The Case Against Cuts In Public Spending

[BlueRat]

We are told there is a deficit crisis in the UK. We are told that we are spending beyond our means. We are told that the solution to this deficit crisis is to cut public spending.

Public spending is an investment, not a debt. Public servants – the vast majority of whom are low paid – deliver vital services to our communities. The campaign of vilification against public services is motivated by a desire to cut and privatise these vital services. The reality is that there does not need to be a single penny taken away from any public service, or a single job lost.

The deficit is due to the recession, which has reduced revenues as less people are in work and are therefore spending less. At the same time, government expenditure has increased as more people are without work and are entitled to benefits.

If the government cuts more jobs this will only exacerbate the deficit crisis – more people will be unemployed and there will be less revenue.

The answer to the crisis is therefore to create jobs not cut them. Currently there are less than 500,000 vacancies, while 2.5 million people are unemployed. ‘Getting tough’ on welfare will not work since there are not the jobs available. It will simply cause more misery – which is the only possible outcome of the coalition government’s policies.

This is why we must resist this government’s policy of savage cuts, and reject their flawed arguments. We need a new economic strategy based on public investment, job creation, and tax justice.

Over the coming months we need to win the arguments for this alternative and then force government to implement it. Otherwise our members and our communities could face years of misery. This page spells out the compelling case against cuts, and for a new vision.

Mark Serwotka Janice Godrich

General Secretary President

There is an alternative: The case against cuts in public spending

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

the gov't shouldn't be spending people's money on anything - because the gov't shouldn't be stealing people's money in the first place.

[Protect Rural England]

There is an alternative: The case against cuts in public spending

Never read such a load of tosh.

Investment my backside. Low paid maybe (but not with an index linked pension)

Slash and burn the public sector.

Govts cannot run businesses, why do they think they can look after your health. They cannot even tarmac roads.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Never read such a load of tosh.

Investment my backside. Low paid maybe (but not with an index linked pension)

Slash and burn the public sector.

Govts cannot run businesses, why do they think they can look after your health. They cannot even tarmac roads.

+ 1

[Protect Rural England]

Mark Serwotka Janice Godrich

General Secretary President

Another pair of pseudo dairy farmers used to milking the tit of the taxpayer. Now these morons are telling us how to run our country.

It is total imbeciles with their flawed economics and illogical thinking like these who have got us in this mess.

Doesn't Mr Serwothka realise his Stalinist way of thinking has been thoroughly disproved?

Why doesn't he get a proper job rather than living off the membership fees of his hard working members?

Tell you what Mark and Janice. Go see Branson or Sugar or whoever, learn how the real world operates and then spout your drivel.

[needsleep]

Never read such a load of tosh.

Investment my backside. Low paid maybe (but not with an index linked pension)

Slash and burn the public sector.

Govts cannot run businesses, why do they think they can look after your health. They cannot even tarmac roads.

Cue the ridiculous mock outrage.

You need to learn a thing or two about how unions work. The opening gambit is always the most extreme position and unlikely to be entertained by the adversary. Likewise the adversary will adopt an extreme opening position hence the 40% departmental cuts we heard about last year. The reality will be cuts of 10-15% with most of it agreed with the unions and achieved through efficiencies, natural wastage and voluntary redundancy.

Wise up buddy.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Doesn't Mr Serwothka realise his Stalinist way of thinking has been thoroughly disproved?

Serwotka, Crow and their fellow Scargill-lites are simply doing what their members pay them to do, i.e. promote the operation of the professions they represent as closed shops, bound up in restrictive barriers to entry and collective bargaining in order to keep the reward to productivity ratio tilted as far as possible in their favour.

Tell you what Mark and Janice. Go see Branson or Sugar or whoever, learn how the real world operates and then spout your drivel.

I'd rather they went and saw Bill Gates or Angela Merkel. Neither Branson nor Sugar have made any money in the real world since the 1980s. Around that time Branson muscled himself into the government-regulated cartel that is the transatlantic air industry and has been making money in that very unreal world ever since. Sugar, to be fair, revolutionised consumer electronics in the mid-late 1980s, enabling many to own a personal computer that was capable of serious productivity (as distinct from just a games machine) for the first time. But he's been living off the plaudits ever since, and the only money he's made since then has been in property speculation.

[happy_renting]

The letter completely ignores the point that public sector jobs are paid for by taxes raised mainly from the private sector (and subsequent re-taxing those in the public sector). So taxation reduces the muber of jobs in the private sector. The private sector has paid heavily for the recession so far; the self-entitled public sector has hardly been touched.

The campaign of vilification against public services

I have not forgotten that Unison members vilified private sector contractors, protested in favour of IR35, and campaigned to damage private business by making thme pay higher tax than public sector employees.

They bit the hand that fed them. What goes around comes around.

[South Lorne]

There is an alternative: The case against cuts in public spending

...these people are inciting through ignorance ...how can 'waste' suddenly become 'investment' ....?....

[Protect Rural England]

Cue the ridiculous mock outrage.

You need to learn a thing or two about how unions work. The opening gambit is always the most extreme position and unlikely to be entertained by the adversary. Likewise the adversary will adopt an extreme opening position hence the 40% departmental cuts we heard about last year. The reality will be cuts of 10-15% with most of it agreed with the unions and achieved through efficiencies, natural wastage and voluntary redundancy.

Wise up buddy.

Do us all a favour and cut the patronising self righteous arrogance of the sponging left. Your pretend indignance is laughable.

You need to learn a few things about life namely that these people are takers and the private sector are by and large the givers.

Frankly I couldn't give a fig if their cuts were 5 or 50%, it still isn't enough. Clear this lot out. We don't need them or want them. Either way we cannot afford them.

You don't see the private sector going on strike and if they do it isn't for long and they certainly are not paid.

We are all replaceable. Wise up.

[Inca]

the gov't shouldn't be spending people's money on anything - because the gov't shouldn't be stealing people's money in the first place

We should have no standing army, police force or criminal justice system then?

Edited January 4, 2011 by Inca

[dissident junk]

A member of my family is a member of PCS and says the union meetings have been a total joke in the last year ... proper militant style "Tory *****s" type stuff, "we can bring the country down" etc. Said family member walked out of one a few months back because the leader was just excessive and advocated civil unrest in the starkest ways possible.

Someone ought to tell PCS that their understanding is wrong. The deficit has not been caused by "the recession", but by the sudden arrest of thousands of credit money spigots gushing ones and zeros into the economy.

But then the British "left" have never been very good at understanding "complicated" things like .... err .... that the value of labour tokens can change if you make more of them willy nilly.

[Protect Rural England]

We should have no standing army, police force or criminal justice system then?

The FIRST duty of Govt is to defend the Nation and her people either against an enemy of the State of from her own people within.

The duty of Govt is not to offer hip replacements, have trampoline coordinators, dog patrol wardens, ethnic diversity officers or any other such nonsense.

Many functions are "nice to have" not "need to have".

Remove the "nice to have" then start work on removing the "need to have".

Our country has gone totally stark raving bonkers. We are in danger of losing our sense of humour with all the political correctness.

[tim123]

the gov't shouldn't be spending people's money on anything - because the gov't shouldn't be stealing people's money in the first place.

Aw come one.

we used to have a system like that and:

People got murdered in the strets because there was no law enforcement,

people's houses burnt down because the "wrong" fire brigade turned up to put the fire out,

childern were uneducated because parents couldn't afford to send them to school,

etc etc etc

tim

[Protect Rural England]

Aw come one.

we used to have a system like that and:

People got murdered in the strets because there was no law enforcement,

people's houses burnt down because the "wrong" fire brigade turned up to put the fire out,

childern were uneducated because parents couldn't afford to send them to school,

etc etc etc

tim

.......and when the murderer was caught they were hanged

and the insurance company (not the state fire brigade) decided whose house to "save"

and the first schools Eton and Oundle etc were set up as Charities together with the Church to educate followed by huge Victorian philanthropy to educate the masses.

No system is ever perfect but the eras of the past you describe were when this Nation had an Empire and all the adults of this Country did not owe more that the entire GDP in one year in personal debt as we do today.

Remember debtors prisons? Maybe they should be restored?

[Guest_ringledman_*]

Reasons for cutting public spending -

1) Proven that public sector 'investment' returns 20p at most for every pound spent.

2) Public spending stifles the REAL private sector, entrepreneurial sector.

3) Public spending has no profit and lose mechanism. The public sector can bail out waste after waste until the eventual total collapse of the economy.

