weebag Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Prove your assertion or drop it. He has 21000 proofs of your insanity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 No I choose to have a choice Which you seem to have had little trouble exercising. it's selfish of you to impose your system on me. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. If you're out of it, I'm not sure what your complaint is; it seems to be that societal-level choice should not be permitted. That's a pretty extreme argument, kind of Injinesque. It's just that it's not only me who wouldn't want to go down that route - it's the vast majority of other people. Your system compells me to accept mediocrity Well, you seem to be saying you don;t pay for it anyway, and since the option to pay someone else to do stuff for you remains then I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than perhaps outrage that everyone else doesn't agree with you. Interesting also that you see public sector=mediocre, private=uniformly excellent. That's a bit blinkered, perhaps. I wish to have more for me and my family. No-one's stopping you. Your arguments are equivalent to those for totally opting out of society. That's fair enough, but as others have said that's not much of an option if you want to carry on living here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 No.As I said before 'inconvenient' is what you mean. As in inconvenient for your argument. My argument is that the state is immoral, evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The private sector has some very dodgy types in it some of the time - the public sector is always that way. And yet I thought that all people were essentially 'moral'? (your words) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Just like the public sector!I do well at my job and I get a performance related pay increment. I don't do well and I don't get my increment. As your customers aren't free not to pay it, your increment need not bare any relationship to what you provide them (your actual excellence) Edited August 20, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 There speaks somebody who has never experienced both. Such a shame. My mother had to have a heart valve replaced a few years ago. Our first thought was private medicine, to speed it up and to make the experience a bit posher. After researching it we were disuaded - nicer bed, for sure, but the choice between the one of the best heart units in Europe (in terms of survival and reported quality) vs, well, not. And if she'd gone private and it had been problematic she'd anyway have been ambulanced from one to the other. I've no issues with private medicine for cosmetic/routine stuff, but for anything where you might need quality medicine (as opposed to a nice room), the NHS wins it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 And yet I thought that all people were essentially 'moral'? (your words) They are. Why else the utter drivel and excuses on this thread? If people weren't moral, there'd just abe a "****** you, I like this stuff and yes I'll shoot you if you don't pay me." Instead we have myths, waffle and bullsh1t in a huge pyramid of excuse and false morality. All the arguments for the state are moral ones. What about the poor/sick/old/infirm/old/etc???!!!!111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 OK. Fine.We kill the public sector. no we shrink it to affordable levels by forcing the middle management and non-jobs to go out and do something productive. Now what? We have more people in society putting into the tax system rather than taking out. Do you honestly think you'll pay less tax? Yes. (1)So no not only do you lose the tax part of your income, (2)you now also have to pay for what were essentially 'free' services (health, education, roads, bins, the lot). (1) How? (2) No, I have more efficient and cost effective public services. You're instantly worse off and have less money in your pocket. No, I pay less tax. Genius! Thankyou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 My mother had to have a heart valve replaced a few years ago. Our first thought was private medicine, to speed it up and to make the experience a bit posher. After researching it we were disuaded - nicer bed, for sure, but the choice between the one of the best heart units in Europe (in terms of survival and reported quality) vs, well, not. And if she'd gone private and it had been problematic she'd anyway have been ambulanced from one to the other.I've no issues with private medicine for cosmetic/routine stuff, but for anything where you might need quality medicine (as opposed to a nice room), the NHS wins it. Every single time. When it comes down to 3 different private sector companies' ambulances fighting over a knocked over pedestrian while they argue and check his ability to pay or one state run ambulance thet scoops him up and takes him away, the state ambulance wins every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 no we shrink it to affordable levels by forcing the middle management and non-jobs to go out and do something productive.We have more people in society putting into the tax system rather than taking out. Yes. (1) How? (2) No, I have more efficient and cost effective public services. No, I pay less tax. Thankyou I guarantee you'd pay the same amount of tax. The Government would just find something else to spend it on or give it to private companies on your behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 As your customers aren't free not to pay it, your increment need not bare any relationship to what you provide them (your actual excellence) That's equally true at the coal face in any large organisation. There are comparatively few places (whre I work is one of them) where what you get paid depends directly on what the customer thinks and wants. For most people it's filtered by n layers of management and feedback mechanisms. For public services, there are strong constraints. The people who ultimately set the budgets and carry the can for service delivery (Mps/Ministers and councillors) have to face their electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 So you're saying that the CEO of Vodafone makes more of a contribution to society than does a nurse or an oncologist ? A more interesting question, and more within the main subject of this thread, is this: Who needs the other most? The CEO of Vodaphone will survive without the nurse. Hopefully. After all, most of humanity still lives without access to basic medical care. Some die horrible pointless deaths. Many don't. The nurse... well, without the CEO of Vodaphone to pay taxes, she will not receive a wage at the end of the month. And then she'll die of starvation. Conclusion: from a moral viewpoint I'd be happy to agree that a nurse has probably more to contribute to society. But from a purely practical viewpoint, it's no contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 no we shrink it to affordable levels by forcing the middle management and non-jobs to go out and do something productive. But we've already been here I've asked you for data to support your claim that removing half the workforce would make no visible change to the service. I think we got as far as a court being involved, but no data was produced Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abharrisson Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Ive noticed some real negativity toward public sector workers during my brief time on this board.Some 'wild' incredible statements. I see reflections and almost references made in the way that the financial sector was shamed and blamed. Plus points- They work, they earn money, arguably put into the system. Negative points- They take out the system, are a heavy burden, we can no longer support such a large sector. But, should we direct blame at the workers themselves? As private sector jobs are lost, is it really the fault of the public sector workers? I think you must ask, are they 'directly' responsible for the nations public finances? Part of the problem? For sure. However..... The state makes promises and charters it can never hope to meet, increasing migration, sinking revenues. Its a no brainer in my book. But as always, why shoot the messenger? Thoughts? Most comments I suspect are aimed at the state that allows things to happen rather than individuals.... after all if offered a wacking great pay rise or twelve weeks holiday or a gilt edged pension I'm sure no one is going to raise their hand and say this is unfair. Unfortunately there are also a large number of overly sensitive souls working in the public sector... in july the state spent a huge £5bn more than it earned in taxes... if it were a business heads would have rolled ages ago, with massive cuts..... in fact if you look at the state as a business which is partially helpfull perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now as many of the items we currently waste money on wouldn't have been there. Gordon Brown bleats cuts whereever these things are discussed and civil servants often call foul but the simple fact of the matter is that it would quite possible and reasonable to start getting very harsh with the public sector... if doing so meant that we ended up with largely the same services for 20% less cost then I'm all for it.. whats not to like.. I doubt many welcome the overly bloated and wasteful services we currently have and we simply cannot afford for them to continue. I hope the next government cut and cut very deep indeed as we simply cannot afford our servants any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 That's equally true at the coal face in any large organisation. There are comparatively few places (whre I work is one of them) where what you get paid depends directly on what the customer thinks and wants. No, it's not equally true. Every bad decision made by an organization to reward things that do customers no good, means money comes directly out of their pockets. Every bad decision made by a government management, means money comes out of someone else's pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I guarantee you'd pay the same amount of tax. The Government would just find something else to spend it on or give it to private companies on your behalf. Ultimately yes, but I'd rather have a new liesure center in town or improved roads, rubbish collectors that are not nazis, free local parking etc... Public spending that flows into the greater economy is no bad thing. It's public spending to create positions that take money out of the greater economy that pi55es me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 A more interesting question, and more within the main subject of this thread, is this:Who needs the other most? Indeed. And when you're diagnosed with cancer, or you/wife are having a baby, I bet it won't be the CEO of Vodafone (never forget the f'in Fone) After