Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Not really. The most efficient thing a government can do is to give people money. This doesn't presume that the government knows best in how to do anything - it merely gives people the means to spend it pursuing their goals and desires, and communicating to people providing these things by making use of them. The government then doesn't run anything, it's merely taking a lump sum from land rents and giving it out equally. That's both a legitimate and efficient function for government, and quite frankly the best type of redistribution there is.
    But only a private company can run a library!? Actually I'm in mood to argue. Exploit away.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    But only a private company can run a library!? Actually I'm in mood to argue. Exploit away.
    No, not only a private company can - but with a competitive process you're likely to end up at a point where libraries reflect the public will a lot more. Expirable digital books, tie-ups with publishers, an increased focus on internet access 9which is a large part of what libraries now provide) and so forth could keep many of these services running free at the point of use.

    But hell, if people have to subscribe for 50p/week to a library if they choose instead of paying 50p/week in tax (which they can't choose) then really I don't see the difference, mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    No, not only a private company can - but with a competitive process you're likely to end up at a point where libraries reflect the public will a lot more. Expirable digital books, tie-ups with publishers, an increased focus on internet access 9which is a large part of what libraries now provide) and so forth could keep many of these services running free at the point of use.

    But hell, if people have to subscribe for 50p/week to a library if they choose instead of paying 50p/week in tax (which they can't choose) then really I don't see the difference, mind.
    Err but libraries already do that and librarians work damned hard to ensure they are frequented. Competition is irrelevant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Err but libraries already do that and librarians work damned hard to ensure they are frequented. Competition is irrelevant.
    Librarians aren't the ones who make the decisions over what to provide within the library though. It frustrates the hell out of my aunt who is a librarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Librarians aren't the ones who make the decisions over what to provide within the library though. It frustrates the hell out of my aunt who is a librarian.
    Depends on the library service. Mine is very user focused and responsive to staff input. I doubt your beloved private sector could do any better.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Depends on the library service. Mine is very user focused and responsive to staff input. I doubt your beloved private sector could do any better.
    Why's that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Why's that?
    Because like most other private sector businesses it'd soon **** off and leave yet more people out of work. The Valleys is a really tough place to live, beautiful but tough, and frankly these public services are some of the last thinfmgs we have left. My local library was built by public subscription raised from local workers, my school paid for by workers through collective endeavour. They believed a council was a safeguard for the future. That i can use the same building that people have since 1890 is because of that desire. Believe a private company would have done that? I ****ing don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Just a short note to say that I will be going away on holiday between Saturday 18th August - Saturday 25th August. My birthday is the 26th August, so I'll be back fully active on TSR probably on Monday 27th August.

    My apologies for any inconvience this may cause. TopHat will be filling in for me, so please direct any urgent matters to him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Yeah, except that there's no longer the 'work or die' premise that this argument relies on.
    I'd be interested to know where you found that argument from. The whole point is that by removing the minimum wage it gives employers the chance to take advantage of their staff - yes, many wouldn't, but some would - by reducing salaries massively. And yes, the government provides financial support to families, but things are getting more expensive nowadays, like food and electricity, and people need jobs. And a minimum wage ensures that they're getting something worthwhile for their time. Removing it would be a mistake.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hines)
    I'd be interested to know where you found that argument from. The whole point is that by removing the minimum wage it gives employers the chance to take advantage of their staff - yes, many wouldn't, but some would - by reducing salaries massively. And yes, the government provides financial support to families, but things are getting more expensive nowadays, like food and electricity, and people need jobs. And a minimum wage ensures that they're getting something worthwhile for their time. Removing it would be a mistake.
    Because, if people have enough to live off anyway, then why on earth would they take a 60 hour/week job with no breaks for a few pennies an hour? Why would they ever choose to work in these 'slave-like' conditions, when they can live an adequate life without working, without any obligation to look for or take a job? The point is this minimum is covered regardless of your work situation - because of the Act I referenced above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Because, if people have enough to live off anyway, then why on earth would they take a 60 hour/week job with no breaks for a few pennies an hour? Why would they ever choose to work in these 'slave-like' conditions, when they can live an adequate life without working, without any obligation to look for or take a job? The point is this minimum is covered regardless of your work situation - because of the Act I referenced above.
    Round and round in circles, like a teddy bear...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Because like most other private sector businesses it'd soon **** off and leave yet more people out of work. The Valleys is a really tough place to live, beautiful but tough, and frankly these public services are some of the last thinfmgs we have left. My local library was built by public subscription raised from local workers, my school paid for by workers through collective endeavour. They believed a council was a safeguard for the future. That i can use the same building that people have since 1890 is because of that desire. Believe a private company would have done that? I ****ing don't.
    And yet we don't call for anything to be run purely by corporations - just not by forcibly taking other people's money and spending it through the means of the State. If people wish to club together voluntarily (through time or a portion of their money) to run a library - fantastic! Indeed if they wish to create some kind of voluntary society to keep these things going then by all means, they can! Simply I don't think that those who don't wish to participate shouldn't, and if they forgo the use of the service then so be it.

