About to get much easier for companies to sack folk

[Dracoro]

Countdown said:

Gaspode said:

Precisely my point. Thank you Jesus! Thanks you Lord! I think I'll run 20 red lights in your honour!

It doesn't matter how you restate the budgets the source of the income remains the same.

Struggling to find any way of making it simpler

Perhaps you could explain this to me;

the taxes of an NHS nurse and a BUPA nurse both go to the Govt
Both provide a service to patients
Patients pay either directly or indirectly

Therefore how is the economic effect any different??? What would the difference to the economy be if nurses were ALL Bupa or all NHS ?

You cannot get ANY income from the public sector without having FIRST paid them with money from the private sector.

If you have NO money from the private sector, you have NO money to pay the public sector so cannot get any tax back from them.

Anyway, you can either pay public sector worker X amount and take Y% in tax or pay them Y% less and take no tax, the net effect is the same. The net income is still that £6k.

All the govt. is really doing it "moving" existing money around, not creating money, i.e. growth. (caveat being any income from outside sources, i.e. govt. selling stuff abroad, such as what the oil states do. In this county, the figures are relatively tiny).

Anyway, I can't be arsed anymore, off to do more exciting things

Edited by Dracoro on Thursday 31st May 10:15

[Gaspode]

heebeegeetee said:

Apart from going to great lengths to teach us to suck eggs, I'm still not sure what your point is.

I think we would all agree that some tasks within a society are best left to the public sector, and that capitalism cannot cover everything.

If we agree on that, what's the problem? We all know how it works and it doesn't need explaining.

Sorry, I thought you had been arguing that there is no difference between private sector and public sector taxation, since all taxation derives from the individual.

I thought I had been trying to demonstrate that since actually private sector taxation is the ultimate source of all government income and actually funds the taxes paid by the public sector, there is indeed a difference.

[Countdown]

Gaspode said:

The point I am making is that unless the government owns the means of production, then all government income derives ultimately from private sector activity.

Nope. Government income (taxation) is derived from the production of goods and services. There is no basic economic difference between tax on public sector and private sector production of goods/services

Gaspode said:

Taxes paid by public sector workers are not 'new money', in the sense that the government has given that money to the public sector workers in the first place, and is then taking it back.

No, the tax IS new money. It is levied on the goods/services produced by the Public sector

Gaspode said:

Since the UK got rid of all its nationalised industries, there are no government-owned enterprises which generate wealth. These are all in the private sector now, and that's where the surplus value is created which is then taxed to provide the government with its revenue.

How did privatisation change the nature of the taxes paid??? this is the point Ive tried to make several times. A miner employed by the National Coal Board produced the same goods and paid the same tax when he moved to RJB Mining Plc. Yet your argument seems to be that, when he was in the public sector there was no wealth creation.

Gaspode said:

It could be argued that this process of paying public sector workers out of one pot and then taking some of it back to go into another pot is a fiscally inefficient means of distributing the available income across different budgets - although it does have the politically desirable effect of promoting the illusion that public sector workers are contributing to the economy in exactly the same way as private sector workers - which clearly they aren't, if for no other reason than their relationship with the State.

Again I would reiterate - there is NO difference between Public Sector / Private Sector with regards to (a)production of goods/services and (b) Taxation. If you think there is then please explain to me the difference between the taxes paid by an NHS nurse vs the taxes paid by a BUPA nurse.

The NHS nurse produces a service which is paid for indirectly by consumers via tax.

The BUPA nurse is paid directly by the consumer.

Both have contributed towards GDP and the economic output of the nation. Both will pay exactly the same type of income taxes.

[Countdown]

Dracoro said:

You cannot get ANY income from the public sector without having FIRST paid them with money from the private sector.

Actually yes you can. Govt can borrow money for investment purposes. So Govt borrows £6k and spends it on a Nationalised Warburtons/Hovis (WH)

WH produce £6k of bread for the Govt
Govt sells bread to Asda for £7k
Govt receives £1.2k in tax from WH workers
Govt paid out £6k and received £8.2k back. £6k used to repay loan. net profit of £2.2k

There is also the multiplier effect of the WH workers net salaries but lets not overly complicate things In my example above you could replace "Govt" with a VCT or any other group of investors. the underlying economic process is still the same. Govt spending in the right place increases economic output.

[heebeegeetee]

Gaspode said:

Sorry, I thought you had been arguing that there is no difference between private sector and public sector taxation, since all taxation derives from the individual.

I thought I had been trying to demonstrate that since actually private sector taxation is the ultimate source of all government income and actually funds the taxes paid by the public sector, there is indeed a difference.

I still don't see what your point is. If we agree that some tasks within a society are best left to the public sector, and if we agree that a public sector is a good thing, and that a private individual can work for either public or private and that is is the wealth of the private individual that drives everything, then what difference does it make who works for who?

What is your point in stating the obvious? Red is different from blue, or pink is different from mauve, but so what?

[Gaspode]

I'm going to bow out at this point. You seem to be arguing against points which I am not making.

Of course there is no economic difference between the taxes paid by public sector workers as compared to private sector workers. Of course a public sector worker can generate wealth whilst working in the public sector if they are in a productive industry.

The only point I have ever tried to make is that outwith a socialist economy where the government owns and controls the means of production, the ultimate origin of all public sector money comes from the private sector.

I give you 10 quid. You give me back 4 quid. I give you 2 quid. If you think that means you now have 12 quid to spend then good luck to you.

[Murph7355]

Gaspode said:

...
I give you 10 quid. You give me back 4 quid. I give you 2 quid. If you think that means you now have 12 quid to spend then good luck to you.

You do know they'll both be back in an hour asking you for a tenner

[einsign]

Chim said:

The Germans are also a lot better at mass producing reliable products people actually want to buy, we unfortunately where really st at it.

Total nonsense, British manufacturing is the best in the world and starting to take shape again, even if just in a small way at the moment..