Printable View
The Labour government and its love affair with the Public Sector / Unions has as near as dammit bankrupt the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
If the Tories reduce DSS payments to scroungers and get rid of a few hundred thousand expensive non-jobs then that can only be a good thing for those that are paying taxes and trying to get the country back on its feet.
The public sector is over staffed; they have to be to cover for all the sickies these lazy malingerers think they are entitled to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
We managed fine in 97 so why not shed all those extra jobs, as they are clearly superfluous.
Haringey Council seem to demonstrate what is wrong with a lot of the public sector, they are incompetent.
If we managed without this extra 2m then they are not needed. Which bit of that do you not understand? If you owned 2 cars and managed fine then bought a 3rd then needed to save some money then wouldn't it seem logical to ditch the new and unneeded car?
Those of you who run your own businesses will know what you need to do when things get tight, you drop the things that you don't absolutely need - if you were in debt you'd not spend money on wasteful pieces of art or politically correct jobs - judging by the BBC staff you can't have a job there if you are not black or disabled. Reverse prejudice at its worse.
The cuts need to be large and permanent then maybe we can enjoy some tax cuts, as that will be the only way things will improve. You can not spend your way out of debt, but feel free to try it when you have maxed out your credit cards this Christmas.
As opposed to how it was under Labour you paid for the services but didn't get them, how is that better?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Well we all have our cross to bearQuote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Read somewhere that 70% of current loans go unpaid, total and utter failure if 70% of graduates don't reach 15k, the entire system needs putting back to how it used to be where only the elite go to Uni and not every thick kid who cba to get a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
The repayments will be a drop in the ocean and certainly won't stop graduates buying houses, that is just scaremongering from the loony left.
Sounds like the recruitment process needs amending, I'd rather take someone with 2 years relevant HND background than someone with 3 years spent studying for an irrelevant degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezza
Of course going to Uni is a laugh, but don't see why I should have to pay for some wasters to get their end away and get drunk every night (oh so poor students - NOT).
To fund my student debts I worked every holiday and then paid off what was left once I got a proper job using my qualifications.
Sickies - checkQuote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Lazy - check
Labour to blame - check
Wasteful art - check
Political correctness - check
Bash the BBC - check
Play the race card - check
Play the disability card - check
Are you sure you're not Richard Littlejohn? That was textbook. :dozey:
That namby pamby LiberalQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
But doesn't make it any less wrong - the silent majority know as much
But if you're not so sure just call me an idiot, seems the usual retort when stumped
Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester, Lloyd's Group...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Who's incompetence cost the public more? Think hard now.
Of course being a banker is a laugh, but don't see why I should have to pay for some wasters to get their end away and get drunk every night (oh so poor bankers - NOT).
That's your explaination for the current global economic situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Pretty weak, isn't it? The global situation was triggered by the collapse and near-collapse of major banks, and the UK rode it out better than some countries. Clearly we could have done better: the idea that Brown failed to invest for a rainy day certainly has some truth, but one only has to look at Greece, Spain or the Irish Republic to see how much worse it could have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
This "silent majority" are always pretty quiet, aren't they? In fact, they were even silent during this year's general election when the Conservatives couldn't even garner a majority when presented with a massive open goal - the economy struggling, and an unpopular PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I'm neither stumped nor reduced to the level of playground insults, but I appreciate the invitation.Quote:
But if you're not so sure just call me an idiot, seems the usual retort when stumped
"Read somewhere"? Any chance of a source for this rumour? I've tried Googling but the only reports I can find seem to indicate the problem is with non-UK students defaulting, or problems with the collection process. This report indicates £285M total unpaid debt (out of a loan book of £2.79 billion [2005/6, source]) but doesn't break down the reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
My maths isn't great (I went to a crap university) but I don't make that 70%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The bank bailout is chicken feed compared with what is wasted year after year on public sector non jobs, not to mention the huge ticking bomb which is their lovely pensions.
Labour allowed the banks to act like a Bet Fred I agree. But the public sector costs a lot more - not to mention the bank bail out will be paid back with interest/profit unlike the public sector non jobs who are just parasites, like dole wallers but more costly.
Tories received more votes than either Labour, Lib Dem or all the other nut case parties like the Greens and BNP. Without Labour's crooked boundary changes they would have had a clear majority - sod all to do with Tories being unpopular they weren't they won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I was trying to find the source of the 70% but couldn't hence why I just put 'read somewhere'. It's not that difficult to follow really it isn't. 2005/6 bit out of date isn't it, as the number at Uni has shot up since then I'd expect the number of unpaid loans to have also shot up - or is that a bit too logical for you to grasp?
They were the latest figures I could find at short notice - but as it wasn't me making the accusation I don't see why I should have had to do the research in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I fully accept that the figures are slightly out of date, but do you honestly believe they've rocketed up from <1% to ~70%?
You're very quick to offer an opinion but hopeless at backing anything up with evidence, and very quick to deflect when you're challenged by somebody else's research.
Let's rewind a few posts and ask you what percentage of the BBC's staff are black and/or disabled. Or is that just more uninformed bluster?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
(link)Quote:
Government support for Britain's banks has reached a staggering £850bn and the eventual cost to taxpayers will not be known for years, the public spending watchdog says today.
To put that in some kind of context "at the end of March 2010 general government debt was £1000.4 bn" (link)
According to Sir Phillip Green, who was brought in to review government spendng and see where waste could be eliminated:(link)Quote:
no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed
With regard to public sector pensions:In 2008-9 the taxpayer’s share of costs were £14.9 billion. (link)Quote:
the Government Actuary’s Department projects total payments rising to over £79 billion a year by 2059-60
Those figures were easy to find. Harder to find is any figure on the amount of pulic sector waste. Eric Pickles has, rather like yourself, been very vocal and yet very short on detail. No doubt there is waste in the public sector, as there is in the private sector, but how much?
It would be useful to know so that we can decide what is or isn't "chicken feed".
Yes they did. The Tories received 10,703,754 votes out of a total 29,691,780. Labour received 8,609,527 and the LibDems 6,836,824. No other party received more than a million votes. (source)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Or in other words, when faced with the choice of the three main parties, 15,446,351 people did not vote Tory.
Every single book that my child reads has far more brown faces in them than in reality and why? Political Correctness that's why. Labour will have created a new job where some Guardian reading lentil muncher makes sure every kids book is disportionate re number of handicapped and ethnic characters.
CBeebies - blonde with one arm, light on the loafers white bloke, Chinese woman and a black chap - is that representative of the UK population, is it ****.
These students should repay their fees regardless of what income they are on, once they get a job then it should be taken from them at source. Don't know why the start rate has been raised from 15k to 21k, 15k is fine as it is.
Or to put it another wayQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
over 21m voted against Labour, over 72% of the country didn't want Labour, I think that counts as the majority, but wtf I haven't a link for that so it must be untrue.
Yes... There's a government post which determines how childrens' illustrators should colour the faces they draw. You carry on believing that if it makes you feel better. :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
How many people appear on CBeebies? And you've found me one with a disability, one of Asian descent, and one of Afro-Carribean descent (I don't understand what "light on the loafers white bloke" means). So a grand total of four people out of... how many? Sounds like an under representation if anything.Quote:
CBeebies - blonde with one arm, light on the loafers white bloke, Chinese woman and a black chap - is that representative of the UK population, is it ****.
Once they start earning they'll be paying basic-rate income tax, which makes a contribution to the pot which funded - amongst many other things - their tuition fees.Quote:
These students should repay their fees regardless of what income they are on, once they get a job then it should be taken from them at source. Don't know why the start rate has been raised from 15k to 21k, 15k is fine as it is.
Bolton Midnight, when was the last time you posted something about motorsport? You should just relax about New Labour, they are not in power anymore...
You would make a hopeless "Just a Minute" contestant :laugh: Cries of "evasion" would be heard :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Do you, or do you not, have a figure for the amount of alleged public sector waste to compare with the £850bn bank bailout, or the £1000.4 bn national debt?
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...d-horror-story
shows the real debt not what some left wing agenda paper reckons it is.
As does this
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/
This more believeable than your links
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...-201012143348/
Which bit of the bank bailout will be paid back with profits are you struggling with?
Yay, you're learning to put links in. Shame one of them links to a trailer for a documentary, one links to the front page of a vested-interest pressure group, and the third links to what appears to be some attempt at a comic. Never mind, keep at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
But links or no links, you've spectacularly missed the point Arrows was making. He didn't dispute that the national debt is huge, he asked what effect your proposals for sacking 2 million public sector workers would have - even supposing for a moment is was practical.
It'd be like pouring a glass of vodka into a swimming pool and calling it a cocktail.
This is from two weeks ago, about a report from the National Audit Office (go ahead and accuse them of lying, like you did with the Office of National Statistics):Quote:
Which bit of the bank bailout will be paid back with profits are you struggling with?
Or if you prefer another source:Quote:
But the NAO said it was still unclear if the taxpayer would ever be able to recoup its losses on stakes held in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group - currently in the red to the tune of £12.5 billion.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...ack.6660863.jpQuote:
THE UK government may never claw back the taxpayer funds ploughed into Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) warns today
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
A documentary all about the real mess we are in and why reducing the size of the public sector is an absolute must do if we are ever to get out of it this Labour created mess.
Taxpayers Alliance is far more truthful than Independent or Guardian as it shows how much is being spunked away by the public sector. Study it, you'll learn something.
Daily Mash > Guardian
If you are in business and have heaps of debt you cannot spend your way out of debt as Labour tried to do by creating non-jobs to bribe folk into voting Labour (turkeys don't vote for Christmas). So heaps need to be sacked and those retained need massive pay cuts and their cushy pensions massively reduced. It is the only way to reduce the debts.
Money has already come back from Labour's bail out and the rest will come back with profits, besides not bailing the banks out was just not an option, only a complete cretin would think so.
Again you miss the point: nobody's disputing that there's a large deficit. However, the economy needs stimulating and the coalitions plans depend on the critically flawed notion that the private sector will rush into the vacuum created by the scaling back of the public sector - this is dangerously unworkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I'm well aware of the Taxpayers' Alliance, thank you. They're a vested-interest pressure group with some wealthy Conservative supporting benefactors, who hypocritically campaign for fairer taxes while hiding behind dubious charitable status to avoid paying tax themselves.Quote:
Taxpayers Alliance is far more truthful than Independent or Guardian as it shows how much is being spunked away by the public sector. Study it, you'll learn something.
There's simply no comparison, and the fact that you attempt to make one betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. For starters, if a business lays off staff, it doesn't have to pay them benefits or deal with the consequences to the wider economy.Quote:
If you are in business and have heaps of debt you cannot spend your way out of debt as Labour tried to do by creating non-jobs to bribe folk into voting Labour (turkeys don't vote for Christmas). So heaps need to be sacked and those retained need massive pay cuts and their cushy pensions massively reduced. It is the only way to reduce the debts.
Some money has been returned, yes, but what did you make of the NAO report which predicts we may never break even on RBS or Lloyds? Besides, you again dodge the issue. Nobody's saying the banks shouldn't have been helped to some extent, the question remains unanswered: how will decimating the public sector be anything other than a drop in the ocean compared to the overall defecit?Quote:
Money has already come back from Labour's bail out and the rest will come back with profits, besides not bailing the banks out was just not an option, only a complete cretin would think so.
One more thing, a little amuse-bouche for you: you criticise the rise in the number of public sector workers but did you know that since 2008 Lloyds TSB banking group are included in the official figures, and that Northern Rock have been included since the end of 2007? [source]
A Tory government myth. Their hope is that with repetition it will be believed. The mess was the result of a global economic downturn. If Labour had created it only the UK would be suffering and it is blindingly obvious that is not the case. The UK was hit hard largely because 40 per cent of its GDP is reliant on the financial industry, whose mess we are now paying for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
The Taxpayers Alliance is a pressure group calling for low taxes. Matthew Elliott, the CEO lives in France and doesn't pay UK tax (like Monaco resident Sir Philip Green who is advising the goverment). The founders of the TPA are associated with the Conservative Party, and the TPA's campaign manager works for Iain Duncan Smith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
You can. Companies often increase their advertising, for example, when they're struggling, in order to attract new business and therefore income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Surely a Conservative like yourself would want incompetent, failing businesses or organisations to go to the wall, and not expect them to be given government handouts? I agree that the banking system could not be allowed to fail, but the bailout is rather at odds with the Tory ideology of the free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I think it's safe to assume you don't have a figure for the amount of alleged public sector waste for comparison purposes.
