Reply to: 50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’

[doodab]

What an appalling set of analogies as two abilities/features are what you are born with. The other however is interesting.

Newborns can't even hold themselves upright, never mind run, and they certainly don't have breasts.

Sporting success is of course strongly associated with training and "deliberate practice". It does seem to be the case however that the biggest determinant of ones socioeconomic status in later life is ones background. This is true of academic success as well. So it's safe to say that one is born with the big house and Aston Martin to a greater extent than one is born able to run 100m quickly.

I can't comment on the boobies, except to hypothesize that large breasted women are more likely to snare themselves a rich man.

[DodgyAgent]

If some people can run 100m in 10s then why not all of them? If some women have 36DD breasts why not all of them? If some people live in large houses and drive Aston Martins then why not all of them?

What an appalling set of analogies as two abilities/features are what you are born with. The other however is interesting. Most people could if they really wanted to earn enough money buy a large house and an Aston. they choose not to.
likewise with running a school or a business. If a school is badly run it is probably due to the people running it choosing not to run it well. That may be because they are not as driven as others, have different agendas than running a good school and/or are not incentivised to run a good school. Again my entire point is that schools should be run by people who are properly incentivised.

[doodab]

You have just supported my entire point. If some schools can perform well then why not all of them?

If some people can run 100m in 10s then why not all of them? If some women have 36DD breasts why not all of them? If some people live in large houses and drive Aston Martins then why not all of them?

[sasguru]

As consumers of financial services and large corporate services we have - albeit limited- the ultimate sanction of taking our business elsewhere not so with the public sector. I think Einstein should have explained for the benefit of those of lower intelligence the mutuality of his concept.

Stop digging, you plonker. You've hit rock bottom.

[DodgyAgent]

You do realise that the research that created the internet was funded by the US government don't you? And that telstar was partly funded by the GPO and it's French equivalent, including the building of the first dish at goonhilly.

Fair enough so why didnt the US government go ahead and install and support it?

[DodgyAgent]

No they aren't. At the corporate level they are geared towards the generation of profit to benefit the shareholders. The individuals in a large company are geared towards self interested climbing of the corporate ladder to reap whatever incentives are on offer. They focus on the customer to the extent that these incentives encourage them to do so.

Of course, this is a crass generalisation because in both the private and public sector you get plenty of people who care and strive to do a good job, because most people take at least some pride in their work and gain a great deal of their self esteem from it.



As Albert Einstein once said, "Only a life lived for others is worth living."

As consumers of financial services and large corporate services we have - albeit limited- the ultimate sanction of taking our business elsewhere not so with the public sector. I think Einstein should have explained for the benefit of those of lower intelligence the mutuality of his concept.

[doodab]

I am sure of one thing

Had the public sector been charged with inventing installing broadband and satellite TV, you would have been sat at home friendless and a nuisance to only yourself and your neighbours - unable to irritate the entire planet through the internet.

You do realise that the research that created the internet was funded by the US government don't you? And that telstar was partly funded by the GPO and it's French equivalent, including the building of the first dish at goonhilly.

[sasguru]

I am sure of one thing

Had the public sector been charged with inventing installing broadband and satellite TV, you would have been sat at home friendless and a nuisance to only yourself and your neighbours - unable to irritate the entire planet through the internet.

You do realise the invention of the internet was through a public sector project (clue: DARPA)?


Whatever possesed your parents to waste their hard-earned on a public sschool education for you?

[DodgyAgent]

Perhaps because the current system isn't as much of an abject failure as you like to make out?

I'm not sure if you realise this or not, so I will point out that parents are already allowed a choice of schools as you advocate.

Unfortunately the supply side is heavily constrained, that is to say that the "good" schools are massively oversubscribed and simply don't have enough places to accommodate all the children whose parents want to send them there. Hence the less good schools, rather than being allowed to fail, remain full of pupils and aren't driven out of existence. Believe me when I say I don't know a single parent who likes this state of affairs, including me. We'd all like our children to receive the best possible education.

Introducing competition in the form of parental choice hasn't eliminated the weakest schools, because that mechanism can only do so if there is a sufficient excess of school places in the system that the weakest schools don't end up with nearly complete utilization. That excess simply isn't there due to budgetary constraints and to create it will require significant investment. To create, for example, conditions in which the weakest 20% of schools can be shut down, we need an excess capacity of at least 20% in the system. It seems reasonable to say that this will cost at least 20% of the current education budget and probably more in the short term due to capital expenditure requirements for buildings and suchlike. It's not a trivial amount as you are talking about building ~4000 extra schools.

Now you could argue that the private sector should be allowed to supply the required investment. Although I'm not of the opinion that the private sector is suited to the provision of low budget educational services it's certainly something that should be tried before it's dismissed.

The fact remains that social and home background is the biggest determinant of academic success. If you really want to address the discrepancies in the abilities of school leavers you have to forget about tinkering with the school system and address the wider discrepancies in standards of living.

You have just supported my entire point. If some schools can perform well then why not all of them? It is criminal that some parents are faced with sending their children to god awful schools- and we should not accept it.
You are saying it cant be done I am saying that it should be done and introducing more choice and making it easier for schools to be ruthless about who it recruits and who it fired are steps in the right direction.

The whole premise of how education is delivered and funded needs to change. More money yes but only if it is accompanied by greater performance and savings are made in for example welfare handouts. The better the education is for all the less the costs to society of patching up the considerable failures.

[doodab]

I may be stupid but I am right in saying that the incentives and focus of the private sector are geared to the customer

No they aren't. At the corporate level they are geared towards the generation of profit to benefit the shareholders. The individuals in a large company are geared towards self interested climbing of the corporate ladder to reap whatever incentives are on offer. They focus on the customer to the extent that these incentives encourage them to do so.

Of course, this is a crass generalisation because in both the private and public sector you get plenty of people who care and strive to do a good job, because most people take at least some pride in their work and gain a great deal of their self esteem from it.

The incentives and focus of the public sector are focussed to the providers of the service. It does'nt take Einstein to work that one out. Even a complete cretin like you should be suspicious of anyone who claims that the world goes round because most people put others before themselves and their own families.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Only a life lived for others is worth living."

[DodgyAgent]

Yes clearly you are stupid and/or ignorant about how large companies work. They are NOT focused on the customer at all - the larger the company the more like the Civil Service they are - you'll thrive if you have political skills not if you are any good at what you do.
Is Barclays, BT, Virgin or anyone else geared towards the customer? Have you experience excellent service from any large company recently?

Stop talking bollox, you really sound like a naive fool. The mirror image of the naive Socialist Worker.

I am sure of one thing

Had the public sector been charged with inventing installing broadband and satellite TV, you would have been sat at home friendless and a nuisance to only yourself and your neighbours - unable to irritate the entire planet through the internet.

[doodab]

If that were the case then why are there some good schools in the state sector?

Perhaps because the current system isn't as much of an abject failure as you like to make out?

I'm not sure if you realise this or not, so I will point out that parents are already allowed a choice of schools as you advocate.

Unfortunately the supply side is heavily constrained, that is to say that the "good" schools are massively oversubscribed and simply don't have enough places to accommodate all the children whose parents want to send them there. Hence the less good schools, rather than being allowed to fail, remain full of pupils and aren't driven out of existence. Believe me when I say I don't know a single parent who likes this state of affairs, including me. We'd all like our children to receive the best possible education.

Introducing competition in the form of parental choice hasn't eliminated the weakest schools, because that mechanism can only do so if there is a sufficient excess of school places in the system that the weakest schools don't end up with nearly complete utilization. That excess simply isn't there due to budgetary constraints and to create it will require significant investment. To create, for example, conditions in which the weakest 20% of schools can be shut down, we need an excess capacity of at least 20% in the system. It seems reasonable to say that this will cost at least 20% of the current education budget and probably more in the short term due to capital expenditure requirements for buildings and suchlike. It's not a trivial amount as you are talking about building ~4000 extra schools.

Now you could argue that the private sector should be allowed to supply the required investment. Although I'm not of the opinion that the private sector is suited to the provision of low budget educational services it's certainly something that should be tried before it's dismissed.

The fact remains that social and home background is the biggest determinant of academic success. If you really want to address the discrepancies in the abilities of school leavers you have to forget about tinkering with the school system and address the wider discrepancies in standards of living.

[lukemg]

Why 50% Income Tax Raises Less Than 40% - 28/02/2012

Read this - perfect explanation of how this all works.
Whole policy is pointless but they can't face the headlines of cancelling it, rich win again, dave helps his mates out etc.
A lot of people are stupid and misinformed unfortunately, you just have to realise it and move on....

[sasguru]

I may be stupid but I am right in saying that the incentives and focus of the private sector are geared to the customer

Yes clearly you are stupid and/or ignorant about how large companies work. They are NOT focused on the customer at all - the larger the company the more like the Civil Service they are - you'll thrive if you have political skills not if you are any good at what you do.
Is Barclays, BT, Virgin or anyone else geared towards the customer? Have you experience excellent service from any large company recently?

Stop talking bollox, you really sound like a naive fool. The mirror image of the naive Socialist Worker.

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, shut it. You're making an arse of yourself.
Why don't you go down the pub with your fellow agents and knock your tiny brain cells together putting the world to rights.
When you attempt to argue with people who are more intelligent than you you just show yourself up.

HTH

I may be stupid but I am right in saying that the incentives and focus of the private sector are geared to the customer - except where a monopoly exists. The incentives and focus of the public sector are focussed to the providers of the service. It does'nt take Einstein to work that one out. Even a complete cretin like you should be suspicious of anyone who claims that the world goes round because most people put others before themselves and their own families.