Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#21
Barry
envy and spite (though I think you may have confused compassion for them) are as destructive as greed and vindictiveness. This government has all the hallmarks of Thatcher's 1979 government in that they give the sense that 'it is our turn now and we are going to punish the 'feckless' (i.e. the most vulnerable in society - the disabled, the poor) whilst we gorge ourselves on money'.
This creates the image of 'us and them' and acts as a further social divide widening the gap that wealth has created over the past 30 years.
Your vision of a private sector freed of government 'interference' is logically a nightmare (have a look at the facts section of
http://www.walmartwatch.org to see that big business, in one of the supposedly most liberal and competitive business regimes in the world, already ignores community needs and actually influences political decision making.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#22
Mark - compassion is all very worthy but without the resources to do something it is nothing more than empty sentiment. To get those resources we need a successful and profitable private sector. That is my point - we must make life a lot easier for businesses to grow and generate the wealth to turn compassion into something more tangable. Sadly we have a Catch 22 and spending was allowed to run so far out of control over the last 13 years that it must be chopped back in order to get a more sustainable economy. Yes its tough but such are the cards that have been dealt.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#23
Barry
are free enterprise and compassion mutually exclusive?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#24
No not at all - the point is that to put compassion into action you need the resources to do so. It is successful businesses that provide those resources but if you hamper their ability to make profits through red tape, silly rules, high taxes (on potential customers as well as on the business themselves) then you will not get those resources and any public spending will not be sustainable. It is simple really and I cannot understand why people cannot grasp it. If business cannot make a profit or if their ability to do that and to grow is hampered you get lower tax receipts and therefore governments have less to spend. It is as I said a Catch 22 situation and we must cut back on the burden of the State in order the boost wealth creation to get long term and sustainable economic success - that means we first have to cut.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#25
how does all that fit in with the railway companies though?
they get given taxpayers money.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#26
Barry
the evidence would not seem to support your theory. This is from the Independent newspaper on donations to charity by big business:
"The average FTSE 100 donation is less than 0.2 per cent of profits.."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/charities-hit-by-corporate-stinginess-2205572.html
This is on the salaries paid to top business leaders:
"Chief executives of FTSE 100 companies earn an average of £3.7m - or 145 times the average wage. By 2020 they are expected to be paid 214 times more than the average".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/exclusive-salaries-for-top-executives-are-rocketing-out-of-control-2284397.html
It doesn't feel as if we are 'all in it together'!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#27
Howard
They are part of the secondary public sector to the extent that they rely on public money as do all private firms that do that. Private sector firms are private sector only to the extent that they are not reliant upon pubic money.
The way the railways operate, very simplified is this.
Operators will bid to run a route/service/region. They will decide if that route/service/region is profitable and if so they will bid to pay money to run that service. If they think it is a loss making service then they will make a bid based on receiving a subsidy from the government to do so. Clearly in a competitive bid the lowest subsidy or highest payment to the government has the best chance of winning. A bid will include meeting a minimum service level they can also include enhancements to that service along with a capital investment which may improve profitability helping them minimise the subsidy or maximise the payment to the government.
This is how local government has operated contracting out successfully for years, something I was heavily involved with in the late 80's (nothing to do with railways I must add but along a similar principal).
There clearly has to be proper competition between bidders for it to work to the benefit of taxpayers plus proper contract supervision to ensure that the promised service delivery is met.
A lot of rail services are just not able to be run on a profitable basis hence the need for them to be subsidised as a public service. What is needed is the lowest possible subsidy for the best level of service, something the bidding system helps achieve.
By the way. It is not always the lowest subsidy bid or higher payment bid that wins. Viability has to be taken into account along with the track record of the bidder when reviewing them. This is a complex process and in my day at DDC when contracting services I did not, on more than one occasion, award a bid to the highest bidder (bids then had to be approved by committtee incidentally).
It does work.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#28
Mark - None of your post #26 has any relevance at all to my points. I was talking about business success and growth not charitable giving. Surely what I explained not that difficult to understand, but then you are a lefty I suppose
In addition to the above - it is not theory. It is a fact that all the revenues obtained by government is from wealth created by the private sector. All the revenues they spend on health, education benefits - all of it is ultimately generated by businesses. Compassion to be anything other than a sentiment has to be paid for.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#29
Barry
it has every relevance. What I am illustrating is that businesses are designed to look after themselves. We have seen the consequences of an unfettered financial sector and the mature and contrite response of financial institutions who threatened to move overseas if too much regulation was to be brought in.
Business success and growth do not necessarily bring about the benefits that you seem to be suggesting they do and I am pointing out inherent dangers as I, and many others, see them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#30
Mark - Only successful businesses can create that wealth and generate the tax revenues and the more you hamper them from doing it, the more you damage their capacity to grow, create more jobs and generate tax revenues.
Where on earth else can money come from? There is nowhere else.