I am not missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
We as a country are massively in debt, a trillion pounds and it is growing all the time. So we have to cut out all the waste. Politically correct non-jobs are waste; so have to go - they should never have been created in the first place but that was just Labour buying votes with our money.
I am in business myself and know full well you cannot buy your way out of debt; you need to cut your waste down and tighten your belt. This includes the ‘state’ even though for some unknown reason the unions think they are above all that, frigging dinosaurs.
Only way to stimulate the economy is to get folk spending, this will happen if we get tax cuts but we can't afford them at present as we are having to deal with Labour's debts. The public sector does not create wealth it just absorbs it.
Paying Diversity Out Reach Managers dole is cheaper than paying them wages, besides if they are such go getters they won't struggle getting proper jobs within the private sector, if they are unemployable then why were they employed in the first place?
Have you ever seen the Monty Python pantomime horse sketch?
That report is guesswork at best so not worthy of being read, I prefer to deal in reality, such as the Taxpayer's Alliance that tells it as it is not as it may be.
Labour allowed the banks to act so recklessly, despite being advised to rein them in time and time again. Then they compounded the problem by wasting so much of our money on the public sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
All good people who know what they are on about, unlike the Unions who forced Red Ed on Labour even though Labour didn't want him.
Spending money on advertising is not spending money on works of art or politically correct bollocks. I can just imagine my bank manager's face if I asked her for a loan to buy some worthless piece of art for my businesses waiting area. But I'm in the real world not the public sector.
I was annoyed about Labour's scrappage scheme as it only helped a small portion of the public sector, a reduction in business rates would have helped everyone and not just a few franchised car dealers.
Nobody has an exact figure on public sector waste, as it is so vast nobody knows, the only ones that do have a vested interest in taxpayers not finding out.
Wrong. If you reduce the size of the public sector to zero, then the resulting sectors of the economy need to keep spending at increased levels to maintain the same size of the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Aggregate Income = Consumer Spending + Investment Spending + Government Spending + Exports Receipts - Savings - Taxation - Imports Payments
Y = C+I+G+X-S-T-M
The biggest aggregate stimulants of the economy are spending on Investment in new projects and Government spending (which quite often entails new projects like infrastructure).
Tax Cuts will change the immediate level of consumer spending and savings, but in an economy that's already depressed, tax cuts lead to increased savings as people's sentiment is uncertain and the economy shrinks because with the level of savings increasing, money is removed from the circular flow.
I'm sorry, but that's one of the chief reasons why the Great Depression wasn't really stopped in Britain until there was a massive burst in Government Spending called WW2.
Really? So policemen, doctors, teachers, road builders, politicians, council workers and civil servants don't need to eat, live in houses, pay their utility bills etc? Their incomes simply just diappear into thin air?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
If the police force was privatised tommorrow and replace with a private firm, would their work which is identical to the previous day magically "create wealth" as you put it?
This is public money we are talking about, money that the government of the day collects from our taxes. Are you seriously wanting us to believe that while the public debt is known, and the money used to bail out the banks is known, that the government does not know what it is spending on public services and is incapable of identifying "waste"? Never mind that they are prepared to make potentially damaging and extensive cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I'm sorry, but you have made sweeping statements about how useless the public sector is, and those that work in it are, without providing one shred of evidence.
By all means have a view of what should be done, but at least base it on some sort of reality rather than trotting out Tory soundbites. This is all of our futures we are talking about.
Congratulations for getting it so wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
We bought a Fiat 500 on scrappage which otherwise just wouldn't have been purchased.
It cost £10,720 now VAT was 15% back then so the VAT we paid on the car was almost £1400. Now the government contributed £1000 and Fiat contributed another £1000 so the government was actually £400 better off from us through the scrappage scheme. Now of course there were some cheaper cars like the Fiat Panda where the government probably lost maybe £200 or £300 but by and large the cost to the taxpayer of scrappage was probably very low or perhaps even a profit.
So all the money spent on public works (at least here in the US) in the 30's didn't count? Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
You are right that the war was the only thing that brought us out of the Depression, but it wasn't solely the public sector spending that did it.
