Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
CamMoreRon said:
Meh.. call me a liar. I'm not particularly fussed.
I understood the words you were saying, it was just the meaning that didn't make sense. You seem to be under the illusion that if the state pays for something that money has come from nowhere. In reality, the state pays for a service (such as a surgeon) from money collected in taxes; those taxes are paid by the people, who give value to something like a doctor or surgeon by their wish to stay alive. So basically the people have all contributed a little bit towards the wages of said doctor / surgeon.. exactly the same as they would if he was privately (or self) employed, only by a different method. If he then pays taxes on that pay (which, remember, comes in little bits from the people in the form of tax collection) then he is making a contribution just like everyone else.
I don't see what is hard to understand about that. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but your argument certainly isn't convincing me so.
You're not wrong. I don't think you could have explained it any more simply.I understood the words you were saying, it was just the meaning that didn't make sense. You seem to be under the illusion that if the state pays for something that money has come from nowhere. In reality, the state pays for a service (such as a surgeon) from money collected in taxes; those taxes are paid by the people, who give value to something like a doctor or surgeon by their wish to stay alive. So basically the people have all contributed a little bit towards the wages of said doctor / surgeon.. exactly the same as they would if he was privately (or self) employed, only by a different method. If he then pays taxes on that pay (which, remember, comes in little bits from the people in the form of tax collection) then he is making a contribution just like everyone else.
I don't see what is hard to understand about that. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but your argument certainly isn't convincing me so.
The only difference between public sector and private sector is that, with the former, the Govt acts as the middleman.
LucreLout said:
CamMoreRon said:
Ok.. and where do taxes come from?
...........................?
Ok, ok, I admit it. They come from the magic money tree comrade............................?
btw there is one, in fact hundreds, I think most banks must keep one in the basement as they are able to create money every day... and then of course there's QE - how much money has that created "by magic"?. Or maybe helicopter money would have worked better..
TokyoSexwhale said:
crankedup said:
TokyoSexwhale said:
This thread is brilliant!!
So many Liebour Walters!
Agreed, the most enjoyable thread this week. Spiced nicely with a few anti Socialist types bleating. So many Liebour Walters!
Sometimes a sense of humour can work wonders, and that I believe is something that the Right wing and Left wing no doubt can share from time to time, hopefully.
Countdown said:
LucreLout said:
That you don't understand why they are different, for they are very different indeed, is the clearest indication of you lack of economics knowledge and a brightly lit indicator of your political persuasion.
Could you explain how they are different?CamMoreRon said:
I know I've been throwing some pretty big opinions around recently, but at least mine had at least some shreds of fact / reality.
BUT:CamMoreRon said:
I've just turned 30 and will be quitting my job to start up by myself in a few short months
I voted Labour the one time I have voted back in 1997
I won't even go there with the 'facts' about the coke-snorting bankers you referred to.I voted Labour the one time I have voted back in 1997
Countdown said:
Could you explain how they are different?
Lets assume they both earn 50k and the tax rate is 50%.The public sector nurse affects the treasury to the tune of -50k. The private sector one affects it by +25k. You cant treat the numbers as absolute, nor can you ignore the 75k spread.
Taxing something productive reduces the amount of productive value in circulation. Spending that on nonproductive things reduces it further. Its why the government figures suggest they get 90p of value per pound spent.
If public sector spending and private sector spending were the same thing, then paying people to dig holes and fill them in would increase a nations wealth. It doesn't.
If you still don't get it, then you either can't grasp economics, or you don't wish too. I've spent all the time I'm going to explaining it to you.
LucreLout said:
Let’s assume they both earn 50k and the tax rate is 50%.
The public sector nurse affects the treasury to the tune of -50k. The private sector one affects it by +25k. You cant treat the numbers as absolute, nor can you ignore the 75k spread.
Firstly your maths doesn’t add up. The Public Sector nurse would affect the Treasury to the tune of -25k (£50k salary minus 50% tax = £25k net cost to Treasury).The public sector nurse affects the treasury to the tune of -50k. The private sector one affects it by +25k. You cant treat the numbers as absolute, nor can you ignore the 75k spread.
However it’s irrelevant in any case because you are ignoring a couple of facts. The Treasury doesn’t have any money of its own, so it can’t be “up” or “down”. The Treasury doesn’t buy health services for itself. It buys them for taxpayers. All the Treasury does is act as the middleman. It takes money from taxpayers and it uses this money to buy goods and services. When a taxpayer uses the NHS he pays the Guv’mint who pay the Nurse. When a taxpayer uses BUPA he pays the nurse directly. The economic effect of the transaction is exactly the same. I’m not sure how this could be explained any more simply.
LucreLout said:
Taxing something productive reduces the amount of productive value in circulation.
Could you give me an example of this as I’m not sure what you mean. So what is being taxed and how has its productive value gone down?LucreLout said:
Spending that on nonproductive things reduces it further.
How can the productive value of non-productive things go down further? 
LucreLout said:
Its why the government figures suggest they get 90p of value per pound spent.
I’m guessing you’re talking about productivity/efficiency. If that’s the case please can you give me an example of a system that is 100% efficient. In my experience every single system has inefficiencies, and the larger and more complex it is, the more inefficiencies it has.LucreLout said:
If public sector spending and private sector spending were the same thing, then paying people to dig holes and fill them in would increase a nations wealth. It doesn't.
In certain cases it does. As explained above repairing roads or building runways involves digging holes and filling them. This is classed as Investment expenditure. And, fwiw, most of the digging holes/filling holes in the UK is carried out by private sector companies (Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Laing etc) but paid for by taxpayers. Do you think they don’t pay taxes either?LucreLout said:
If you still don't get it, then you either can't grasp economics, or you don't wish too. I've spent all the time I'm going to explaining it to you.
I’ve got a degree in Economics. To be fair I’ve forgotten most of it so in all honesty I don’t consider myself to be an expert. Compared to you though I’m both Milton AND Keynes.Guam said:
Countdown said:
I’ve got a degree in Economics. To be fair I’ve forgotten most of it so in all honesty I don’t consider myself to be an expert. Compared to you though I’m both Milton AND Keynes.
What no Hayek? you are slipping
I'd have thought there would be a sprinkling of Ludwig von Mises in there.
Guam said:
That sure is a load of rap they covered all the hand signals remarkably well.
Countdown said:
I’ve got a degree in Economics. To be fair I’ve forgotten most of it so in all honesty I don’t consider myself to be an expert. Compared to you though I’m both Milton AND Keynes.
So what? The secretary a few desks over has an art history degree, but it doesn't mean she can paint.You're so good with economics you've made it to the dizzying heights of the town planning office. Rather gives the game away, no?
Using your somewhat illiterate view of things, there's no difference economically between a highly paid private sector worker and a highly paid public sector worker, so simply adding a zero to the back of all their salaries should produce the greatest economy we've ever seen. It won't. Though I understand why you think it might, given your vast experience with economics. Oh, wait....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff