But...
I'm no economist, but there must be something wrong with your reasoning there. After all, Economies have existed in the past where there is no private sector at all; if your working at anything then surely you're generating wealth?

Isn't it a bit simplistic simply to say that taxes pay for the public sector, without considering the effect of the public sector on the wider economy?

Besides, it's surely better (and cheaper in the long run) to pay public sector workers to work rather than pay them to look for work.
(silene, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 9:55, 1 reply)

it's the basic bottom line
that anything the government pays for either comes from taxes or from borrowing. and then paying back the borrowing from taxes.

obviously public sector workers also pay tax, and i am NOT having a go at them. well, apart from the twunts at hammersmith and fulham council. but this government seems to see the public sector as a bottomless pit, without thinking that the money still has to come from somewhere.

so don't encourage everybody to go and work in the public sector, because otherwise you'll run out of blank cheques in that public funded chequebook...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 10:50, closed)

But what you forget
When you label 'the public sector' in that way, is that some public sector workers do actually have a positive effect on the economy through their work. Not only does treating people effectively for many health (and mental health) problems at an early stage keep down the overall costs for the country of dealing with those problems (not to mention the pain and suffering for the individual and their family), but it also reduces time off work, sick pay, potential for job loss, and impact on employers (especially small companies, who are greatly impacted by long-term sickness, and which could be the difference between the whole company going into administration and several people loosing their jobs).

Similarly, preventing, and dealing appropriately with issues such as domestic violence and child abuse can mean the difference between a lifetime in and out of services, or on and off benefits, or a more secure future in employment.

Of course, most of these things also mean less money for the blood-sucking lawyers...
(cherrynicola, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 12:07, closed)

i am not sure how much more clearly i can put this
I. AM. NOT. HAVING. A. GO. AT. PUBLIC. SECTOR. WORKERS.

i am saying that the government should not be trying to push everyone into the public sector, because they will run out of money to pay everyone's wages if they overload the system.

surely that's not a difficult comment to grasp?

since i am a property lawyer, feel free to make as many ambulance chaser jibes as you like, i'll agree with 99% of them, they've brought the profession a lot of ill-repute.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 12:20, closed)

I know you're not
And for the record, I agree.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 28 Jan 2009, 13:27, closed)

hoorah
now let's go and tell gordon...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 13:35, closed)

righto
*dons public sector cape*

*strides purposefully out of door*
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 28 Jan 2009, 13:38, closed)

I know you're not!
I didn't mean to imply you were. I just wanted to explain my position. And I still don't think the government is trying to push everyone into the public sector, otherwise there'd still be enough jobs for everyone in the public sector. It's just that the public sector aren't loosing their jobs as quickly as everyone else.

Also I was just having a fun little jibe at lawyers on the basis of stereotypes, cos there seems to be loads around doing the same about public sector workers on the basis of sterotypes. And if we can't make fun of lawyers then what has the world come to?
(cherrynicola, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 15:08, closed)

well yes
this is very true.

it must be very irritating to be tarred with the "skiving public sector" brush when you work that hard. and some public sector workers are workshy - don't you want to kick them in the feck?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 15:22, closed)

I would
If and when I ever come across them myself.

It's the people at my bank that really get me going. And my boyfriend's too come to mention it (Lloyd's fucking TSB - don't know their fucking arse from their elbow - at least 8 banking errors this year, and have tried to blame us for every one until we've pointed it out to them. Also, can't call back after 8pm - er, we're not back from work by then; can't call back the next day, can't call back at weekends; can't call back on your mobile number - it's your fucking error arghhhh!).

And the workshy conveyencers and estate agents that tried to spin us some bullshit about whether or not we were going to actually own the garden not affecting the property price (just nervous first time buyers apparently, because we expected the deeds to match up with the estate agent's spec). It took over six months to exchange, with no chain and the mortgage all agreed, because they kept forgetting what lies they had told. THESE are the kind of people I want to kick in the feck. Generally.

/Ranty
(cherrynicola, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 16:29, closed)

cherrynicola
You have a point. My job is about growing the rural economy. And OK, it could arguably be done via private sector delivery, but it would still be getting done with public money.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 28 Jan 2009, 13:42, closed)

Yes but...
... if the public sector workers contribute enough to the economy that the government gets back more in taxes than it pays in, then your objection doesn't hold.

Like I said, economies with no private sector have worked reasonably well in the past. It doesn't necessarily matter whether I pay the government or a private company to deliver goods or services as long as they are produced. I can see that there's an issue about what proportion of the economy is under direct government control, but I'm not sure that the problem you propose really exists (prepared to stand corrected though).

P.S I can see that you're not having a go; no need to be defensive. I'm just interested, that's all.

P.P.S Nothing wrong with being a lawyer. I, for one, quite enjoy not having to go out and fight people who don't play by the rules!
(silene, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 13:18, closed)

yup, i agree with that,
up to the point where "the government gets back more in taxes than it pays in" - which is precisely what won't happen with this group of nobrots in charge!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 13:22, closed)