Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do

[Countdown]

edh said:

LucreLout said:

Countdown said:

There is no such thing as "the public purse". His salary comes from individuals like me and you, just like the salaries for teachers at Eton or Harrow. We are paying "him". And, in the same vein, his taxes are paying other people.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

His taxes don't exist. It's an accounting fiction.

So what about private companies working wholly on government contracts - paid for by tax. Are they and their employees net contributors?

Lots of companies which were previously public sector are now private sector. Lots of services which were previously delivered "in house" by Local Authorities are now contracted out to the Private Sector. Has their economic status changed somehow?

In theory there is not a SINGLE job anywhere that could not be delivered EITHER by the private sector OR the public sector. The contribution to GDP, the value of services provided, and the tax contribution is exactly the same.

[LucreLout]

edh said:

So what about private companies working wholly on government contracts - paid for by tax. Are they and their employees net contributors?

It depends. Does whatever they produce provide value to the government, such as an aircraft carrier, or is it just outsourced nonjobs that were once public sector?
If its just paper shuffling and all the revenue is from the government, then they're public sector in all but name - its sophistry to work around the dinosaurs, sorry, unions.

[LucreLout]

Countdown said:

Lots of companies which were previously public sector are now private sector. Lots of services which were previously delivered "in house" by Local Authorities are now contracted out to the Private Sector. Has their economic status changed somehow?

In theory there is not a SINGLE job anywhere that could not be delivered EITHER by the private sector OR the public sector. The contribution to GDP, the value of services provided, and the tax contribution is exactly the same.

Utter rubbish.

Lets assume then that every job is public sector. Lets assume they all pay 100k with a 50% tax rate. For simplicity, lets say you start with a 1m treasury and 10 employees.
When you realise you can't finance year 3, you realise why you're wrong.
If, however, you can finance year 3, then go directly to Sweden: The king has a medal for you.

[Countdown]

LucreLout said:

Utter rubbish.

Lets assume then that every job is public sector. Lets assume they all pay 100k with a 50% tax rate. For simplicity, lets say you start with a 1m treasury and 10 employees.
When you realise you can't finance year 3, you realise why you're wrong.
If, however, you can finance year 3, then go directly to Sweden: The king has a medal for you.

You seem to have a very limited understanding of economics. I CBA to explain fully but hers the basics. The person who was paid £100k will have produced goods or services to the value of £100k for his employer (the Guv'mint ). The Guv'mint will sell these services to other taxpayers.

I'd suggest you google "Command Economy" and then come back.

[Countdown]

Actually I will try to explain.

Lets take an economy of two people; a farmer and a house builder. The govt pays the farmer to grow food and pays him £100k and taxes him at 50%. The govt pays the house builder to build houses £100k less 50% tax. Nett govt exp = £100k

The govt sells the food to the house builder for £50k. The govt sells house to the farmer for £50k. Nett govt exp = nil. However both the farmer and the house builder have food and accommodation.

HTH

[LucreLout]

Countdown said:

You seem to have a very limited understanding of economics. I CBA to explain fully but hers the basics. The person who was paid £100k will have produced goods or services to the value of £100k for his employer (the Guv'mint ). The Guv'mint will sell these services to other taxpayers.

I'd suggest you google "Command Economy" and then come back.

I can't be arsed to explain economics to you until you learn a little history. Go google command economy, then google tractor production figures, then google how many millions starved to death. Comrade.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

You seem to have a very limited understanding of economics. I CBA to explain fully but hers the basics. The person who was paid £100k will have produced goods or services to the value of £100k for his employer (the Guv'mint ). The Guv'mint will sell these services to other taxpayers.

I'd suggest you google "Command Economy" and then come back.

Isn't it true that GDP contribution for the public sector is effectively simply based on the wage bill?

So if you paid a public sector employee £10k to dig a hole and another £10k to fill it in that would add £20k to GDP?

[Countdown]

LucreLout said:

I can't be arsed to explain economics to you until you learn a little history. Go google command economy, then google tractor production figures, then google how many millions starved to death. Comrade.

You win. Because its a well known fact that Ethopia et al are command economies. Nobody ever starves in a free market.

Edited by Countdown on Wednesday 5th November 15:54

[longblackcoat]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

You seem to have a very limited understanding of economics. I CBA to explain fully but hers the basics. The person who was paid £100k will have produced goods or services to the value of £100k for his employer (the Guv'mint ). The Guv'mint will sell these services to other taxpayers.

I'd suggest you google "Command Economy" and then come back.

Isn't it true that GDP controbhtion for the public sector is simply based on wages?

So if you paid a public sector employee £10k to dig a whole and another £10k to fill it in that would add £20k to GDP?

That's not a holey accurate way of defining GDP.......

[edh]

LucreLout said:

edh said:

So what about private companies working wholly on government contracts - paid for by tax. Are they and their employees net contributors?

It depends. Does whatever they produce provide value to the government, such as an aircraft carrier, or is it just outsourced nonjobs that were once public sector?
If its just paper shuffling and all the revenue is from the government, then they're public sector in all but name - its sophistry to work around the dinosaurs, sorry, unions.

What?

You said

LucreLout said:

public sector workers don't pay tax, they're paid from tax, so can't become a net contributor at any salary level.

So if I take govt funded jobs that provide "value" (whatever that might be, let's say a surgeon) and transfer that work into the private sector, still paid for by government then that person suddenly becomes a "net contributor"?

But I take another job that you judge does not provide "value" ( i hate to think how your mind might work here - how about a social worker - they are useful hate targets) and transfer it, then that person remains a total leech on humanity and our taxes.

