Chuka Ummana just now o.n

[IR35 Avoider]

Oh you were almost convincing up until that point. do you need someone to explain how returning some money that originally came from the public purse is not actually contributing? really?

Suppose you contract for the NHS alongside a permie. According to you, the taxes the permie pays count for absolutely nothing, because the flow of money is circular, gov -> worker -> gov, but inserting a company between you and the NHS, so the flow is gov -> PSC -> worker -> gov means that all the tax you pay should count in full?

If the label attached to the worker's proximate source of income is really of economic signficance, maybe the government should set up a company that takes over the employment of all public sector workers, then by definition the country would have no public sector salaries to support, and the revenues from the private sector salaries would (very approximately) double and we would be hugely better off as a country? Even though nothing would have changed with regard to the actual economic output we all produce, what we get paid, and how much tax we each pay?

[minestrone]

A doctor said to me last night "I do not care if people die, I am not working till I am 71".

[v8gaz]

And their taxes do pay for the public spending in exactly the same way that those of private sector workers do.

Oh you were almost convincing up until that point. do you need someone to explain how returning some money that originally came from the public purse is not actually contributing? really?

[IR35 Avoider]

On a serious note, there is a common right-wing view (that I used to share) that all wealth is created in the private sector and that the public sector is completely parasitic: it's econonomic output is zero and is paid for by taxes on the private sector.

It only takes a few minutes thinking about what difference it would make if activities like health and education transfer between the sectors to realise this is wrong. A productive doctor's or teacher's economic output does not alternate between 0 and some number roughly equivalent to his pay when the organisation he works for is relocated to the alternate sector. And their taxes do pay for the public spending in exactly the same way that those of private sector workers do.

Of course there are lots of public (and for that matter private) sector workers whose output we would consider of zero value, but that's just our opinion. If someone (including a government or local authority) is willing to pay someone to do something, then, to an economist, what they do is worth what they are paid.

[minestrone]

It is irritating how much time Ed gets on the TV to say absolutely nothing. "I strongly disagree" & "this is sending out a clear message" shyte.

[shaunbhoy]

Ed Balls, would not trust him being the banker on a monopoly game.

Exactly. For someone who might be driving Labour's monetary policies, I wouldn't trust him to count his gonads and get the same number twice.

[minestrone]

Ed Balls, would not trust him being the banker on a monopoly game.

[amcdonald]

Like Ed Balls you really want to punch him, he's a really irritating lickspittle

[minestrone]

The guy is a vacuous new labour talking machine. You could ask him about cheese and he would have the conversation swung round to spending cuts in 10 seconds. I heard him on the TV a couple of weeks ago referring to Glen Oglaza as Gleno, he thought George Osbourne had a knighthood last year.

[pacharan]

Again?

Bit fat fingered this morning DS lol!

[Doggy Styles]

Again?

[pacharan]

We mustn't bash the unions because they are made up of "Millions of people in the public sector who are wealth creators in this country"

Wealth creators? What's this man on?