Time to increase taxes?

danlightbulb · 14 Sep 2017 at 22:52

Agree with all the efficiency arguments. Big problem is that inefficiency keeps people in jobs. If all services operated perfectly efficiently we'd have millions without anything to do. Simply too many people, that is what is unsustainable. The most efficient situation possible is a country of zero people.

Werewolf · 14 Sep 2017 at 23:28

smogsy said:
From what i hear the NHS gloves cost £20 per packet were as other supplies can be gotten for £4

NHS gloves will be from a certified supplier with a known specification.

The gloves you buy from Amazon for £4 vary from **** to poor, and have highly variable availability at that price.

There is also the matter of what type of gloves, cheap latex gloves are cheap, vinyl or nitrile ones cost a lot more, and the chances are the reports are not talking about like for like (IE comparing cheap chinese no name with surgical standard ones from a known name with full paper trail).

I have ended up buying a lot of such gloves from Amazon over the last few years (model making and decorating) and the price has varied from something like £5 per 100, to £12 per hundred even for the same brand*, so £20 a time for a better quality or guaranteed supply of them from a known manufacturer doesn't sound so bad to me.

I can buy 100 M5 bolts from China for a pound, so why do the aviation industry potentially pay more than that per bolt...

*I stick to the same one because after trying for or five brands I finally found some that didn't break half the time when I put them on.

delta0 · 14 Sep 2017 at 23:34

The problem is a lot of people are happy to increase taxes as long as it isn't their own. When you are paying nearly 50% of your wage as tax then it becomes ridiculous.

Dolph · 15 Sep 2017 at 12:52

The problem is we are already taking taxes above the average the UK will accept. The UK historically from the end of ww2 onwards is willing to pay, on average, 37% of GDP in tax.

https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/revenue_brief.php

We're at that level already, raising tax rates doesn't really raise tax take above that level, it moves taxation around.

Scougar · 15 Sep 2017 at 12:56

To be honest, the government is willfully making public services inefficient so they can privatise them. It is a deliberate action.

Understand this, and it soon becomes clear on why they are "failing".

Dolph · 15 Sep 2017 at 12:58

Scougar said:
To be honest, the government is willfully making public services inefficient so they can privatise them. It is a deliberate action.

Understand this, and it soon becomes clear on why they are "failing".

How would you remove government influence?

Tunney · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:03

delta0 said:
The problem is a lot of people are happy to increase taxes as long as it isn't their own. When you are paying nearly 50% of your wage as tax then it becomes ridiculous.

There’s plenty of high earners who’ve called for higher taxes. There’s nothing ridiculous with paying 50% of your income in tax. Some other countries take more and there’s been periods in modern British history when it’s been a lot higher than that.

If I have to pay 55% tax rather than 51% so that we can fund the NHS properly and provide good social care then I’m happy to do so. Both would benefit me in the long run.

Dolph · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:06

Tunney said:
There’s plenty of high earners who’ve called for higher taxes. There’s nothing ridiculous with paying 50% of your income in tax. Some other countries take more and there’s been periods in modern British history when it’s been a lot higher than that.

If I have to pay 55% tax rather than 51% so that we can fund the NHS properly and provide good social care then I’m happy to do so. Both would benefit me in the long run.

The problem is, you can pay it already, but you want a wider subsection of everyone to pay more.

Differential taxes are a huge property rights abuse, even if they are currently considered legal and acceptable.

Trifid · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:09

Dolph said:
The problem is we are already taking taxes above the average the UK will accept. The UK historically from the end of ww2 onwards is willing to pay, on average, 37% of GDP in tax.

https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/revenue_brief.php

We're at that level already, raising tax rates doesn't really raise tax take above that level, it moves taxation around.

In that case, we need our government to do less. The conservatives are very much failing on providing small government, their strategy of big government, 'small' budget is not sustainable.

Vonhelmet · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:09

Tunney said:
There’s plenty of high earners who’ve called for higher taxes. There’s nothing ridiculous with paying 50% of your income in tax. Some other countries take more and there’s been periods in modern British history when it’s been a lot higher than that.

If I have to pay 55% tax rather than 51% so that we can fund the NHS properly and provide good social care then I’m happy to do so. Both would benefit me in the long run.

The problem is that the number of people who currently pay 51% tax who you could hypothetically bump to 55% is very small relative to the whole population, so you wouldn't actually make that much more money, and at that level you are more likely to be able to pay an adviser to help you to avoid the tax if you really want. To get more in tax income you need to be putting the extra percentage points on basic rate income tax, and good luck with that...

Dan103 · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:12

nah your alright

Tunney · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:12

balky12 said:
Private company sectors can do they same job and make a profit and still do it for cheaper than the public sector?

Private companies cut corners and treat their staff like ****.

I once worked for an American company that was involved with a lot of outsourced UK government IT projects. Projects were filled with people who werent capable or didn’t have the experience to deliver the projects. Projects were constantly late, over-budget or simply didn’t deliver at all. The company often had the technical expertise to deliver but those with the expertise were only ever involved during the pre-sales period.

By all accounts, the government wasn’t happy with the work but there’s only a small group of companies capable of the scale of outsourcing needed and they all behave in the same manner.

I’m sure the same goes on with companies like G4S, Virgin Healthcare, etc.

Dolph · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:16

Trifid said:
In that case, we need our government to do less. The conservatives are very much failing on providing small government, their strategy of big government, 'small' budget is not sustainable.

Definitely. The problem is we have a society that believes that taking from others to fund what you want is acceptable, and that also thinks that state provided is the same as free.

Until we can break those trends, any attempts to sort out the problem will be voted down through selfishness.

Dolph · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:18

Tunney said:
Private companies cut corners and treat their staff like ****.

I once worked for an American company that was involved with a lot of outsourced UK government IT projects. Projects were filled with people who werent capable or didn’t have the experience to deliver the projects. Projects were constantly late, over-budget or simply didn’t deliver at all. The company often had the technical expertise to deliver but those with the expertise were only ever involved during the pre-sales period.

By all accounts, the government wasn’t happy with the work but there’s only a small group of companies capable of the scale of outsourcing needed and they all behave in the same manner.

I’m sure the same goes on with companies like G4S, Virgin Healthcare, etc.

Not every private company is bad to work for, and not every state agency is a panacea of workers rights.

The single biggest challenge to outsourcing is getting the contracts right, and thats where the state often fails really badly.

Tunney · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:22

Dolph said:
Not every private company is bad to work for, and not every state agency is a panacea of workers rights.

There’s a lot of wonderful private companies out there. The ones that provide government outsourcing are almost universally bad though.

The single biggest challenge to outsourcing is getting the contracts right, and thats where the state often fails really badly.

If a function is outsourced, you’re going to lose expertise in that area. It’s unsurprising that it is then difficult to scope a project or negotiate a watertight contract. It’s espeically difficult when you’ve got such a small pool of potential partners to choose from.

Dolph · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:26

Tunney said:
There’s a lot of wonderful private companies out there. The ones that provide government outsourcing are almost universally bad though.

I guess that depends how you define outsourcing, and in what context.

If a function is outsourced, you’re going to lose expertise in that area. It’s unsurprising that it is then difficult to scope a project or negotiate a watertight contract. It’s espeically difficult when you’ve got such a small pool of potential partners to choose from.

The problem was, the internal people were often also rubbish at it before it was outsourced.

All outsourcing has done in many cases is allowed people to shift the blame for failure externally.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:30

ime when you pay pittance for the legal department, you get people who are not capable of the job. I know I bang on about it but legal department and HR department are the two biggest issues with public companies as a whole.
I mean I've seen several contracts utterly fail for the most basic reasons.
you cant even blame the workers in most cases. The pay is so poor, they hire unqualified or bad people because that's all that apply.

Freddie1980 · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:38

I wonder how much money we could save if public sector pensions were bought into line with typical private sector pensions schemes with defined contribution rather then a defined benefit?

Replacing railway drivers with automated trains could save a whole bunch of money and might actually result in fares going downwards for one rather then upwards to pay for protected staff with generous benefits and high salaries.

Top_gun · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:39

balky12 said:
I'm on board with all the efficiency arguments.

I'm not 100% against privatisation. But the reason it is such a threat is to do with how inefficient the public sector is. Private company sectors can do they same job and make a profit and still do it for cheaper than the public sector?

However to make the public sector more efficient you will have to spend the money on wages getting the best and brightest involved.

'The private sector is superior'. Time to move on from this old dogma'

Trifid · 15 Sep 2017 at 13:42

Dolph said:
Definitely. The problem is we have a society that believes that taking from others to fund what you want is acceptable, and that also thinks that state provided is the same as free.

Until we can break those trends, any attempts to sort out the problem will be voted down through selfishness.

I'm not actually agreeing to that extent. I think we should have a appropriately funded NHS, school system, police service, armed forces, local government, social care system for those who need it, a safety net to provide short term help to those who lose their job. A civilised society provides these for the benefit of all. I am happy to fund these. Vanity projects like HS2 to save a few minutes to a few who can make use of it? No thanks...