Tax Rises or Public Sector Spending cuts?

Wookster

Masomnia wrote: »

Putting people out of work is clearly a bad idea

I dont think it is necessarily a bad thing. I have dealt with various government departments since I've been in the UK and I can tell you that even under dire circumstances most civil servants just do not understand the concept of stress or time urgency. In the private sector, in my field, it is reasonably common to work 60 hour+ weeks when the need arises. This is just unheard of in the public sector. This inefficiency also keeps employment artificially high - one person working efficiently maybe able to do two people working inefficiently's jobs...

This is one of the corner stones of my beef with the UK economy is that it is quite inefficient.

chewmylegoff

Wookster wrote: »

In the private sector, in my field, it is reasonably common to work 60 hour+ weeks when the need arises. This is just unheard of in the public sector. This inefficiency also keeps employment artificially high - one person working efficiently maybe able to do two people working inefficiently's jobs...

it is not unheard of for public sector works to do 60+ hours a week at all, i used to do that, on a regular basis. however, the majority of civil servants do work strictly their contracted hours, and as you said civil servants' understanding of what being stressed and overworked is (speaking on a very general basis), is not the same as that of those who have worked elsewhere. they think they are overworked when they have more work than they can reasonably do inside their contracted hours. the work, of course, typically just doesn't get done - as opposed to the private sector where you would have to sit there until it is done.

lostinrates

Wookster wrote: »

I think a more progressive tax system would be good - less burden on the low earners (sub £20k) and a higher burden on earners over £100k and perhaps another tier at £150k.

Isn't that whats planned? Tax level over 150k a new higher rate...if not why do I think that???

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just cut government waste. That would save hundreds of millions if implemented correctly.

By government, I mean NHS, Police, Civil Service etc. Don't neccesarily mean staff, I mean waste on procedures, red tape, targets and contracts that require 20 people to sign something off just to get given a biro.

Having spent considerable time in both the private and public sector I reckon they come out about equal for wasting time and poor procedures.

The private sector do certain things way more efficiently than the public sector, but the opinion that the public sector is this bloated animal in every area whilst the private sector is full of lean, mean working machines is rather out of date, in my humble opinion.

Cleaver

Wookster wrote: »

In the private sector, in my field, it is reasonably common to work 60 hour+ weeks when the need arises. This is just unheard of in the public sector.

Having worked for a private company who were regulary contracted out to work in partnership with the public sector I reckon that you get lazy people and hard working people in all walks of life. There will be a great deal of public sector workers who work well over their contracted hours.

And if you're regulary working a 60 hour week maybe it means you're probably not that good at prioritising your workload or delegating things.

mewbie_2

It will be Higher Taxes and Lower Spending. This is not a Tory or Labour choice, it will forced by the need to stop the country becoming bankrupt. The only hope is that it will work.

brummybloke

there are loads of smaller things which would help stablise the country financially but unfortunately like making an omlette, it requires the breaking of some eggs.

some sections of society have had things far too easy for too long so it would require a brave soul to make such changes.

basic things like cutting what the NHS will provide, who they will treat and who they wont treat. that is 1 small thing which would save a few hundred million every year at the very least.

a cold hard look at ALL public services and social services and how they are provided would save hundreds of millions.

the NHS emergency departments are always busiest on a friday and saturday night, because people get so drunk and fight or get injured, mainly self inflicted problems. a little responsibility goes a long way.

if you make yourself poorly, why should everyone else keep picking up the tab?

i go out and drink socially, and every no and then i get hammered, i still know what i am doing and choose not to fight people or get into such situations where trouble is inevitable.

im guessing police and firebrigade is the same? friday and saturday nights?

the fire brigade charge people for call outs to car crashes, the insurance company has to pick up the call out charges, i think ambulances are also starting to do it? maybe if it were the same for other things like getting fined for stuff and the money goes back to the NHS or police?

by cutting 25% of the work only caused through stupidity it would save far more than 25% in spending.

rules on drug medications and treatments, if it is life changing or helping then it should either be available licenced to NHS through the labs at a reduced rate or half should be paid out and people should be able to supliment it through buying the treatment from abroad without the risk of losing ALL treatment because they pay for some.

i have an old school mate who hasnt worked for 14 years yet she got 4 lots of infertility treatment on NHS at £3500 each time, hasnt had a partner for 10 years. she had twins. so NHS paid for all the treatmnt and now tax payer picks up the cost of bringing up 2 kids?

so so wrong when there are people not allowed life saving treatment because they are in the wrong post code.

sammyjammy

Wookster wrote: »

I dont think it is necessarily a bad thing. I have dealt with various government departments since I've been in the UK and I can tell you that even under dire circumstances most civil servants just do not understand the concept of stress or time urgency. In the private sector, in my field, it is reasonably common to work 60 hour+ weeks when the need arises. This is just unheard of in the public sector. This inefficiency also keeps employment artificially high - one person working efficiently maybe able to do two people working inefficiently's jobs...

This is one of the corner stones of my beef with the UK economy is that it is quite inefficient.

How wonderfully generalising and patronising of you to lump all the thousands of Civil servants in together :rolleyes:

Cleaver

brummybloke wrote: »

what is the plural of moose?


slags

I keep thanking you just because your signature is ace.

Cleaver

brummybloke wrote: »

a cold hard look at ALL public services and social services and how they are provided would save hundreds of millions.

the NHS emergency departments are always busiest on a friday and saturday night, because people get so drunk and fight or get injured, mainly self inflicted problems. a little responsibility goes a long way.

if you make yourself poorly, why should everyone else keep picking up the tab?

i go out and drink socially, and every no and then i get hammered, i still know what i am doing and choose not to fight people or get into such situations where trouble is inevitable.

So where do you stop? Do you treat people with heart disease who have had a vaguely unhealthy lifestyle? Treat people who have broken their arm playing rugby? Someone who has broke their neck skiing? The old chesnut of lung cancer from smoking? Especially as you can't prove it's the fags that caused it.

We have a public health system and, really, you either treat everyone or you don't.

brummybloke wrote: »

i have an old school mate who hasnt worked for 14 years yet she got 4 lots of infertility treatment on NHS at £3500 each time, hasnt had a partner for 10 years. she had twins. so NHS paid for all the treatmnt and now tax payer picks up the cost of bringing up 2 kids?

I completely agree with that one. If it's true.