Makes no sense

Sophistry is a good word though...did you learn that one at school?

[LucreLout]

Countdown said:

Actually I will try to explain.

Lets take an economy of two people; a farmer and a house builder. The govt pays the farmer to grow food and pays him £100k and taxes him at 50%. The govt pays the house builder to build houses £100k less 50% tax. Nett govt exp = £100k

The govt sells the food to the house builder for £50k. The govt sells house to the farmer for £50k. Nett govt exp = nil. However both the farmer and the house builder have food and accommodation.

HTH

FFS.
You have cost of government at zero. You have the savings rate at zero. Crop failure, trade deficit, and a raft of other costs at zero.
Command economies don't work, its why nowhere has one.
Suggest you put down your NEF papers and go get a proper foundation in economics before coming back.

[Countdown]

LucreLout said:

FFS.
You have cost of government at zero. You have the savings rate at zero. Crop failure, trade deficit, and a raft of other costs at zero.
Command economies don't work, its why nowhere has one.
Suggest you put down your NEF papers and go get a proper foundation in economics before coming back.

At least we've moved on from the bks of suggesting we'd be bankrupt at Year 3. Your next step is to consider the multiplier effect and C+I+G+X.

[LucreLout]

edh said:

So if I take govt funded jobs that provide "value" (whatever that might be, let's say a surgeon) and transfer that work into the private sector, still paid for by government then that person suddenly becomes a "net contributor"?

But I take another job that you judge does not provide "value" ( i hate to think how your mind might work here - how about a social worker - they are useful hate targets) and transfer it, then that person remains a total leech on humanity and our taxes.

Makes no sense

Sophistry is a good word though...did you learn that one at school?

A surgeon isn't value, he's utility. The gun boat is value.

The surgeons private practice, doing boob jobs for essex girls, might make him a net contributor provided he pays more taxes doing it than he takes from the state for the day job, plus pension.

[sidicks]

longblackcoat said:

That's not a holey accurate way of defining GDP.......

Dammit - you quoted me before I got my edit in!

[LucreLout]

Countdown said:

At least we've moved on from the bks of suggesting we'd be bankrupt at Year 3. Your next step is to consider the multiplier effect and C+I+G+X.

Until you figure out year three, you've learned nothing. The next step is for you to stop posting, start thinking, and cone back with an answer.
I'll clue you in. The answer is you can't pay for year three, so you can't have everyone be a net consumer. Enough people have to be net contributors to pay for that, and as you've worked out, that means they have to work in the real world as opposed to the gravy train.

[edh]

LucreLout said:

edh said:

So if I take govt funded jobs that provide "value" (whatever that might be, let's say a surgeon) and transfer that work into the private sector, still paid for by government then that person suddenly becomes a "net contributor"?

But I take another job that you judge does not provide "value" ( i hate to think how your mind might work here - how about a social worker - they are useful hate targets) and transfer it, then that person remains a total leech on humanity and our taxes.

Makes no sense

Sophistry is a good word though...did you learn that one at school?

A surgeon isn't value, he's utility. The gun boat is value.

The surgeons private practice, doing boob jobs for essex girls, might make him a net contributor provided he pays more taxes doing it than he takes from the state for the day job, plus pension.

The gun boat is a waste of money....

utility/value wtf is that all about?

Forget the nonsense about private practice - same job, same costs. You see no value in a surgeon?
The surgeon delivers value in his work, fixing people so that they can be productive (and pay tax / consume fewer govt services).

A gun boat has at least secondhand or scrap value I suppose. Otherwise a cost I'd have thought - running costs, depreciation, maintenance etc..

Edited by edh on Wednesday 5th November 16:13

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

Isn't it true that GDP contribution for the public sector is effectively simply based on the wage bill?

So if you paid a public sector employee £10k to dig a hole and another £10k to fill it in that would add £20k to GDP?

Yes (potentially). If it results in the production of economic goods, services, or assets.

Your example could relate to somebody building the 3rd runaway at Heathrow. (somebody digging a hole, somebody else filling it). On the face of it, it's a pointless exercise. The reality is that it creates an economic asset which impacts on GDP.

[Countdown]

LucreLout said:

Until you figure out year three, you've learned nothing. The next step is for you to stop posting, start thinking, and cone back with an answer.
I'll clue you in. The answer is you can't pay for year three, so you can't have everyone be a net consumer. Enough people have to be net contributors to pay for that, and as you've worked out, that means they have to work in the real world as opposed to the gravy train.

Already explained above, before you wandered off into the realms of tractors and people dying.

[LucreLout]

edh said:

The gun boat is a waste of money....

utility/value wtf is that all about?

Forget the nonsense about private practice - same job, same costs. You see no value in a surgeon?
The surgeon delivers value in his work, fixing people so that they can be productive (and pay tax / consume fewer govt services).

A gun boat has at least secondhand or scrap value I suppose. Otherwise a cost I'd have thought - running costs, depreciation, maintenance etc..

Edited by edh on Wednesday 5th November 16:13

Economically the surgeon is a cost not an investment and not an income.
His private practice can be an income for the state via taxes, but unless he pays in more than he takes out for his government work, then he remains a net beneficiary - a consumer of tax revenue rather than a source of it.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't have surgeons, just that someone has to pay to fund them, so before you get the surgeon you have to get the net contributor.

[LucreLout]

Countdown said:

Already explained above, before you wandered off into the realms of tractors and people dying.

You didn't explain it, you just googled the formula for aggregate demand, which you evidently don't understand, and went off at a tangent.