all, most of humanity still lives without access to basic medical care. Some die horrible pointless deaths. Many don't. That would be a situation very low down on my list of preferences. Well, I'd be dead. The nurse... well, without the CEO of Vodaphone to pay taxes, she will not receive a wage at the end of the month. And then she'll die of starvation. But the CEO of vodafone gets his money from the rest of us...without us he'd also have no cash In the end we pay people to do stuff. We lavue nurses (maybe not enough) so we pay them. We value having a phone, so we pay for that. What we pay for it with is our own labour. It;s just a different route to transfer part of that labour-equivalent to the CEO of Voda than it is to a nurse. Conclusion: from a moral viewpoint I'd be happy to agree that a nurse has probably more to contribute to society. But from a purely practical viewpoint, it's no contest. From a practical point of view, a nurse saves lives and makes people better. The CEO of Voda runs a phone company. In terms of contribution, I'd agree there's no comparison but possibly not the way you mean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 They are. Why else the utter drivel and excuses on this thread? If people weren't moral, there'd just abe a "****** you, I like this stuff and yes I'll shoot you if you don't pay me." Instead we have myths, waffle and bullsh1t in a huge pyramid of excuse and false morality. All the arguments for the state are moral ones. What about the poor/sick/old/infirm/old/etc???!!!!111 Ha ha - you just said that some of the private sector were evil and ALL the public sector were - but they are all still moral!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 No, it's not equally true. Every bad decision made by an organization to reward things that do customers no good, means money comes directly out of their pockets. Every bad decision made by a government management, means money comes out of someone else's pocket. The money comes out of all of our pockets, either way. If FirstGreatwestern **** up, they either increase the fares or demand a bung from the public purse. If a local council does it, they're stuffed because the amount they can charge in council tax is capped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Indeed.And when you're diagnosed with cancer, or you/wife are having a baby, I bet it won't be the CEO of Vodafone (never forget the f'in Fone) That would be a situation very low down on my list of preferences. Well, I'd be dead. But the CEO of vodafone gets his money from the rest of us...without us he'd also have no cash In the end we pay people to do stuff. We lavue nurses (maybe not enough) so we pay them. We value having a phone, so we pay for that. What we pay for it with is our own labour. It;s just a different route to transfer part of that labour-equivalent to the CEO of Voda than it is to a nurse. From a practical point of view, a nurse saves lives and makes people better. The CEO of Voda runs a phone company. In terms of contribution, I'd agree there's no comparison but possibly not the way you mean Unless you allow peopel to voluntarily pay, you have no idea whether it's of value or not. None at all. Might be that no one wants nurses at all and woudl rather die young but with more Ipods. Not your choice, theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Unless you allow peopel to voluntarily pay, you have no idea whether it's of value or not. None at all. Might be that no one wants nurses at all and woudl rather die young but with more Ipods. Not your choice, theirs. If most people wanted to remove the NHS then the Tories would be all over it. As it is they're rowing away from Hannon's utterences as fast as their lardy arses allow them. Why ? Votes. People like public services. Word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Ha ha - you just said that some of the private sector were evil and ALL the public sector were - but they are all still moral!? Essentially moral, yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadtoruin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 My private health care is far better than that you serfs get on the NHS. Just one example of 'how paying privately brings that about.....'Edit for spelling You don't have private healthcare. You have NHS care gold-plated with a top-up charge. The private sector just piggy-backs on the NHS, passing specialised cases it can't deal with and not training it's own doctors or doing any research. So the bottom line is you use your queue-jump top-up payment to access the NHS that you don't pay for because you avoid your taxes. Wonderful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 If most people wanted to remove the NHS then the Tories would be all over it. As it is they're rowing away from Hannon's utterences as fast as their lardy arses allow them. Why ? Votes. People like public services. Word. Votes are the ability to make a list to attack others. If you vote, you are asking some bloke to take other peoples stuff and spend it on yourself, or to force others to do what you want. Nothing to do with free choice at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 If most people wanted to remove the NHS then the Tories would be all over it. As it is they're rowing away from Hannon's utterences as fast as their lardy arses allow them. Why ? Votes. People in public services like voting. Word. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.