Turn on thread page Beta

Why tax the productive sector to sustain the unproductive sector? watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    A lot of people with real jobs will not be able to go work. Anything but the teachers would have sweet **** all impact and I would welcome to strikes as it would expose the leviathon that atlas has to carry.
    Hope you don't have to go to A&E on Wednesday then...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Hope you don't have to go to A&E on Wednesday then...
    No, lets hope he does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Yeah - like my job. I actually produce something that somebody wants to buy.
    You're a professional comedian?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You're a professional comedian?
    Engineer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Engineer
    Right, you think that the company you work for could make things and turn a profit without an educated and healthy workforce, without roads and pavements, police, fire service, ambulance, a relatively stable society?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Right, you think that the company you work for could make things and turn a profit without an educated and healthy workforce, without roads and pavements, police, fire service, ambulance, a relatively stable society?
    I think that all of these things could be supplied without the need for the state. It is a different question to ask whether the state would do a better job than the private sector at achieving these goals.

    Police, fire service and the ambulance could all be based on insurance policies. So instead of taxing people to finance these things people could choose what they wanted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, cos the last time the fire service was private and based on insurance, it worked out really really well didn't it? :facepalm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's quite humorous that people believe that the state apparatus of compulsion and coercion is the only means available to provide for roads, education and other currently government-funded institutions. As if there wouldn't be a huge market demand for these goods.

    People ought to remember that governments never produce: they only consume the produced wealth of enterprising individuals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beneb)
    It's quite humorous that people believe that the state apparatus of compulsion and coercion is the only means available to provide for roads, education and other currently government-funded institutions. As if there wouldn't be a huge market demand for these goods.
    Personally I find it funnier that people advocating privatising everything in site clearly haven't read any history books.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Personally I find it funnier that people advocating privatising everything in site clearly haven't read any history books.
    Enlighten us.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beneb)
    It's quite humorous that people believe that the state apparatus of compulsion and coercion is the only means available to provide for roads, education and other currently government-funded institutions. As if there wouldn't be a huge market demand for these goods.
    The only reason historically why the state stepped in to supply these things is because the private sector didn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    The only reason historically why the state stepped in to supply these things is because the private sector didn't.
    The NYPD - the first state police force in New York City - was founded by the government in 1845. Are we to conclude that in the two centuries before this, this massive center for industry and commerce was a cesspool of chaos and violence?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greekislandlover)
    We actually need the unproductive part, and it needs to be paid for somehow! We all need healthcare, we all need education and we all need the bins to be emptied. None of these things can ever be self financing, so need to be paid for somehow. How would you suggest they are paid for if not out of taxation?

    I know the public sector has some fat-cats on big money for no work, and unjustifiable pension pots, but the vast majority of public sector workers earn a low wage and that has always been the case, based on the fact that whereas they missed out on wages when working the pension was good. Now they want to take the pension off of the ordinary people. In any case, the pensions deal was always part of their terms and conditions of employment.

    I don't think the strikes will make as much of an impact as the government say, and in any case I think the strikers are right to demonstrate that the government are wrong. Every other avenue has been exhausted so what else do they do? My wife is a medical secretary typing consultants letters between the consultant and GP. It's very responsible and hard work, yet she gets paid less per hour than my daughter does shelf stacking in tesco's whilst studying for her A levels. My wife has a masters degree, yet can't get work other than a low grade job because she dared to have children and a carreer break. I'm sure when you end up in the same situation (as most graduates eventually do) then you will think differently.
    I am a trained medical secretary. It is a piece of piss. When I started I was quite slow, but by the time I left I was covering 3 medical secretaries work some days and 1 clerks... The manager should have just sacked the people I was covering and given me half of the wages they saved. The government should just spend the appropriate amount on voice recognition typing software for the doctors and sack whole chunks of back office workers.

    Has anyone noticed that almost everyone striking is obese? These are the real fat cats.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beneb)
    The NYPD - the first state police force in New York City - was founded by the government in 1845. Are we to conclude that in the two centuries before this, this massive center for industry and commerce was a cesspool of chaos and violence?
    Yes, or at least crime wasn't adequately controlled with what the private sector provided. Similarly Peel's bobbies in Victorian London were created because crime was a problem beyond what the private sector could do.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    This is a bit of fallacious way of thinking, encouraged by the current government's ideology. There's aren't two pots of money (private and public) with one exclusively funded by the other. There are three pots of money - private, public and the collective money owed by individuals. Both the private and the public sector take money from the latter, whether by taxes or transactions.
    But in terms of macroeconomics, without many state-run enterprises seeking profit for society, surely government can only be funded by tax or debt? Hence all governments which overspend (like ours) must borrow.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    LOL

    Bunch of comedians here today

    That is comparable to health and education...how? To educate one child is OK, but to educate many is not? Is that it?
    I'm starting to think you're trolling. The parable directly relates to the idea that if you take taxes from productive businesses and invest it in education then this is okay because it produces more in the long run. This is a fallacy and ignores things like opportunity costs. I don't see from where you've pulled out that nonsense about my point being that only one child can be educated. Maybe you just didn't read what I said.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    The broken window fallacy was originally applied to the assertion that war is good for the economy, or rather that it is a bad idea economically to take money from someone to do something (e.g. fix a broken window) to get it back to the way it was before.

    It does not necessarily follow that the public sector is a broken window fallacy unless you are saying the function it performs does not add anything to society or the economy.
    This is true, however it does not mean to say that it cannot be applied to the public sector. The general line of thinking goes that taxes on the private sector to then be spent on education will produce more in the long run and add to the economy. This is exactly the line of thinking that the broken window fallacy addresses.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    While the public sector is important, on average they are paid more than private sector workers and have much better pensions than private sector workers even after the proposed measures have been taken. Is that fair? Do we want to let our economy suffer so public sector workers can be slightly better off?

    From a moral perspective it is different as the good pensions may have been what has lured public sector workers into doing that job, but everyone is going to have to give up something, we can't just carry on dishing out money and spending like there is no tomorrow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I'm starting to think you're trolling. The parable directly relates to the idea that if you take taxes from productive businesses and invest it in education then this is okay because it produces more in the long run. This is a fallacy and ignores things like opportunity costs. I don't see from where you've pulled out that nonsense about my point being that only one child can be educated. Maybe you just didn't read what I said.
    Are you drunk?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tateco)
    While the public sector is important, on average they are paid more than private sector workers and have much better pensions than private sector workers even after the proposed measures have been taken. Is that fair? Do we want to let our economy suffer so public sector workers can be slightly better off?

    From a moral perspective it is different as the good pensions may have been what has lured public sector workers into doing that job, but everyone is going to have to give up something, we can't just carry on dishing out money and spending like there is no tomorrow.
    We? Who is this "we"?
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.