    Furthermore - a lot of why these places are so tough to live is because of the public sector itself. As I've argued elsewhere the use of national pay scales means that private enterprise isn't profitable in these places. That, along with the huge streams of regulation (on starting a business and on land development) and the taxes that go along with a business (including business rents, VAT squeezing your margins, income tax and NICs on any employees you hire and the very costs of complying with all of this) simply makes many enterprises that would be profitable, not. It's this squeezing out of the private sector from the poorest places that drives them into a cycle of becoming poorer and poorer and consequently more reliant on the very thing that's doing the damage in the first place. Government.

    Now, I appreciate that you can't just suddenly drop everything and assume that the private sector will immediately fill in - that doesn't happen. Everything takes time. This is why I think that reducing taxes on income and consumption and replacing them with land to create a more enterprising environment are the steps that must be taken first.

    But still, I don't see that taking 50p from someone in tax every week which covers the cost of their library is any different from letting someone have that 50p which they can spend on library membership if they so choose to. They might decide there's other things that would be better for their lives, in which case - taking the 50p in the first place wasn't the best thing for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    And yet we don't call for anything to be run purely by corporations - just not by forcibly taking other people's money and spending it through the means of the State. If people wish to club together voluntarily (through time or a portion of their money) to run a library - fantastic! Indeed if they wish to create some kind of voluntary society to keep these things going then by all means, they can! Simply I don't think that those who don't wish to participate shouldn't, and if they forgo the use of the service then so be it.

    Furthermore - a lot of why these places are so tough to live is because of the public sector itself. As I've argued elsewhere the use of national pay scales means that private enterprise isn't profitable in these places. That, along with the huge streams of regulation (on starting a business and on land development) and the taxes that go along with a business (including business rents, VAT squeezing your margins, income tax and NICs on any employees you hire and the very costs of complying with all of this) simply makes many enterprises that would be profitable, not. It's this squeezing out of the private sector from the poorest places that drives them into a cycle of becoming poorer and poorer and consequently more reliant on the very thing that's doing the damage in the first place. Government.

    Now, I appreciate that you can't just suddenly drop everything and assume that the private sector will immediately fill in - that doesn't happen. Everything takes time. This is why I think that reducing taxes on income and consumption and replacing them with land to create a more enterprising environment are the steps that must be taken first.

    But still, I don't see that taking 50p from someone in tax every week which covers the cost of their library is any different from letting someone have that 50p which they can spend on library membership if they so choose to. They might decide there's other things that would be better for their lives, in which case - taking the 50p in the first place wasn't the best thing for them.
    I'm not on a computer so not able to reply fully but this strikes me as theoretical pie in the sky to be honest.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    What are your views on this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19267308
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazzini)
    What are your views on this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19267308
    Abso-****ing-lutely not.

    EDIT: Sorry Labour for butting in, thought this was the Bar!
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Mazzini)
    What are your views on this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19267308
    Something needs to be done about obesity and on some grounds letting your child become that I do view as somewhat child abuse. However, taking them into care wont do anything as the care system is so full of **** - not to mention emotional damage
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    I would love to be a librarian of a good library.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    What would be your tax rate for someone who earns £150,000 a year?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Abso-****ing-lutely not.

    EDIT: Sorry Labour for butting in, thought this was the Bar!

    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    Something needs to be done about obesity and on some grounds letting your child become that I do view as somewhat child abuse. However, taking them into care wont do anything as the care system is so full of **** - not to mention emotional damage
    Okay, right. Any Labour members going to answer the question?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    What be your tax rate for someone who earns £150,000 a year?
    This will be interesting...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2018
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.