The money spent on public works was largely designed to get the economy moving again. During FDR's first term of office and in part as a result of the First New Deal, GDP grew at quite high levels.
And yes it wasn't solely the public sector spending that did it, nothing is the sole reason for anything in economics.
I'm not saying get rid of the entire public sector, just all the non essential non jobs. We need bin men but we don't need bin inspectors or twenty managers of refuse collection - understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I've no problems about some large projects to help, some new super prisons, more roads, better airports - not stupid things like wind farms, olympics, drug drop in centres - build things that everyone will benefit from.
Tax Cuts under Tories helped create booms where everyone benefited. With interest rates as low as they are people won't save they will spend.
Tax cuts benefits everyone not just a select few within the public sector. Besides every penny the public sector earns comes from the private sector and the private sector is hurting right now so it only follows that the public sector must shrink and suffer also until the private sector can pay for them it is not the other way round the private sector should not suffer purely to fund the public sector that is idiotic in the extreme (Labour in other words).
If it was so easy to identify waste, then surely it would have been stopped a long time ago, unless you are suggesting Labour encouraged wasting taxpayer's hard earned?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Have you ever had dealings with the public sector, they are absolutely hopeless. A few days ago I got a 4 page bulletin all about how Croc shoes are not needle proof - no **** Sherlock. Some pillocks were paid my money to come up with that pearl of wisdom, no doubt a large committee that first had to go on a fact finding jaunt to Haiti. DVLA biggest bunch of ****wits known to man, after I was banned they didn't send my licence back for months and expected me to remain off the road until they got their act together then sent me two licences. Had to deal with CSA in the past due to an employee, in the end I refused to dock his salary as they just annoyed me so much they were not fit for purpose. Any local council, as much use as a chocolate fire guard yet pay themselves large salaries despite the people in their towns all suffering. But they are allowed to be useless as what alternative have you got, they know you have to go through them so can carry on being useless twats.
Have provided plenty of evidence, not my fault if you choose to ignore it, the taxpayers alliance website is packed with facts and figures re wasteful spending ditto the Ch 4 documentary about how the public sector is now so big it is bigger than the private sector that is still expected to fund it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...for-money.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargain..._page_id=53949
You'd have got a better discount without the scheme; well done you've been had.
And pray tell how did the scrappage scheme help a builder, dentist, teacher etc oh no it didn't they just had to fund it.
Not to mention the environmental damage of scrapping so many perfectly fine cars and the environmental damage of building so many unnecessary cars. Where will all the future learner/first cars come from if they have been dumped on airfields and left to rot?
Nope it was a silly scheme, a reduction in Business rates would have been far fairer and really helped the nation rather than a very small section of it. No doubt it was done to appease a few bolshy Union types seeing as they run Labour.
Every penny the private sector earns comes from households and individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
If the public sector "shrinks", there isn't an immediate take up in slack in the economy. What you instantly create is a decrease in the aggregate demand for labour, and the rate of employment falls to a lower equilibrium position. Your solution is to solve the problems with the economy by deliberately causing a rise in unemployment. Rather than make the private sector "hurt" you would choose to exacerbate the problem by cutting off a great chunk of their incomes which is aggregate spending by households.
By increasing aggregate demand for motor vehicles. Motor builders, traders, parts builders and other associated people would have then used their incomes and spent them on things like building works, dentistry, teaching and tutorage etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
You can not just give money we don't have to the public sector and hope that they will spend it within the private sector who will give a percentage of it back to fund the public sector, the maths just don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Pay some manager 50k, he then gives roughly a third of that back to the state in Tax and NI, so the private sector is now 35k worse off, the manager spends most of that 34k in the private sector who then give a third to the state in tax/NI say 10k - so the private sector has spent 35k to keep 25k. Sack the manager and pay him benefits only and we can then have a tax cut which will enable us to spend more within the private sector. Everyone wins and if the manager is any good he'll soon find work within the private sector and suddenly realise what the real world is all about.
No it did not, all it did was earn money for foreign car makers at the expense of British taxpayers.
The New Deal worked sooo well. That's why the unemployment rate in 1936 was still 15% and went up again to 18% in 1938. Yep those public works sure did pull us right out of the Depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo