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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Without a doubt yes, in my opinion the NHS should be privatised .
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by mkb230)
      Without a doubt yes, in my opinion the NHS should be privatised .
      Likewise. Also, education and a list of other things too ...
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Caarl)
      For a start the royal mail, pensions, the banks from the recession, parts of the NHS, all quangos and some local services could be privatised.
      Re pensions, which type are you thinking should be run in the private sector?

      Whilst the basic state pension remains with the state, the state second pension is to already go with the new scheme coming in from 2012. (Employee 4%, employer 3%, state tax contribution 1% as a minimum benchmark)

      If you are considering employer pensions where the state is the employer, some of these already have a private element. I suspect it is more likely these will shift more to private sector fund management with fewer defined benefit and more defined contribution schemes, as has already happened to a fair degree in the private sector.

      Re the bank funding, whilst the government has heavy equity stakes in RBOS and Lloyds/HBOS at present, the intent is already there to sell these back into the market/ outside other investors when the time is right.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Yes, i think we could move to social insurance instead of an NHS, like germany.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by DJKL)
      Re pensions, which type are you thinking should be run in the private sector?

      Whilst the basic state pension remains with the state, the state second pension is to already go with the new scheme coming in from 2012. (Employee 4%, employer 3%, state tax contribution 1% as a minimum benchmark)

      If you are considering employer pensions where the state is the employer, some of these already have a private element. I suspect it is more likely these will shift more to private sector fund management with fewer defined benefit and more defined contribution schemes, as has already happened to a fair degree in the private sector.

      Re the bank funding, whilst the government has heavy equity stakes in RBOS and Lloyds/HBOS at present, the intent is already there to sell these back into the market/ outside other investors when the time is right.
      Well the welfare spending is at around 154billion so pensions could make a dent in bashing government expenditure down.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Caarl)
      In the UK our public sector is around 42%, thus meaning 42% of tax payers are secondary tax consumers, meaning they are paid by the government and thus don't create any wealth themselves. Do you think the royal mail should be privatised a long with other public services to try and create more primary tax contributors and create more wealth?
      Well, that's just wrong.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by CandyFlipper)
      I thought over half our economy was now public sector?

      But yeah, we should privatise more and lower taxes - try to get some private sector growth and job creation.
      lol libertarians, you so funny
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by Teveth)
        Well, that's just wrong.
        It is true. All wealth is created by the private sector. The public sector only exists at the expense of the private sector.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Caarl)
        Well the welfare spending is at around 154billion so pensions could make a dent in bashing government expenditure down.
        Yes, but not very quickly. Contributions already paid/ years service require to be accounted for, anything else would be theft.

        I expect to see most public sector schemes changing for future years from defined benefit to defined contribution, however given the sums already accrued but currently unfunded this will merely reduce the rate of growth of the problem it will not make it go away.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        There are a number of issues here:

        The first is that over the past 150 years, society's demand for what we now know as "public services" has steadily increased over the past 150 years. (This is not the same as demand for the number of people who work for the state - this point only looks at the provision of given service).

        The next issue is that of the provision of what economists call "merit goods" - those goods and services that society deems market provision of them is not enough to meet what society requires. Healthcare in particular in the realms of disease prevention is a classic case.

        In essence there are two sorts of privatisation: The first being the classical "Thatcher style" privatisation of industries that provided customer-paid-for goods & services - such as public utilities, (gas, water, electricity) to rail & British airways.
        The second is the contracted delivery of given services paid for by the state - whether the delivery of school dinners to provision of temporary admin staff.

        The privatisation of British Airways was one that made the most sense in that it competes in an international market against a number of competitors & that EU competition rules prevent subsidising losses. (France regularly runs into trouble on this).

        Less so the railways where there is no straight-forward competitor on individual rail routes or other forms of transport. The fact that demand for rail travel is price inelastic (the rate at which prices can change is greater than which demand will change accordingly) means that paying passengers -esp commuters are easy targets as the only alternative to taking the financial hit is quitting their jobs.

        In terms of "should" we privatise more, are there any more services that the state provides that are not merit goods and which fall into the category of a BA-style privatisation?

        Secondly, what are both the financial and democratic costs & benefits of contracting out delivery to the big outsourcing firms? Personally I think there are a lot of false economies with this one that are difficult to measure - e.g. The reliance on poorly-paid casual labour for many of the "building support" style services that pay less & have poorer-if any pension schemes. This then comes back to bite the state ipon retirement - to say nothing of the lack of dedication to work & workplace. If you're paid a fair wage & treated fairly at work, you're more likely to do a better job than if you are paid badly & treated like scum. Sound familiar to anyone in p/t work?
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        It is true. All wealth is created by the private sector. The public sector only exists at the expense of the private sector.
        Wrong wrong wrong.

        It's not a question of either/or: both are dependent on each other.