4) Wasteful public sector spending is a crime against taxpayers in society. Government was never conceived as this monster big brother statism.

Wise up lefties. No money left. Spending more than we receive in receipts.

Anyone who has worked in the real world would realise this is a receipe for disaster.

You dont solve a debt problem with more debt. It is pure muppet economics to believe this.

You solve a debt problem by facing up to the music and not burying our heads in the sand. It is solved by allowing the real, producing, wealth creating private sector to thrive.

Lower corporation taxes, flat rate and low personal taxes, a small state, personal resposibility.

Wake up.

Edited January 4, 2011 by ringledman

[Protect Rural England]

Reasons for cutting public spending -

1) Proven that public sector 'investment' returns 20p at most for every pound spent.

2) Public spending stifles the REAL private sector, entrepreneurial sector.

3) Public spending has no profit and lose mechanism. The public sector can bail out waste after waste until the eventual total collapse of the economy.

4) Wasteful public sector spending is a crime against taxpayers in society. Government was never conceived as this monster big brother statism.

Wise up lefties. No money left. Spending more than we receive in receipts.

Anyone who has worked in the real world would realise this is a receipe for disaster.

You dont solve a debt problem with more debt. It is pure muppet economics to believe this.

You solve a debt problem by facing up to the music and not burying our heads in the sand. It is solved by allowing the real, producing, wealth creating private sector to thrive.

Lower corporation taxes, flat rate and low personal taxes, a small state, personal resposibility.

Wake up.

+1

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

We should have no standing army, police force or criminal justice system then?

no, we shouldn't have a violent monopoly of state employed thugs, nor an injustice system.

The FIRST duty of Govt is to defend the Nation and her people either against an enemy of the State of from her own people within..

the purpose of gov't is for those in gov't to plunder those who are not.

we used to have a system like that and:

People got murdered in the strets because there was no law enforcement,

people's houses burnt down because the "wrong" fire brigade turned up to put the fire out,

childern were uneducated because parents couldn't afford to send them to school,

used to?

people still get murdered in the streets etc - sometimes by 'law enforcement' (along the lines of Ian Tomlinson)

[wonderpup]

The FIRST duty of Govt is to defend the Nation and her people either against an enemy of the State of from her own people within.

The duty of Govt is not to offer hip replacements, have trampoline coordinators, dog patrol wardens, ethnic diversity officers or any other such nonsense.

Many functions are "nice to have" not "need to have".

Remove the "nice to have" then start work on removing the "need to have".

Our country has gone totally stark raving bonkers. We are in danger of losing our sense of humour with all the political correctness.

I think things are a little more complicated than you assume. Without a welfare state the 'consumer society' cannot exist because people will save rather than spend- this is the problem the Chinese have in trying to stimulate internal demand, no safety net= no willingness to buy tat, hence their dependence on the western 'consumer'.

I'm not saying there is not waste and excess in the current setup- there clearly is- but this binary notion that you have a choice between 'socialism' on the one hand and 'capitalism' on the other is too simplistic and fails to capture the symbiosis that exists between the two.

A more accurate model would be to regard capitalism and socialism as interdependent facets of a single whole- capitalism provides the incentives while socialism provides the reassurance that it's safe to spend rather than save.

Limited liability provides capital with a degree of protection from the market- and the social safety net provides the same sort of protection for the workforce/consumer. The argument for limited liability is that it facilitates investment in production, the argument for a social safety net is that is facilitates consumption of those products.

Take away the social protections and you will see demand collapse as the paradox of thrift kicks in and everyone starts saving for that rainy day when they get Ill, or unemployed or too old to work.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

A more accurate model would be to regard capitalism and socialism as interdependent facets of a single whole

that's completely inaccurate.

a parasite needs a host; a host doesn't need, or even want, a parasite.

[Guest_ringledman_*]

I think things are a little more complicated than you assume. Without a welfare state the 'consumer society' cannot exist because people will save rather than spend- this is the problem the Chinese have in trying to stimulate internal demand, no safety net= no willingness to buy tat, hence their dependence on the western 'consumer'.

I'm not saying there is not waste and excess in the current setup- there clearly is- but this binary notion that you have a choice between 'socialism' on the one hand and 'capitalism' on the other is too simplistic and fails to capture the symbiosis that exists between the two.

