at prior to the banking situation? Let's use the same 1997 to 2007 period.
4) what was the national debt over that same period?
And now back to the point...
5) where does the 1.2k that your public sector worker pays in tax come from?
Countdown said:
Not sure why the tbh. We are discussing a hypothetical example and, in an ideal world, income DOES equal budget (otherwise you get into debt).
I have tried to answer your question - again not sure why you don't understand. Total tax ( and total spend on public services) is NOT 6k. It will be 6k plus 1.2k = 7.2k. The services provided out of the 7.2k will be "consumed" by BOTH the private sector taxpayers and the public sector taxpayers. Ergo both sectors contribute towards public sector costs.
You are only considering the 6k raised from private sector taxation. Where does the 1.2k raised from employees in the public sector go??
Bear in mind how they got their money in the first place... tbh. We are discussing a hypothetical example and, in an ideal world, income DOES equal budget (otherwise you get into debt).I have tried to answer your question - again not sure why you don't understand. Total tax ( and total spend on public services) is NOT 6k. It will be 6k plus 1.2k = 7.2k. The services provided out of the 7.2k will be "consumed" by BOTH the private sector taxpayers and the public sector taxpayers. Ergo both sectors contribute towards public sector costs.
You are only considering the 6k raised from private sector taxation. Where does the 1.2k raised from employees in the public sector go??
Countdown said:
ETA
The salaries of the public sector are funded partly by taxes from other public sector staff. As you yourself stated earlier it is quite possible to have an economy which is 100% public sector
But that element is somewhat pointless. Pay them money out of the tax pot for them to give money back to the same tax pot. No? While ever they withdraw more than they put in, they are being funded by people in the opposite position.The salaries of the public sector are funded partly by taxes from other public sector staff. As you yourself stated earlier it is quite possible to have an economy which is 100% public sector
And name an economy that is 100% public sector. Preferably a successful one
Countdown said:
I have tried to answer your question - again not sure why you don't understand. Total tax ( and total spend on public services) is NOT 6k. It will be 6k plus 1.2k = 7.2k.
The INCOME to government is £6k, NOT £7.2k.The £1.2k that the public sector pays comes FROM that £6k. So it's £6k MINUS £1.2k, i.e. £4.8k. You can then add back your £1.2k and it comes back to £6k. In other words, the £1.2k that the public sector pays is effectively RECOVERED from the £6k expenditure.
What the government do NOT have, is an income of £7.2k
Meanwhile back on topic:
French person interviewed by BBC said:
Marine Schepens, who works for a fashionable advertising agency, says UK companies are more prepared to give young people a chance because it is easier to terminate their contracts than in France.
This fluidity makes employees less risk-averse too.
"I changed careers a year ago but I would have never done that if I was still in France. I'd have thought, 'I'm so lucky to have a job - I must hang on to it.'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930This fluidity makes employees less risk-averse too.
"I changed careers a year ago but I would have never done that if I was still in France. I'd have thought, 'I'm so lucky to have a job - I must hang on to it.'"
munky said:
Indeed. Current regulations are already less stringent than those in France. And elsewhere.Much as the French are a bunch of wieners, we need to be careful tweaking our rules of engagement further. Especially when there are more pressing matters to attend to.
Dracoro said:
Countdown said:
I have tried to answer your question - again not sure why you don't understand. Total tax ( and total spend on public services) is NOT 6k. It will be 6k plus 1.2k = 7.2k.
The INCOME to government is £6k, NOT £7.2k.The £1.2k that the public sector pays comes FROM that £6k. So it's £6k MINUS £1.2k, i.e. £4.8k. You can then add back your £1.2k and it comes back to £6k. In other words, the £1.2k that the public sector pays is effectively RECOVERED from the £6k expenditure.
What the government do NOT have, is an income of £7.2k
The Govt raised £6k from the private sector and spent this on Public sector services, from which it recovered £1.2k in taxes. Now it DOESN'T keep this money. Either (a)
It spends it on more public services - so total spend is £7.2k
OR
It gives a rebate to the private sector (so Public service expenditure remains at £6k but the net tax levied on the private sector is 4.8k)
In both the above circumstances Public Expenditure = Private Sector Tax + £1.2k
The £1.2k comes from taxes levied on the public sector. hence the point Im making that we ALL pay for Public Sector expenditure, regardless of which sector we work in.
The only difference between Public and Private sectors is that Public Sector services are purchased via the Government rather than directly from the vendor. other than that there is no difference.
Murph7355 said:
And name an economy that is 100% public sector. Preferably a successful one
The USSR and China have tried centrally controlled State economies but without success because there are way too many inefficiencies. Similarly I can't think of any succesful economies that are 100% private sector. Most economically developed countries have a mixed economy because that is what works best.can you think of any succesful 100% private sector economies ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff