what do you expect for free?

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

Nice



So if the govt didn't provide education then no-one would pay for it?

If the govt gave out vouchers so people could buy their own education rather than the state providing as well as paying for it then the standards would be worse?

Hilarious lirism! Always best when they are funny and self defeating. (is it just me or am I doing more of them recently? I think spellings getting worse again too. )

who said they shouldn't provide it? I just don't think providing it is enough. The results have to be achieved too. The v. gimmicky Jamie's Dream school has been somewhat interesting, though not fascinating, viewing.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

name a part of the public sector that doesn't generate wealth.

HMRC.
DSS.
Treasury.

They move money around but they don't create wealth or indeed any real output.

michaels

LIR the remainder of my comments weren't addressed at your post but really in response to Ninky's thread.

I like a few others have trouble with the very title of this thread as 'free' in this case means paid for via taxation rather than at point of use.

There is also an implicit ''public goods should be provided by the public sector' which again I tend to disagree with. I don't see people unlucky enough to be treated in private hospitals or attending private schools demanding to be treated in public ones and similarly despite tesco and vodafone ripping us off, how many would suggest that govt run supermarkets or mobile phone companies would be preferable?

lostinrates wrote: »

Hilarious lirism! Always best when they are funny and self defeating. (is it just me or am I doing more of them recently? I think spellings getting worse again too. )

who said they shouldn't provide it? I just don't think providing it is enough. The results have to be achieved too. The v. gimmicky Jamie's Dream school has been somewhat interesting, though not fascinating, viewing.

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

I like a few others have trouble with the very title of this thread as 'free' in this case means paid for via taxation rather than at point of use.

There is also an implicit ''public goods should be provided by the public sector' which again I tend to disagree with. I don't see people unlucky enough to be treated in private hospitals or attending private schools demanding to be treated in public ones and similarly despite tesco and vodafone ripping us off, how many would suggest that govt run supermarkets or mobile phone companies would be preferable?

Ah right Thanks. (I believe I called that first )

Actually....I think I'm further to the right than most on education, and I think my issue isn't so much who provides the ''education for all'' which I agree MUST remain available, but rather how its provided and how its accepted.

My main feeling on education provision I think is that choice is important, in a very Darwinian (word chosen for metaphorical comparison) manner. It seems foolish to fit square pegs into round holes....and in the process break the round holes for the round pegs. It seems to me this relates to poor value for the tax payer and pretty miserable existence for square pegs, AND a system that is inflexible and doesn't create useful variety of outcomes. (deliberately provocative: variety of outcome is achieved still, of course, by geographical area and family input)

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

HMRC.
DSS.
Treasury.

They move money around but they don't create wealth or indeed any real output.

the examples you give are no more simply moving money around than the private sector.

taxes are frequently used to generate wealth. if they weren't collected they wouldn't be available to do that. even the taxes used to pay for the military could be said to generate wealth even if it is in ways we might not agree with.

dss generates wealth. for example housing benefit paid to private landlords allows them to accrue equity and grow their business.

if the treasury isn't central to the creation of wealth then i'm not sure what it is doing.....

ninky_2

michaels wrote: »

So if the govt didn't provide education then no-one would pay for it?

there are plenty of examples around the world where large sections of the population are uneducated simply due to the unaffordability of education and the lack of provision by the state. charity steps in in some small ways but it is ad hoc and unsatisfactory.

bendix

ninky . give it up. You've lost this one and you're just digging a deeper hole and making yourself look rather shrill and silly.

Noone on this board advocates pure capitalism in the way you portray it. Some form of taxation - either direct or indirect - will alway be required to pay for some kind of public service. What the people you call libertarian on here (and that includes me) object to is paying nearly 60% of my income to pay for a system that actively encourages public waste, welfare dependency and a decline to a yob culture state.

You're obviously intelligent and engaging. What would be great is if you entered debates on this forum as if they were in the real world, not pseudo-intellectual debates inspired by bored media housewives sipping chardonnay at west london dinner parties.

It's such a tedious cliche.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

bored media housewives

what or who is a bored media housewife? are they related to the bored marketing househusband?

lostinrates

Anyone else read the last two threads and not being able to help think ''Every one's a coconut!'' ?

ninky_2

i'm getting rather bored with the personal put downs. tongue in cheek is fine but patronising nastiness is rather unnecessary.