So it does work we are living proof of that in our daily lives. The food you buy, the television you watch, the cooker you use - all are tesiments to the success of free enterprise.
I am not talking about only big businesses this is true of all businesses from the one man band self-employed chippy to the multi-national.
Neither am I suggesting no regulation at all where it is needed. I have many times been critical of the regulatory changes that enabled to banks to go and take extra risks, those changes were down to Gordon Brown. Remember as well it was Mrs T who actually introduced retail financial services regulation in the first place in 1986.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#31
Barry
could you remind me how much tax the philanthropists at News Corporation and Vodafone paid - or avoided - in the last tax year? Could you then tell me how much tax was generated from the public sector? And how much workers in the public sector paid into the free enterprise coffers by buying the food, televisions and cookers?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#32
Mark - all the tax paid by people working in the public sector is recycled money, their salaries were paid out of money taken in taxes and some effectively then clawed back in tax, I repeat - recycled and not new money to the Treasury.
Of course those people working in the public sector spent a large amount of their money on purchases from private sector businesses but, yet again that money originally was created by the private sector.
Whatever you like to say all the money the government has is either taken in taxes, borrowed or taken in charges paid for by the public. Governments do not have money of their own.
The bottom line is that only 47% of the economy is in the private sector and that is carrying the burden of the 53% of the economy that is the public sector.
Picture a pyramid upside down and imagine how unstable that is. That is exactly what we have in our economy.
Dont get me wrong I am not saying that all public spending is bad, far from it. An efficient economy needs a well educated and healthy workforce and good transport/communicatiion links for instance but there is only so much that can be loaded on the private sector before you inhibit its ability to generate profit from which taxes are earned.
Your references in the first part of the post are irrellivant to the economic facts. To turn that around however - how many people in the UK depend on the jobs News Corporation and Vodaphone provide and what is the value that those thousands of employees pay to the Treasury in tax instead of drawing the dole. Also, I might add, how many other people in the UK have part of their pensions and Stocks & Shares ISAs invested in those businesses and benefit that way - you would be surprised, Vodaphone in particular show up regularly in the top 10 holdings very ordinary people have.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#33
It's worth remembering that the current financial crisis was not the caused by the poor.....yet it appears to me that they are the class that are suffering the most and are taking the brunt the cuts.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#34
Marek - no, indeed it was caused by bad financial management. A cruel deceit was exercised on them by uncontrolled and unsustainable spending. Every time Labour screw up the economy in this way as they have done in every period of office, it is always the less well off who get hit hard when the problems have to be addressed.
This is exactly why good financial management and controls are essential for a government ensuring that the wealth creators are not inhibited from doing their job so we get the economic growth, jobs and tax revenues to help the vulnerable.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#35
Everyone agrees that cuts were and are necessary. Everyone has their own reasons and ideas who are to blame. That's past and we need to look to the present.
The deficit needs to be cut and economic growth needs to be encouraged. In my simple terms, that means, if businesses grow and prosper, everyone will benefit, if the economy grows then the deficit will decrease, yes?
This ConDem Government have introduce these deep cuts, at such a rate, that they are strangling the economic growth which will limit the tax intake and make the deficit even harder to control.
Assuming these people are more intelligent than me, I must be wrong or do they have another agenda?
As for any numpty who is calling for deeper cuts, the mind boggles.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#36
GaryC - The cuts are indeed if anything not enough.
We have had a structural deficit since 2005 and the cuts will only return public spending back to 2007 levels.
These are in fact not real cash cuts but a slow-down in the level of increases to below inflation if you look at the figures. I should also point out that the Callaghan government under the requirements of the IMF bail-out 'cut' spending by 3.9% over 2 years while the Osborne 'cuts' are 3.7% over 5 years. So Osborne is hardly cutting too fast and deep.
You should also look at the real figures for recovery from previous recessions. Real life does not reflect Labour's silly claims about the 'dangers' of cuts.
The fact is if you went out and spent £4 for every £3 you have in income for 8/9 years, making up the difference with loans and credit cards there would be serious consequences for you. It is exactly the same for governments too - but we all pay those consequences.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#37
Further information relating to my previous post on the speed of cuts. Labour used to like using Obama to back up their argument against quick cuts. I am afraid Obama's cuts package is faster and deeper than Osborne's. Here is a graphic from CoffeeHouse..
Like I say the narrative should not be about whether Osborne should cut as he is but whether he is cutting enough. There is increasing evidence to support deeper and faster cuts than Osborne is making.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#38
Barry
I am sure it is me but I am unable to find any reference to the amount of tax paid by News Corp and Vodafone in your reply. Could you spell it out for me? I am a lefty after all!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#39
I have provided a more relevant answer to your point than the question you asked Mark and cannot be bothered to do that research.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#40
i am wondering whether i should congratulate or castigate myself for starting this thread.