        Thr private sector would be a mess without public sector workers running a legal system that enabled the application & enforcement of contract & property law. The lack of both of these in the former Soviet bloc after 1989 led to absolute chaos in the early 1990s. Those who took advantage are who we now know as the oligarchs.

        Frontlime public services such as schools, hospitals etc allow parents to work while children are being looked after & ensure that people can recover properly if they become ill.

        The division between the public & private sectors for me is a false one. The Soviet bloc taught us what happens if everything is done by a monolithic repressive state. The social problems in the Victorian era taught us what happens if we do not have provision of even the most basic of public services.

        The two are inter-dependent.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        Those who don't learn from the past are doomed for the future.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        It is true. All wealth is created by the private sector. The public sector only exists at the expense of the private sector.
        If you nationalise an oil company and use tax payer's money to fund a drilling operation, extract oil and then sell it on at market price for a massive profit, has wealth not been created? Even if the company doesn't sell the oil on at market prices, but instead distributes it across the country to fuel people's homes, has wealth not been created?

        You're talking nonsense.
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
          Wrong wrong wrong.

          It's not a question of either/or: both are dependent on each other.

          Thr private sector would be a mess without public sector workers running a legal system that enabled the application & enforcement of contract & property law. The lack of both of these in the former Soviet bloc after 1989 led to absolute chaos in the early 1990s. Those who took advantage are who we now know as the oligarchs.

          Frontlime public services such as schools, hospitals etc allow parents to work while children are being looked after & ensure that people can recover properly if they become ill.

          The division between the public & private sectors for me is a false one. The Soviet bloc taught us what happens if everything is done by a monolithic repressive state. The social problems in the Victorian era taught us what happens if we do not have provision of even the most basic of public services.

          The two are inter-dependent.
          What do you mean “wrong wrong wrong”? Do you mean you happen to know an objective truth? Oh wait, you don’t. You just happen to have been brought-up in an environment where you couldn’t possibly imagine schools, hospitals & legal systems without a coercive monopoly. And because of that, you think you’re right? Correct?

          What do you know about the Victorian Era? This will be amusing. I have a thick book on the history of social welfare reform … like most in this country you think it all started with children working in Dickensian factories? Am I right again?

          I really don’t have anything to add on to this, than perhaps explain the point you haven’t even touched upon. Wealth is created. Wealth is moved by the use of force from elected government officials from those who create wealth. The public sector relies on the private sector. Put it another way – Can one survive without the other? The public sector is completely 100% dependent on the private. What does the private sector need from the public? Nothing, other than what politicians have repeatedly told us.

          (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
          If you nationalise an oil company and use tax payer's money to fund a drilling operation, extract oil and then sell it on at market price for a massive profit, has wealth not been created? Even if the company doesn't sell the oil on at market prices, but instead distributes it across the country to fuel people's homes, has wealth not been created?

          You're talking nonsense.
          No. Have you heard of the economic Broken Window Fallacy? (here is a youtube video).

          Where do you think the oil company came from? Do you think people wake-up with massive companies next door? It’s called capital investment!

          Why are you going to deprive people (especially the poorest) by force off their own hard-earnt money to fund your fancy ideas, and then make them pay for the final product too?!?
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          You would see pigs flying over 10 Downing Street and the Palace of Westminster before you see the NHS being privatised. Libertarian ideology is beyond the political norm. it amazes how libertarians get annoyed at people not "getting it" lol..
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          NHS is already being privatised through the back door. Who do you think GP's will turn to now that they have to sort out the budgets that the PCT's used to handle? Private firms.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by beecher)
          NHS is already being privatised through the back door. Who do you think GP's will turn to now that they have to sort out the budgets that the PCT's used to handle? Private firms.
          GP practices have always been private businesses.
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
          Wrong wrong wrong.

          It's not a question of either/or: both are dependent on each other.

          Thr private sector would be a mess without public sector workers running a legal system that enabled the application & enforcement of contract & property law. The lack of both of these in the former Soviet bloc after 1989 led to absolute chaos in the early 1990s. Those who took advantage are who we now know as the oligarchs.

          Frontlime public services such as schools, hospitals etc allow parents to work while children are being looked after & ensure that people can recover properly if they become ill.

          The division between the public & private sectors for me is a false one. The Soviet bloc taught us what happens if everything is done by a monolithic repressive state. The social problems in the Victorian era taught us what happens if we do not have provision of even the most basic of public services.

          The two are inter-dependent.
          Evidently so, but at 42% of the economy being public sector based isnt one weighed heavier than the other? In 1913 when the public sector was 10% it allowed more wealth creation.

          The statement is true; the public sector does NOT create wealth, and it could be argued 42% being secondary tax consumers basically means Britain's means to reduce our 4.8 trillion deficit is unlikely giving the lack of wealth creators.
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by ninja-lewis)
          GP practices have always been private businesses.
          Funded by the government which means they are tax consumers
          Offline

          15
          ReputationRep:
          Nah more nationalising
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
        Useful resources

        Groups associated with this forum:

        View associated groups
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • 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

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