Are there more people working than not working in the UK?

[Harry Flashman]

Eric Mc said:

EVERYBODY should work - irrespective of age. I mean, I haven't had a child up my chimney (NOT a euphemism) for years.

heh.

[Prawnboy]

LucreLout said:

bingybongy said:

So 6 or 7 million public employees don't count as being at work?
I'll let my wife know the 10 hours a day she spends in the hospital aren't work.

Economically, from the point if view of paying taxes, no.

If you had a treasury with 1M in it, 10 public employees earning 100k, and a 50 % tax rate. When you can explain how payments in year 3 get funded, you'll understand the point.

So when did they abolish all other taxes in favour of just income tax?

And i imagine the other 50% of the salary doesn't get spent on, goods and services helping the profits and employment in other companies in your world.

All money running round the economy within our borders is a good thing, get of your high horse thinking somehow every policeman, nurse or binman owes you debt of gratitude.

[MitchT]

Eric Mc said:

EVERYBODY should work - irrespective of age. I mean, I haven't had a child up my chimney (NOT a euphemism) for years.

That's the problem with childhood obesity. You can't get your fecking chimneys cleaned.

[LucreLout]

Prawnboy said:

So when did they abolish all other taxes in favour of just income tax?

And i imagine the other 50% of the salary doesn't get spent on, goods and services helping the profits and employment in other companies in your world.

All money running round the economy within our borders is a good thing, get of your high horse thinking somehow every policeman, nurse or binman owes you debt of gratitude.

The system you describe still suffers kisses. At best other taxes push your problem from year 3 into year 4. You still run out of money. The reason for that is that public sector wages are paid from tax, they do not contribute to it.

I did not make any claims about gratitude, so stop trolling.

The claim I made, was in essence that too many people don't work in the private sector. There's too few of us to carry the tax drain of the public sector and welfare claimants. Something has to give soon or we're going to be Zimbabwe sooner rather than later.

[xRIEx]

LucreLout said:

The system you describe still suffers kisses. At best other taxes push your problem from year 3 into year 4. You still run out of money. The reason for that is that public sector wages are paid from tax, they do not contribute to it.

See my post above about the economic impact of death, injury and disease.

[LucreLout]

xRIEx said:

See my post above about the economic impact of death, injury and disease.

Imputing second order costs doesn't change the primary tax contribution which is negative.

While the vast majority of ps staff don't prevent death, injury, or disease, fewer than 0.1% do. That 0.1% we need and nobody disputes that.... But the other 99.99%, those we need to eliminate.

[Eric Mc]

MitchT said:

Eric Mc said:

EVERYBODY should work - irrespective of age. I mean, I haven't had a child up my chimney (NOT a euphemism) for years.

That's the problem with childhood obesity. You can't get your fecking chimneys cleaned.

Well, if Santa can do it coming down, a fat child should be able to do it going up.....

[Eric Mc]

LucreLout said:

But the other 99.99%, those we need to eliminate.

I hope you are talking about jobs and not people.

[chrisxr2]

I work offshore and when home am always amazed at the amount of people about in the day, I imagine, quite a few are shift workers.

[xRIEx]

LucreLout said:

xRIEx said:

See my post above about the economic impact of death, injury and disease.

Imputing second order costs doesn't change the primary tax contribution which is negative.

While the vast majority of ps staff don't prevent death, injury, or disease, fewer than 0.1% do. That 0.1% we need and nobody disputes that.... But the other 99.99%, those we need to eliminate.

Where are you getting 0.1% from?

Public sector employees are 5,409,000 (ONS, Q1 2014, published June 2014)
NHS employs 147,087 doctors, 371,777 qualified nursing staff, 154,109 qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff; total = 672,973 (NHS key statistics, August 2014)

That looks to me very much like 12.44% of all public sector jobs in the UK. That is 2.2% of the entire employed population of the UK (30.6m, ONS, August 2014), so once again, where the hell did you get 0.1% from?

[xRIEx]

Eric Mc said:

LucreLout said:

But the other 99.99%, those we need to eliminate.

I hope you are talking about jobs and not people.

[LucreLout]

xRIEx said:

Where are you getting 0.1% from?

Public sector employees are 5,409,000 (ONS, Q1 2014, published June 2014)
NHS employs 147,087 doctors, 371,777 qualified nursing staff, 154,109 qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff; total = 672,973 (NHS key statistics, August 2014)

That looks to me very much like 12.44% of all public sector jobs in the UK. That is 2.2% of the entire employed population of the UK (30.6m, ONS, August 2014), so once again, where the hell did you get 0.1% from?

Now work out the percentage of those doing doctoring or nursing and you'll be lucky if its half.

[xRIEx]

LucreLout said:

xRIEx said:

Where are you getting 0.1% from?

Public sector employees are 5,409,000 (ONS, Q1 2014, published June 2014)
NHS employs 147,087 doctors, 371,777 qualified nursing staff, 154,109 qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff; total = 672,973 (NHS key statistics, August 2014)

That looks to me very much like 12.44% of all public sector jobs in the UK. That is 2.2% of the entire employed population of the UK (30.6m, ONS, August 2014), so once again, where the hell did you get 0.1% from?

Now work out the percentage of those doing doctoring or nursing and you'll be lucky if its half.

3 things:
1. What's your source for this information? I've quoted all of mine.
2. Even if you were correct, that would put the result at over 6%, meaning you're still off by a factor of 60.
3. I've got the numbers - 147,087 doctors and 371,777 nurses. 'Qualified scientific staff' with PhDs are not included in the 'Doctors' figure as 'Doctor' obviously has a reserved meaning within healthcare. If you've got other information, see point 1. Alternatively, stop making st up.

[bingybongy]

Yeah sack the fking lot. Skivers and dossers to a man.

[MGTS]

If you eliminated the other 99.99% if jobs, wouldn't they all end up out of employment and on benefits?

[LucreLout]

xRIEx said:

3 things:
1. What's your source for this information? I've quoted all of mine.
2. Even if you were correct, that would put the result at over 6%, meaning you're still off by a factor of 60.
3. I've got the numbers - 147,087 doctors and 371,777 nurses. 'Qualified scientific staff' with PhDs are not included in the 'Doctors' figure as 'Doctor' obviously has a reserved meaning within healthcare. If you've got other information, see point 1. Alternatively, stop making st up.

Your numbers don't mean what you think they mean. Well, they don't mean what you're presenting them as meaning, and I think you know that.

Discounting school nurses and health visitors, you get just 275,000 nurses. From That you must discount those managing a team, for which the nhs decline to provide figures.
For reference, you have 475,000 clerical staff and 50,000 managers.
Now we move on to dental nurses. Since most people have to pay for treatment they shouldn't really count as NHS nurses, but they do in your numbers. You've now got fewer than 250,000 available for nursing minus those doing management which should leave you with about 200,000 on a good day.
Toss in some doctors, about 80,000 once managers and team leaders are removed and you have maybe 300,000 people out of over 1.6 million staff.
You end up with fewer than 5% of ps staff available for doctoring or nursing. But that discounts the oursourced public sector roles that are private sector in name only.

No links for you as mobile, but bbc, groan, torygraph, nhs, and ons stats used.

[mph1977]

LucreLout said:

Imputing second order costs doesn't change the primary tax contribution which is negative.

While the vast majority of ps staff don't prevent death, injury, or disease, fewer than 0.1% do. That 0.1% we need and nobody disputes that.... But the other 99.99%, those we need to eliminate.

Given approx half a million are health professionals or their assistant grades i think you need to reassess that.

[mph1977]

LucreLout said:

Imputing second order costs doesn't change the primary tax contribution which is negative.

While the vast majority of ps staff don't prevent death, injury, or disease, fewer than 0.1% do. That 0.1% we need and nobody disputes that.... But the other 99.99%, those we need to eliminate.

Given approx half a million are health professionals or their assistant grades i think you need to reassess that.

[xRIEx]

LucreLout said:

xRIEx said:

3 things:
1. What's your source for this information? I've quoted all of mine.
2. Even if you were correct, that would put the result at over 6%, meaning you're still off by a factor of 60.
3. I've got the numbers - 147,087 doctors and 371,777 nurses. 'Qualified scientific staff' with PhDs are not included in the 'Doctors' figure as 'Doctor' obviously has a reserved meaning within healthcare. If you've got other information, see point 1. Alternatively, stop making st up.

Your numbers don't mean what you think they mean. Well, they don't mean what you're presenting them as meaning, and I think you know that.

Discounting school nurses and health visitors, you get just 275,000 nurses. From That you must discount those managing a team, for which the nhs decline to provide figures.
For reference, you have 475,000 clerical staff and 50,000 managers.
Now we move on to dental nurses. Since most people have to pay for treatment they shouldn't really count as NHS nurses, but they do in your numbers. You've now got fewer than 250,000 available for nursing minus those doing management which should leave you with about 200,000 on a good day.
Toss in some doctors, about 80,000 once managers and team leaders are removed and you have maybe 300,000 people out of over 1.6 million staff.
You end up with fewer than 5% of ps staff available for doctoring or nursing. But that discounts the oursourced public sector roles that are private sector in name only.

No links for you as mobile, but bbc, groan, torygraph, nhs, and ons stats used.

You're wrong, NHS do provide figures for managerial, it's 36,360 - I chose to exclude it because I don't regard that as directly assisting healthcare, although it is of course essential to providing the overall service.

If you're saying NHS decline to give figures for managerial staff, where did you get 50,000 from? And if that number is for reference, to where can I refer to corroborate it?

I'm on mobile too, here's the link:
http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-...

Other link used in my earlier post, first spreadsheet:
http://ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Emp...


So let me get this straight, by using the stats I presented (yet still making st up to pretend you can support your antisocialist agenda) and claiming you have sources that you haven't provided any solid link to, you're now saying it's 5% of the public sector instead of 0.1%? You've amended your claim upwards by 500%. Even if you were now correct (and you've still no stats to support your argument) I would then have been out by a factor of about 2, compared to you being out by a factor of 50.

Edited by xRIEx on Tuesday 16th September 07:03

[LucreLout]

xRIEx said:

You're wrong, NHS do provide figures for managerial, it's 36,360 - I chose to exclude it because I don't regard that as directly assisting healthcare, although it is of course essential to providing the overall service.

If you're saying NHS decline to give figures for managerial staff, where did you get 50,000 from? And if that number is for reference, to where can I refer to corroborate it?

I'm on mobile too, here's the link:
http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-...

Other link used in my earlier post, first spreadsheet:
http://ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Emp...


So let me get this straight, by using the stats I presented (yet still making st up to pretend you can support your antisocialist agenda) and claiming you have sources that you haven't provided any solid link to, you're now saying it's 5% of the public sector instead of 0.1%? You've amended your claim upwards by 500%. Even if you were now correct (and you've still no stats to support your argument) I would then have been out by a factor of about 2, compared to you being out by a factor of 50.

Edited by xRIEx on Tuesday 16th September 07:03

You're at it again! Stop using numbers you know full well don't discount all the myriad team leaders and supervisor posts.
You're making st up to portray an nhs that has never existed!

Your pretence that all qualified staff are performing in the role they qualified for is dishonest at best, laughable more generally.

Edited by LucreLout on Tuesday 16th September 08:00