Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do
Discussion
Countdown said:
Christ almighty.....
Private sector - Essex Girl pays surgeon, surgeon does operation
Public Sector -Essex Girl pays tax, govt pays surgeon, surgeon does operation.
FFS.Private sector - Essex Girl pays surgeon, surgeon does operation
Public Sector -Essex Girl pays tax, govt pays surgeon, surgeon does operation.
The Essex girl is a net beneficiary. She can't afford a boob job and doesn't pay enough tax to fund the surgeon!
Some economics students and practitioners lose sight of the fact that they are talking about people and get lost in soulless examination of the science of Economics. The only function of Economics is to make astrology look respectable and boy are there enough diverse opinions about.
The truth is the difference between government doing the work through its own agencies and subbing contractors to do it is that suddenly there is a 'profit' element. And it's huge. Apart from massive subsidies to get jobs off the political agenda the same, probably, individuals are doing the work for twice the money (PFI anybody?). So the workers pay the same tax/NI and the bosses buy another Merc and big house with the taxpayer meeting the exorbitant cost. Oh, that's when the worker can suddenly, if he's S/E, claim a range of expenses incurred in the course of his work and deduct that from the front end. If he doesn't know how to do it there are plenty of accountants/lawyers/economists to 'advise' him how to set up a service company.
The truth is the difference between government doing the work through its own agencies and subbing contractors to do it is that suddenly there is a 'profit' element. And it's huge. Apart from massive subsidies to get jobs off the political agenda the same, probably, individuals are doing the work for twice the money (PFI anybody?). So the workers pay the same tax/NI and the bosses buy another Merc and big house with the taxpayer meeting the exorbitant cost. Oh, that's when the worker can suddenly, if he's S/E, claim a range of expenses incurred in the course of his work and deduct that from the front end. If he doesn't know how to do it there are plenty of accountants/lawyers/economists to 'advise' him how to set up a service company.
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
Thanks for pointing out my poor spelling on a slang word. If were being pedantic you have also got it wrong. Numb-nuts. 
To verbally abuse educators as you have is, imo, a disgrace and then compound it by telling us you owe them nothing and your job is no thanks to them I find is silly beyond words.
On the other-hand good for you to do well despite your problems with the education quality offered to you.
To verbally abuse educators as you have is, imo, a disgrace and then compound it by telling us you owe them nothing and your job is no thanks to them I find is silly beyond words.
On the other-hand good for you to do well despite your problems with the education quality offered to you.
Touche numb-nuts 
My education was a disgrace, and informs my opinion of educators.
My school was such a success it became an academy!
That yours was of a likely higher standard is good. It informs your opinion of educators.
It's just a shame you aren't capable of recognising that nationally, the quality of education provided is highly variable, between 1st class and disgraceful.
LucreLout said:
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.
You can measure the surgeon "economically" in all sorts of ways. cost, output, value added..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.
I don't care about his private practice.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that banks don't create money out of nothing..
LucreLout said:
FFS.
The Essex girl is a net beneficiary. She can't afford a boob job and doesn't pay enough tax to fund the surgeon!
So her dad pays for it. The Essex girl is a net beneficiary. She can't afford a boob job and doesn't pay enough tax to fund the surgeon!
NEXT.
I mean FFS.. do you base all of these opinions on hypothetical bulls
t you dreamt up from a load of generic stereotypes? I know I've been throwing some pretty big opinions around recently, but at least mine had at least some shreds of fact / reality. Yours is all "Essex girls are broke and all want big boobs therefore sponge off the state" - if you knew anything about Essex you'd know their self-made dads will all pay for them. Probably in cash.CamMoreRon said:
So her dad pays for it.
NEXT.
I mean FFS.. do you base all of these opinions on hypothetical bullst you dreamt up from a load of generic stereotypes? I know I've been throwing some pretty big opinions around recently, but at least mine had at least some shreds of fact / reality. Yours is all "Essex girls are broke and all want big boobs therefore sponge off the state" - if you knew anything about Essex you'd know their self-made dads will all pay for them. Probably in cash.
You've been throwing around bullsNEXT.
I mean FFS.. do you base all of these opinions on hypothetical bulls
t you dreamt up from a load of generic stereotypes? I know I've been throwing some pretty big opinions around recently, but at least mine had at least some shreds of fact / reality. Yours is all "Essex girls are broke and all want big boobs therefore sponge off the state" - if you knew anything about Essex you'd know their self-made dads will all pay for them. Probably in cash.t, not opinions. An opinion would be something like "Voting labour in 1997 was a mistake". Bullst is pretending you made a mistake in voting for them when you were still at school.Based on the standard of your posting, I strongly suspect you are STILL in school. In Essex.
Now, kid, we've all been you before we grew up. A silly little boy with a big mouth and strong opinions based on... Well, not a lot. Certainly not based on life experience, as you make up so much guff you can't keep your chronology straight. So here's the thing. Your future self wants you to STFU and stop posting.
LucreLout said:
You've been throwing around bullst, not opinions. An opinion would be something like "Voting labour in 1997 was a mistake". Bullst is pretending you made a mistake in voting for them when you were still at school.
Based on the standard of your posting, I strongly suspect you are STILL in school. In Essex.
Now, kid, we've all been you before we grew up. A silly little boy with a big mouth and strong opinions based on... Well, not a lot. Certainly not based on life experience, as you make up so much guff you can't keep your chronology straight. So here's the thing. Your future self wants you to STFU and stop posting.
OH don't hurt me with your street knowledge, Mr Lout.. I'll be good!t, not opinions. An opinion would be something like "Voting labour in 1997 was a mistake". Bullst is pretending you made a mistake in voting for them when you were still at school.Based on the standard of your posting, I strongly suspect you are STILL in school. In Essex.
Now, kid, we've all been you before we grew up. A silly little boy with a big mouth and strong opinions based on... Well, not a lot. Certainly not based on life experience, as you make up so much guff you can't keep your chronology straight. So here's the thing. Your future self wants you to STFU and stop posting.
Yeah I voted for them when I was 21 - first available opportunity. The reason I don't remember exact age / year / term / what I was wearing is because I didn't care about what I was doing. I was just voting because.. that's what you do, apparently. Vote. For whoever.
I take a lot of pride in not having "grown up", as it means I don't get stuck in the trap of thinking life is this big serious thing full of moments of live or die pride. My future self doesn't give a f**k about stuff like that, and neither do the Camerons of past or present.
Anyway.. pointless character diversions aside.. you seem to have based a large portion of your opinion (at least recent posts on this thread..) on ridiculous stereotypes.
CamMoreRon said:
OH don't hurt me with your street knowledge, Mr Lout.. I'll be good!
Yeah I voted for them when I was 21 - first available opportunity. The reason I don't remember exact age / year / term / what I was wearing is because I didn't care about what I was doing. I was just voting because.. that's what you do, apparently. Vote. For whoever.
I take a lot of pride in not having "grown up", as it means I don't get stuck in the trap of thinking life is this big serious thing full of moments of live or die pride. My future self doesn't give a f**k about stuff like that, and neither do the Camerons of past or present.
Anyway.. pointless character diversions aside.. you seem to have based a large portion of your opinion (at least recent posts on this thread..) on ridiculous stereotypes.
The reason you don't remember is because you were making it up as you went along.Yeah I voted for them when I was 21 - first available opportunity. The reason I don't remember exact age / year / term / what I was wearing is because I didn't care about what I was doing. I was just voting because.. that's what you do, apparently. Vote. For whoever.
I take a lot of pride in not having "grown up", as it means I don't get stuck in the trap of thinking life is this big serious thing full of moments of live or die pride. My future self doesn't give a f**k about stuff like that, and neither do the Camerons of past or present.
Anyway.. pointless character diversions aside.. you seem to have based a large portion of your opinion (at least recent posts on this thread..) on ridiculous stereotypes.
The stereotypes were to keep it simple enough that you might understand. You didn't. That's your problem not mine.
LucreLout said:
The reason you don't remember is because you were making it up as you went along.
The stereotypes were to keep it simple enough that you might understand. You didn't. That's your problem not mine.
Meh.. call me a liar. I'm not particularly fussed.The stereotypes were to keep it simple enough that you might understand. You didn't. That's your problem not mine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Completely wrong. He doesn't pay taxes, he is paid from taxes 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.
If what you and the other chappie think of as economics actually worked, millions of communists wouldn't have frozen to death or starved.
I've no doubt you'll not understand that point either.
LucreLout said:
Completely wrong. He doesn't pay taxes, he is paid from taxes
If what you and the other chappie think of as economics actually worked, millions of communists wouldn't have frozen to death or starved.
I've no doubt you'll not understand that point either.
The reason millions of communists starved is the same as the reason millions of people in capitalist/ free market economies starve every year. (Or do you believe that nobody starves in the latter?) Neither a pure command economy nor a pure free market economy achieve the best outcomes for the most people. So that is why most developed countries have mixed economies. If what you and the other chappie think of as economics actually worked, millions of communists wouldn't have frozen to death or starved.
I've no doubt you'll not understand that point either.
in any caseNobody is advocating for a command economy. It's the silly suggestion that, somehow, taxes paid by an NHS nurse are economically different to those paid by a BUPA nurse.
LucreLout said:
Completely wrong. He doesn't pay taxes, he is paid from taxes
If what you and the other chappie think of as economics actually worked, millions of communists wouldn't have frozen to death or starved.
I've no doubt you'll not understand that point either.
Ok.. and where do taxes come from?If what you and the other chappie think of as economics actually worked, millions of communists wouldn't have frozen to death or starved.
I've no doubt you'll not understand that point either.
And then.. where would his private salary come from?
...........................?
LucreLout 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.
Completely wrong. He doesn't pay taxes, he is paid from taxes 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.
If what you and the other chappie think of as economics actually worked, millions of communists wouldn't have frozen to death or starved.
I've no doubt you'll not understand that point either.
As in pretty much all countries, we have a collection of services that we pay for collectively through taxation as it makes sense. The exact makeup of that varies between countries. Your view of a "net contributor" is just odd and ultimately pointless. You've got an idiosyncratic and very black/white view of the world, with a bee in your bonnet about public sector workers and politicians. None of us exist in isolation (...well apart from you) and the state provides, through the people it employs or pays for, stuff that enables us to be productive. i.e. "you didn't build that" etc.. We (the people) built it..
Countdown said:
The reason millions of communists starved is the same as the reason millions of people in capitalist/ free market economies starve every year. (Or do you believe that nobody starves in the latter?) Neither a pure command economy nor a pure free market economy achieve the best outcomes for the most people. So that is why most developed countries have mixed economies.
in any caseNobody is advocating for a command economy. It's the silly suggestion that, somehow, taxes paid by an NHS nurse are economically different to those paid by a BUPA nurse.
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.in any caseNobody is advocating for a command economy. It's the silly suggestion that, somehow, taxes paid by an NHS nurse are economically different to those paid by a BUPA nurse.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff