We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

£16 billion in savings needs to be found

12467

Comments

  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »
    There's a subtle difference however between choosing to waste money and being compelled to waste money via legislation.
    Economically, no. But the issue keeps getting sidetracked by people just wanting to have a moan about democratic decisions that they don't personally agree with.

    It's time we were more grown up than that, and understood that the democratic process might actually have more collective wisdom than our own personal opinions.

    Fat chance.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »
    There's a subtle difference however between choosing to waste money and being compelled to waste money via legislation.

    Heard a guy, on benefits, talking about the Rangers debacle saying he wished it would get sorted out as he saving for his season ticket.

    No doubt the same mentality that will see people queuing to subscribe for their Wolves season ticket.

    Perhaps the Governement should introduce rationing of luxuries again -pgrdef - makes a valid point. As many of our luxuries are imports this would no doubt be construed as protectionism;)

    As long as the money goes back into the economy is it really wasted?
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    pqrdef wrote: »
    Economically, no. But the issue keeps getting sidetracked by people just wanting to have a moan about democratic decisions that they don't personally agree with.

    It's time we were more grown up than that, and understood that the democratic process might actually have more collective wisdom than our own personal opinions.

    Fat chance.

    Is there any evidence that public sector organisations are less wasteful and more efficient than the private sector?

    That might show the value, or not, of 'collective wisdom'.
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »

    All councils publish individual spending over £500. I'd urge everyone to google "supplier payments over £500" and the name of your local council. Once you get over the shock of how much they spend on taxis you'll be further surprised at the amount of money transferred, on behalf the taxpayer, to registered charities.


    Perhaps the monies paid for taxis are more prudent than running their own transport arrangements for the elderly, infirm an those they have a legal responsibility for. No doubt the private the taxi firms are offering best value and in no way fleecing the tax payer.

    Perhaps the "registered charities" undertake those functions that the council has a legal responsibility to provide and that through these charities they meet these requirements in the most cost effective manner. At the same time removing the long term liability for them from the balance sheet.

    Of course all this window dressing doesn't make it any cheaper in reality but it keeps things on the move giving the illusion of savings at some point in the cycle.
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • vax2002
    vax2002 Posts: 7,187 Forumite
    Switch our defence policy to armed neutrality would save the 16bn in a day.
    Armed neutrality is where we never commit our armed forces beyond our own borders unless our own interests are directly threatened or our own citizens put in danger.
    There would be NO middle eastern wars and Somalian pirates that attack our ships would be swimming for it.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that public sector organisations are less wasteful and more efficient than the private sector?

    That might show the value, or not, of 'collective wisdom'.

    Is there anything that categorically proves the private sector is unequivocally less wasteful and more efficient than the public sector.

    Accounting principles and statistics can prove or disprove whatever you want.

    Any waste in the private sector = profit in the private sector.

    For the tax payer this means nothing it still costs us the same.
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    As long as the money goes back into the economy is it really wasted?

    If someone relies on the state to provide them all their income then the taxpayer may well consider it a waste that benefits are sufficient to fund a Rangers season ticket.

    The argument that somehow it all ends up in the economy is also to miss the point. Given the choice why would any taxpayer consider a subsidy to Rangers a valid use of funds.

    If Rangers can't survive without such a subsidy then they should expect people to choose to give them more money, spend less or go bust.
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    Perhaps the monies paid for taxis are more prudent than running their own transport arrangements for the elderly, infirm an those they have a legal responsibility for. No doubt the private the taxi firms are offering best value and in no way fleecing the tax payer.

    You don't seem to have a cynical bone in your body.
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »
    You don't seem to have a cynical bone in your body.


    Not cynicism, reality and the action of a "free"market;)
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »
    If someone relies on the state to provide them all their income then the taxpayer may well consider it a waste that benefits are sufficient to fund a Rangers season ticket.

    The argument that somehow it all ends up in the economy is also to miss the point. Given the choice why would any taxpayer consider a subsidy to Rangers a valid use of funds.

    If Rangers can't survive without such a subsidy then they should expect people to choose to give them more money, spend less or go bust.


    My point was really, how, when you give people money to "waste" themselves they generally do.

    Whether it be Rangers, Wolves or Sky TV subscription it doesn't really advance society.
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.