A more accurate model would be to regard capitalism and socialism as interdependent facets of a single whole- capitalism provides the incentives while socialism provides the reassurance that it's safe to spend rather than save.

Limited liability provides capital with a degree of protection from the market- and the social safety net provides the same sort of protection for the workforce/consumer. The argument for limited liability is that it facilitates investment in production, the argument for a social safety net is that is facilitates consumption of those products.

Take away the social protections and you will see demand collapse as the paradox of thrift kicks in and everyone starts saving for that rainy day when they get Ill, or unemployed or too old to work.

Desperate argument. If there was no need to tax people at 50-80% of their income (the real rate once every tax is included) then people could make their own decisions on private health care and education from the huge increase in income they would receive from the government not wasting their earnings.

The improvement in healthcare and education would rise hugely as firms compete for business. The worst out there would dissapear instead of the case now in which terrible schools and hospitals are allowed to continue providing poor services.

http://dailyreckoning.com/socialist-pigs/

Socialist Pigs

By Joel Bowman

06/30/10 Taipei, Taiwan – Capitalism produces. Socialism distributes. The two systems do not coexist comfortably with one another. In fact, they are inimical.

Some of the most celebrated champions of socialism have coined terms like “greedy capitalist” or “capitalist pig.” By implication, a socialist is neither greedy nor a pig. But economic history suggests that socialists are just as porcine as their capitalist counterparts…maybe even more so.

Socialist maxims may score high marks for eloquence and pathos; but they score very low marks for economic wisdom. Capitalism produces. Socialism distributes. Without capitalism, socialism cannot function. In other words; socialism needs capitalism.

Intriguingly, the inverse is not also true. Capitalism has no need of socialism whatsoever. Capitalism distributes wealth by creating opportunity, forged in the crucible of open competition. Capitalism amasses the capital that invests in the enterprises that enable others to advance their financial conditions. Capitalism does not confiscate wealth and redistribute it. Capitalism multiplies wealth…and in the process redistributes opportunity.

Of course, productivity and wealth creation does not come from penalizing the most productive members of society. It comes from standing aside and allowing them to do what they do best, be that excavating minerals, building cars or growing bananas.

Left alone, the free market operates as a kind of evolutionary arms race. Companies compete to offer the same product at a better price, or a better product at the same price. Those that cannot keep pace eventually whither and die. Through this “survival of the fittest” process, prices are over time driven down and the quality of goods and services forced higher. In this fashion, those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum benefit most from the toils of companies competing to capture their business. And, the best part is that nobody has to steal a penny to pay for it. The “capitalist pigs” will finance the whole operation themselves…if only the safety-net socialists would get out of the way and let them.

Cheers,

Joel Bowman,

for The Daily Reckoning

Edited January 4, 2011 by ringledman

[Oliver Sutton]

that's completely inaccurate.

a parasite needs a host; a host doesn't need, or even want, a parasite.

I know you're thick and a borderline retard, but even I could see he was describing a mutualistic relationship, not a parastitic one.

[needsleep]

Do us all a favour and cut the patronising self righteous arrogance of the sponging left. Your pretend indignance is laughable.

You need to learn a few things about life namely that these people are takers and the private sector are by and large the givers.

Frankly I couldn't give a fig if their cuts were 5 or 50%, it still isn't enough. Clear this lot out. We don't need them or want them. Either way we cannot afford them.

You don't see the private sector going on strike and if they do it isn't for long and they certainly are not paid.

We are all replaceable. Wise up.

kin'ell. When are you taking your GCSEs?

[mattyfc]

There is an alternative: The case against cuts in public spending

We are told spending is actually being cut, this is a lie. Spending is increasing every year (about £50bn total) over the next 5 years.

This is why we must resist this government’s policy of savage cuts, and reject their flawed arguments. We need a new economic strategy based on public investment, job creation, and tax justice.

Yes the massive public investment over the last decade has created sustainable growth and jobs; the head of the BBC should earn £838k a year. Having 9000 public servants on 140k+ a year is very progressive. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) Whilst most in the public sector are on less than £20k.

Disgusting.

It would be nice to see some policy that favours those at the lower end, not creating public sector fat cats.

[mightytharg]

Go see Branson or Sugar or whoever, learn how the real world operates and then spout your drivel.

I pretty sure Sugar has enriched himself with buckets of tax-payer money. His snout has been deep in the BBC trough for decades - Branson probably the same.