Reply to: The State Must Die

[AlfredJPruffock]

If any job cannot be justified under a cost/benefit and commonsense analysis it must go !!!

Hear hear - except for my cushy job funded by your taxes - natch !

Naturally I detest freeloaders

But if I were a freeloader - my - how much of a greedy wee piggie Id be !

[Cyberman]

Roger

Maybe so.

Good thing though this might be, isn't it a long way short of the sweeping change in "the services on offer from the State" mentioned by the OP? I am still trying to work out what that might be.

There are so many jobs in the public sector that are very costly but offer no real conceivable benefit to the general public, but do benefit the job holder disproportionately, and this has to be wrong.
The average wage in the public sector is now above the private sector, plus these people can retire much earlier and on fat unearned unsustainable pensions, and this also is so wrong, bearing in mind that the public sector would cease to exist without the taxes from the private sector.
The public sector is now so bloated that it comprises 2 out of every five jobs in the country. If any job cannot be justified under a cost/benefit and commonsense analysis it must go !!!

[ace00]

.......Good thing though this might be, isn't it a long way short of the sweeping change in "the services on offer from the State" mentioned by the OP? I am still trying to work out what that might be.

Yeh, good luck with that. Let me know when you work it out.

[expat]

I have reread your post. Apologies for misinterpreting your point Expat.

Roger

Of course, paying for private and not paying for the NHS is not on, because there is no overall benefit and the NHS will lose funds. The fact is though that due to HMG left-wing doctrine the NHS is actually being denied additional funds when if people want to contribute also privately it would be positive for NHS revenues.
I have a feeling that the Tories may address this stupidity and reintroduce tax relief for private health at some stage after 2010.

Maybe so.

Good thing though this might be, isn't it a long way short of the sweeping change in "the services on offer from the State" mentioned by the OP? I am still trying to work out what that might be.

[Cyberman]

You did read what I said? Well, no, you didn't really. I did not write of paying for private health care while also still paying for the NHS through taxes (which is what you seem to think I did); I wrote of the idea of paying for private health care and not paying for the NHS, i.e. reducing the part of taxes that funds the NHS.

And I was not making any left-wing argument, I was rather asking whether that would be a significant change to the offering of the State, or just a (possibly quite fair) way if saving money.

Trouble is, you know the arguments that you are against even before I make them, even if I don't make them.

I have reread your post. Apologies for misinterpreting your point Expat.

Of course, paying for private and not paying for the NHS is not on, because there is no overall benefit and the NHS will lose funds. The fact is though that due to HMG left-wing doctrine the NHS is actually being denied additional funds when if people want to contribute also privately it would be positive for NHS revenues.
I have a feeling that the Tories may address this stupidity and reintroduce tax relief for private health at some stage after 2010.

[Platypus]

If more people contributed funds to private health care the NHS would actually improve because in effect it would have extra funds to cover fewer patients. That is precisely why I am an advocate of private health funding and why I was totally against the removal of tax relief on contributions by New Lie after 1997. This actually had the effect of removing some of the much needed funding as people then decided to stop contributions. Yet another example of left-wing doctrine failing the taxpayer!!

Same argument works for Public Schools and yet the government seems determined to marginalise then abolish those. Barmy!

[expat]

You are under a popular misconception here, and I am not sure whether it is ignorance or left-wing propaganda.

Even if people use private health care they are still contributing through their taxes!! They are in effect contributing twice.

If more people contributed funds to private health care the NHS would actually improve because in effect it would have extra funds to cover fewer patients. That is precisely why I am an advocate of private health funding and why I was totally against the removal of tax relief on contributions by New Lie after 1997. This actually had the effect of removing some of the much needed funding as people then decided to stop contributions. Yet another example of left-wing doctrine failing the taxpayer!!

You did read what I said? Well, no, you didn't really. I did not write of paying for private health care while also still paying for the NHS through taxes (which is what you seem to think I did); I wrote of the idea of paying for private health care and not paying for the NHS, i.e. reducing the part of taxes that funds the NHS.

And I was not making any left-wing argument, I was rather asking whether that would be a significant change to the offering of the State, or just a (possibly quite fair) way if saving money.

Trouble is, you know the arguments that you are against even before I make them, even if I don't make them.

[Ruprect]

why not?.....they're not much use any more......

I think they would kick up a bit of a stink if the tories came in and said, right 400000 of you are sacked...

[Cyberman]

How would you change it? Are you talking about a real change, or do you just think that you personally could save money if you used private health care and paid nothing to the NHS?

You are under a popular misconception here, and I am not sure whether it is ignorance or left-wing propaganda.

Even if people use private health care they are still contributing through their taxes!! They are in effect contributing twice.

If more people contributed funds to private health care the NHS would actually improve because in effect it would have extra funds to cover fewer patients. That is precisely why I am an advocate of private health funding and why I was totally against the removal of tax relief on contributions by New Lie after 1997. This actually had the effect of removing some of the much needed funding as people then decided to stop contributions. Yet another example of left-wing doctrine failing the taxpayer!!

[lilelvis2000]

Isnt that a tad rich given that the State has now to rescue the wreckage of the Free Market ?

Castro must be laughing.

[ace00]

Why do you think that is? Do you think that the people want to change the scope of the services that the State offers?

How would you change it? Are you talking about a real change, or do you just think that you personally could save money if you used private health care and paid nothing to the NHS?

I have met few who really want a significant change: mostly people who talk of breaking down the statist system, at the end of the day just want to pay less tax. Actually so do I, but I don't delude myself that it's any more than that.

Yes, it's not simple. I don't have much vested in the British state myself. I am also experienced enough to have realised that there are a lot of complete idiots and wastes of space in the private sector as well, it's not sole provinence of the state.
What would I do? Abolish the NHS. Sack every pen-pusher. Make hospitals self-funding entities. Withdraw funding to all non-elected, non-essential advisory boards, quangos. De-centralise power. Re-design the benfits system (probably increase dole but link it to compulsary public works schemes). Cut back on means tested government handouts severely. Standard small-state stuff.

[ratewhore]

While I don't agree with everything the Libertarian party stand for, they have an interesting view of the nature of government which seems to fit in with what the Times is saying.

linky

[KathyWoolfe]

don't forget the unions

why not?.....they're not much use any more......

[expat]

Great article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4863675.ece

[I]".................................The policy of simply suppressing spending without large-scale structural reform has not had a happy history. After an initial flurry of privatisations, the Conservative Government controlled public spending by holding down its growth without changing the scope of the services that the State was offering.

Why do you think that is? Do you think that the people want to change the scope of the services that the State offers?

How would you change it? Are you talking about a real change, or do you just think that you personally could save money if you used private health care and paid nothing to the NHS?

I have met few who really want a significant change: mostly people who talk of breaking down the statist system, at the end of the day just want to pay less tax. Actually so do I, but I don't delude myself that it's any more than that.

[Ruprect]

Totally agree - it's a great article. Sadly I doubt we will see any worthwhile reform. They all talk tough until they are in power, then the Civil Servants obfuscate them until they give up.

don't forget the unions