Turn on thread page Beta

March 26th, Poll Tax Riots Round 2? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    People in public sector jobs are not only taking our tax money, they're also not engaged in any sort of productive work. If there are jobs to be cut, and they can be shifted into the private sector, then we essentially win twice. "Bi-winning" as the parlance of the times would have it.
    lol, so when you're bins are taken away its not productive work? if your house was on fire would you criticise the fireman for 'not being productive'? public sector workers take your tax money - pay most of it back - and provide goods and services, what don't you understand about that? in the private sector the people at the top earn loads and the people at the bottom are paid very little. so you are not bi-winning or woteva it is you are going on about. i think you need to stop reading right wing propaganda and think about this in a concrete sense. you have not answered by question also. you said these cuts will benefit everyone i said how is losing your job a benefit. please answer that.

    (Original post by L i b)
    The OP here outlines the present situation well: the sort of people who get involved in these protests have no particular cause, they're just general malcontents who'll protest at any Tory government - and, it seems now, any Labour government too. They barely know why they're there - so they're hardly going to capture the public imagination.
    where do you get this from? did u make it up or read it somewhere?.....who exactly do you know going on the march for you to get this asumption that people who are losing their jobs and facing attacks on their pensions have no particular cause to protest? just listen to yourself you sound complety mad!!



    (Original post by L i b)
    It does mean that if people get involved in illegal strikes, they're very liable to be sacked. From a young man's perspective, this is a good thing - it frees up jobs for those of us who want to work and get on in life, and feel we can do a damn sight better than a bunch of decadent tossers who want to spend their time doing nothing.
    so the police, teachers, nurses, fireman, youth workers, care workers are all decadent tossers who want to spend their time doing nothing? where do you get this stuff from? do u live in a little bubble away from the real world?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HomeoApathy92)
    tbh with the mood this country is developing i dont really think ppl will be looking for permission for a general strike when it comes down to it if it gets that bad
    The mood amongst impressionable, naive and fairly stupid teenagers?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    lol, so when you're bins are taken away its not productive work? if your house was on fire would you criticise the fireman for 'not being productive'? public sector workers take your tax money - pay most of it back - and provide goods and services, what don't you understand about that? in the private sector the people at the top earn loads and the people at the bottom are paid very little. so you are not bi-winning or woteva it is you are going on about. i think you need to stop reading right wing propaganda and think about this in a concrete sense. you have not answered by question also. you said these cuts will benefit everyone i said how is losing your job a benefit. please answer that.
    You've missed his point. What they don't do is generate wealth.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Excellent, the people will riot against the legitimate government of this country which is working to make us stronger in the Long term.This government is in power, and it will be in power until May 2015, grow up and accept it. These cuts are for the benefit of everyone.

    And if they do smash Windows, graffiti ect ect I pray they get fined, imprisoned ect for the money thats coming out of our Taxes to pay for their stupid selfish actions.
    Legitimacy is nothing but a value-judgement in such a context. Nor would i say the government is making anything but a certain sector of the population stronger, namely those of their own ilk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    You've missed his point. What they don't do is generate wealth.
    no, the problem with the way he thinks is that it misses this huge gap of improving peoples quality of life. it doesn't matter at all if it creates value - but u want a fire put out in your house and you want ur cancer diagnosed and removed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    you wont if you loose your job.
    Work in a family run business. We've already had pay cuts and reduction in hours to keep the business afloat.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    no, the problem with the way he thinks is that it misses this huge gap of improving peoples quality of life. it doesn't matter at all if it creates value - but u want a fire put out in your house and you want ur cancer diagnosed and removed.
    Of course it matters. You need the private sector to pay for the public sector, and increases or maintenance of the size of the public sector will place a larger burden on the private sector through higher taxation. Nobody is saying that the public sector is useless, but it doesn't produce wealth, and that is a very very important thing to consider.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    Of course it matters. You need the private sector to pay for the public sector, and increases or maintenance of the size of the public sector will place a larger burden on the private sector through higher taxation. Nobody is saying that the public sector is useless, but it doesn't produce wealth, and that is a very very important thing to consider.
    if the public sector was building houses, manufacturing products etc. you would not need big private business. money paid to public sector workers largely ends back with the state - only the goods and services have been produced as well. when someone then says 'but its ot creating wealth' it will be seen to be a superfluos comment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    no, the problem with the way he thinks is that it misses this huge gap of improving peoples quality of life. it doesn't matter at all if it creates value - but u want a fire put out in your house and you want ur cancer diagnosed and removed.
    Having had about five years of discussing things with L i b, I can promise you that this hasn't slipped his mind.

    No one doubts that the public sector do provide a service. The point is, however, that as long as they aren't generators of wealth (which, as you admirably point out, they cannot be; This doesn't mean they are without worth, but they do not exist to generate wealth), then it means someone has to. The private sector has to exist in order to generate the wealth that then pays for the NHS and all the other bits of lovely spending that's totally efficient and wonderful. Someone needs to pay for it, and if you get to the point where the public sector - the unproftable sector of the economy - is stretching the profitable bit - the private sector - too much (too much taxation = less incentive to set up a business in the UK, less personal spending from people, less investment in the UK from overseas etc) then no one wins. It doesn't matter how righteous and how wonderful the services provided by the firefighters are, if we can't pay their wages, it's pointless.

    That's the issue here - not that "rich people like to see poor people suffer" but rather that it's not in anyone's best interests, including the poor, for the private sector to be stifled in such a way. Over the course of Thatcher's premiership, public sector spending rose. It actually rose in real terms, not just absolute. Yet, as a percentage of GDP, it fell. This was because her pro-business reformed increased growth which in turn increased tax intake, which enabled the government to spend more whilst taxing people less. This helps the poorest in society a lot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Work in a family run business. We've already had pay cuts and reduction in hours to keep the business afloat.
    why are you accepting that? you didn't cause the recession, but the recession has caused you to face wage cuts when inflation is around 5%. so you'd have to have a 5% pay increase just to keep up but you're not getting that, you're not even on a wage freeze you are loosing hours AND pay!!!!...you should definitaly march!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    why are you accepting that? you didn't cause the recession, but the recession has caused you to face wage cuts when inflation is around 5%. so you'd have to have a 5% pay increase just to keep up but you're not getting that, you're not even on a wage freeze you are loosing hours AND pay!!!!...you should definitaly march!

    I admit my financial circumstances are better than most. I don't agree with the protesters so I will not march.There have to be reductions in public sector spending, we can't go on as we are. End of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Having had about five years of discussing things with L i b, I can promise you that this hasn't slipped his mind.

    No one doubts that the public sector do provide a service. The point is, however, that as long as they aren't generators of wealth (which, as you admirably point out, they cannot be; This doesn't mean they are without worth, but they do not exist to generate wealth), then it means someone has to. The private sector has to exist in order to generate the wealth that then pays for the NHS and all the other bits of lovely spending that's totally efficient and wonderful. Someone needs to pay for it, and if you get to the point where the public sector - the unproftable sector of the economy - is stretching the profitable bit - the private sector - too much (too much taxation = less incentive to set up a business in the UK, less personal spending from people, less investment in the UK from overseas etc) then no one wins. It doesn't matter how righteous and how wonderful the services provided by the firefighters are, if we can't pay their wages, it's pointless.

    That's the issue here - not that "rich people like to see poor people suffer" but rather that it's not in anyone's best interests, including the poor, for the private sector to be stifled in such a way. Over the course of Thatcher's premiership, public sector spending rose. It actually rose in real terms, not just absolute. Yet, as a percentage of GDP, it fell. This was because her pro-business reformed increased growth which in turn increased tax intake, which enabled the government to spend more whilst taxing people less. This helps the poorest in society a lot.
    manufactoring can be owned by the public sector. with the top companies 'the commanding heights of the economy' under democratic public control then the fireman is paid through the state (tax payers money) he pays some of it back through income tax, he spends money in the state owned supermarket and deposits his savings in a state run bank. i.e. the majority of the money he is paid returns to the state and the state gains the benefit of the service he provides. the same is said of builders, of engineers, of any profession. you would not need a private sector to pay for all this.

    Further the poor and vulnerable will be hit by this. they will be hit far more than any of the beneits you have suggested will help them. for example if you die in an NHS hospital that you use because you can't afford to go private, and that NHS hospital could have saved you if it had more funding (more beds, nurses, doctors etc.) then you will be paying a very heavy price for the governments actions. and this is basically my point - you can go on about academic economic arguments or you can look at what is happening on the ground and see that all that talk is useless and practicle solutions have to be taken. namely nationalise under democratic means the big companies and invest in our services, creating jobs and building houses. thats how to meet peoples needs and create a better society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    why are you accepting that? you didn't cause the recession, but the recession has caused you to face wage cuts when inflation is around 5%. so you'd have to have a 5% pay increase just to keep up but you're not getting that, you're not even on a wage freeze you are loosing hours AND pay!!!!...you should definitaly march!
    0% pay rise is better than a 100% pay cut.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    manufactoring can be owned by the public sector. with the top companies 'the commanding heights of the economy' under democratic public control then the fireman is paid through the state (tax payers money) he pays some of it back through income tax, he spends money in the state owned supermarket and deposits his savings in a state run bank. i.e. the majority of the money he is paid returns to the state and the state gains the benefit of the service he provides. the same is said of builders, of engineers, of any profession. you would not need a private sector to pay for all this.
    It could well be ran by it, but frankly I don't want a situation where there's 3 times as much of one product as is needed, half as much of several others, all placed in the wrong areas, built at the wrong time, to specifications nobody wants and many times a higher price. The system you propose has been tried before. It was a disaster. Our system gives us the liberty to choose what we do with our money as opposed to it being dictated to us by the state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    I admit my financial circumstances are better than most. I don't agree with the protesters so I will not march.There have to be reductions in public sector spending, we can't go on as we are. End of.
    lol. you're a political self harmer. YOU are facing a decrease in your income through pay cuts and a lose of hours. YOU did not cause the recession which has led to this happening and yet you want to just lie down and take it like a b*tch and hope that some rhetoric about the neccessity of cuts in public spending makes it ok. you realise that the richest people are getting richer whilst you are facing cuts in hours and pay don't you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    lol. you're a political self harmer. YOU are facing a decrease in your income through pay cuts and a lose of hours. YOU did not cause the recession which has led to this happening and yet you want to just lie down and take it like a b*tch and hope that some rhetoric about the neccessity of cuts in public spending makes it ok. you realise that the richest people are getting richer whilst you are facing cuts in hours and pay don't you?
    Ehh in the long term everyone would face harm with our current deficit. We can't afford the increase in Spending Labour undertook, it was too much too fast. Combined with some awful decisions being implemented such as the wasteful EMA down to the increase in the public sector with Bureaucrats and its just waste we didn't and don't need.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    lol. you're a political self harmer. YOU are facing a decrease in your income through pay cuts and a lose of hours. YOU did not cause the recession which has led to this happening and yet you want to just lie down and take it like a b*tch and hope that some rhetoric about the neccessity of cuts in public spending makes it ok. you realise that the richest people are getting richer whilst you are facing cuts in hours and pay don't you?
    You realise that if we don't get to grips with the finances then we'll be subjected to higher rates of interest and could potentially see a lot of the nations wealth vanish amidst a sea of hyper-inflation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    It could well be ran by it, but frankly I don't want a situation where there's 3 times as much of one product as is needed, half as much of several others, all placed in the wrong areas, built at the wrong time, to specifications nobody wants and many times a higher price. The system you propose has been tried before. It was a disaster. Our system gives us the liberty to choose what we do with our money as opposed to it being dictated to us by the state.
    I've been in shops in britain where they have been out of stock and I've worked in places where stock has been thrown out because they have over-ordered or overproduced.

    The system i propose has not been tried before. you are thinking, im sure, of eastern europe et al. but if you look at there structures they had a nationalist outlook in a country of scarce resources and were led by a brutal beurocracy who could not possibly know how much to produce etc. The only way it can work is if it is the people at the ground level are putting in the inputs for what people want and how much of it rather than some person in an office making up production targets (it really wasn't that far off in those countries!!) i.e. it needs to be bottom up and not top down.

    regarding choice - i only have the choice of what to buy up to the value of my savings and credit as well as being limited to what big companies want to sell us. i.e. i don't think anyone REALLY wants to buy teso value baked beans but there budget tells them they have to. If tesco value baked beans disappeared do you think people would be complaining that they didn't there choice had been taken away from them?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    I've been in shops in britain where they have been out of stock and I've worked in places where stock has been thrown out because they have over-ordered or overproduced.
    Overproduction is overall a marginal economic issue, and being out of stock or oversupplied is logistical incompetence which under our economic system makes the business and model less likely to succeed and thus be filtered out.
    The system i propose has not been tried before. you are thinking, im sure, of eastern europe et al. but if you look at there structures they had a nationalist outlook in a country of scarce resources and were led by a brutal beurocracy who could not possibly know how much to produce etc. The only way it can work is if it is the people at the ground level are putting in the inputs for what people want and how much of it rather than some person in an office making up production targets (it really wasn't that far off in those countries!!) i.e. it needs to be bottom up and not top down.
    And how do you propose to suppress individuals without a "brutal beurocracy"? (it's bureaucracy btw). You've simply moved from a system that shouldn't be tried to a system that can't be tried.
    regarding choice - i only have the choice of what to buy up to the value of my savings and credit as well as being limited to what big companies want to sell us. i.e. i don't think anyone REALLY wants to buy teso value baked beans but there budget tells them they have to. If tesco value baked beans disappeared do you think people would be complaining that they didn't there choice had been taken away from them?
    There's a market for cheap beans so they exist. I buy a lot of tesco value stuff and excluding their meat (which is disgusting, so I make the CHOICE of going elsewhere) it's fairly good.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    manufactoring can be owned by the public sector. with the top companies 'the commanding heights of the economy' under democratic public control then the fireman is paid through the state (tax payers money) he pays some of it back through income tax, he spends money in the state owned supermarket and deposits his savings in a state run bank. i.e. the majority of the money he is paid returns to the state and the state gains the benefit of the service he provides. the same is said of builders, of engineers, of any profession. you would not need a private sector to pay for all this.

    Further the poor and vulnerable will be hit by this. they will be hit far more than any of the beneits you have suggested will help them. for example if you die in an NHS hospital that you use because you can't afford to go private, and that NHS hospital could have saved you if it had more funding (more beds, nurses, doctors etc.) then you will be paying a very heavy price for the governments actions. and this is basically my point - you can go on about academic economic arguments or you can look at what is happening on the ground and see that all that talk is useless and practicle solutions have to be taken. namely nationalise under democratic means the big companies and invest in our services, creating jobs and building houses. thats how to meet peoples needs and create a better society.
    I've never understoof the "go outside and look!!!" argument, as if that's every any more applicable to one ideology than another. Economics isn't obscure mathematical theory - it's just social and math formula applied to real life.

    As for the rest of your argument, we're going well beyond the extents of this definition. You're arguing for an almost entirely socialist system. There are a few arguments for this, and significantly more against it, and their time and place are in other threads, as I don't think anyone here is interested in yet another capitalism vs socialism argument.

    Let me end simply by saying Brown selling gold. Duck houses and moats. Wembley stadium and the Millenium dome. NHS IT infrastructure. Welfare trap. Iraq. National ID Card database. Ridiculous PFI contracts. Northern Rock. Why are you so willing to give away more and more power and freedom to these tremendously flawed people? Mr McDonalds is chiefly concerned with making me happy, because if he doesn't, I'll go to Burger King. Mr Starbucks is chiefly concerned with offering me the best experience possible, as that's how he makes his living. But when you have to make the choice between the party who incentivises marriage with money against the party that wanted a national ID card database, how can you possible ever think you've chosen right? And why would you ever think this is a good way of deciding who gets to control our entire industry?

    Throughout recorded history, very very rarely has there ever been an instance of a greater centralising of power that did not result in the worsening of life and freedoms of those at the bottom. Likewise, rarely has there been, as a bi-product a willingness of those with power to give it up, result in less freedom and prosperity. The less government we have in our lives, the less they can **** it all up, like they inevitable, inevitably do every other time they're given mass power over swathes of the population. There are only so many times you can learn from history before that wonderful ability is taken from you.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.