Oh heck … Bloated public sector is damaging economy, warns Andrew Bailey.

Jane43

Ilovecheese

Yup, let's sack a load of public servants and give them Universal Credit instead, that will really help the economy!!!

There would be a hefty bill for redundancy payments as well.

But imagine everyone working in the Public service.

There would be no money made by the Country at all?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Zero growth and an extra 900,000 people in the country. 78% of which - according to David Smith of the Sunday Times - do not work. What else could go wrong?. Oh, I forgot a bloated Civil Service that works from home. And train drivers given a huge pay rise and now won’t work over the weekend.

We are truly in a mess.

I cant see us getting out of it until the general public as whole have worked things out.
They are largely going along with all sorts of things.

But imagine everyone working in the Public service.
There would be no money made by the Country at all?

The country isn't a business. It doesn't have to 'make money' to continue to exist.

We'll never have everyone working in the public sector because the public sector depends on the private sector to supply it with goods and services. What is more, the employees in the public sector spend their wages in the private sector. Which would encourage the private sector to expand.

“The country isn't a business. It doesn't have to 'make money' to continue to exist.”

No it doesn’t have to make a surplus and most years it doesn’t, only occasionally has a surplus been made the last was 20 yrs ago.
It would be good if governments actually tried to balance the books

MaizieD

^But imagine everyone working in the Public service.^
There would be no money made by the Country at all?

The country isn't a business. It doesn't have to 'make money' to continue to exist.

We'll never have everyone working in the public sector because the public sector depends on the private sector to supply it with goods and services. What is more, the employees in the public sector spend their wages in the private sector. Which would encourage the private sector to expand.

But you can see where I am coming from?

My original point still stands.

Oh yes, if everyone worked in the public sector, it would exist. In absolute poverty, Or famine. Or death ultimately I would have thought. It wouldnt take long.

Sounds like a message via Trump. All we need now is a “Musk” and we will be well away.

fancythat

MaizieD

But imagine everyone working in the Public service.
There would be no money made by the Country at all?

The country isn't a business. It doesn't have to 'make money' to continue to exist.

We'll never have everyone working in the public sector because the public sector depends on the private sector to supply it with goods and services. What is more, the employees in the public sector spend their wages in the private sector. Which would encourage the private sector to expand.

But you can see where I am coming from?

My original point still stands.

Oh yes, if everyone worked in the public sector, it would exist. In absolute poverty, Or famine. Or death ultimately I would have thought. It wouldnt take long.

Well, it isn't ever going to happen, so stop fantasising!

fancythat

Jane43

Ilovecheese

Yup, let's sack a load of public servants and give them Universal Credit instead, that will really help the economy!!!

There would be a hefty bill for redundancy payments as well.

But imagine everyone working in the Public service.

There would be no money made by the Country at all?

Imagine nobody working in Public service.

No bins emptied
No libraries
No schools
No police
No NHS
No Environmental Agency
No courts
No prisons

I feel very sorry for public service workers who have spent the last 14 years being squeezed until their pips squeak. Those people who put their lives at risk through the pandemic, who are working with less and less every year for a more demanding public. A group of people who are almost all paid less in real terms than they were 15 years ago.

Churchview

fancythat

Jane43

Ilovecheese

Yup, let's sack a load of public servants and give them Universal Credit instead, that will really help the economy!!!

There would be a hefty bill for redundancy payments as well.

But imagine everyone working in the Public service.

There would be no money made by the Country at all?

Imagine nobody working in Public service.

No bins emptied
No libraries
No schools
No police
No NHS
No Environmental Agency
No courts
No prisons

No defence or border control ....

No MPs

Totally and utterly agree with this, one of Reform UKs stated aims MaizieD (and *Terribull?). Regarding the stagnation in wages, I wonder whether a higher threshold before those on lower incomes become liable for tax would make any economic sense

This was suggested by Reform in their 'manifesto' last year. It is the only thing they proposed that I would be in agreement with. Based on the premise that business needs consumers to buy their products, so keeping the critical mass of consumers short of money makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to looking for growth.

It was one of the reasons I voted for them. It makes so much sense any way you look at it.

Churchview

No MPs

Nobody to administer the state pension.

No armed forces
No diplomatic service
No GCHQ
No Inland Revenue
No Bank of England
No Governor of the Bank of England i.e. Andrew Bailey

No new roads or maintenance of existing roads.

Hmm ... this isn't sounding too good!

Is anybody actually in favour of anarchy?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Totally and utterly agree with this, one of Reform UKs stated aims MaizieD (and *Terribull?). Regarding the stagnation in wages, I wonder whether a higher threshold before those on lower incomes become liable for tax would make any economic sense

This was suggested by Reform in their 'manifesto' last year. It is the only thing they proposed that I would be in agreement with. Based on the premise that business needs consumers to buy their products, so keeping the critical mass of consumers short of money makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to looking for growth.

It was one of the reasons I voted for them. It makes so much sense any way you look at it.

The problem is that the wage profile is a pyramid, many on low or no wages, less on moderate wages, few on high wages.
Tax lower wages less means higher rates need to be disproportionately higher.

At £50k the rate already doubles to 40% in addition NI and Pension has to be paid.

David49

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Totally and utterly agree with this, one of Reform UKs stated aims MaizieD (and *Terribull?). Regarding the stagnation in wages, I wonder whether a higher threshold before those on lower incomes become liable for tax would make any economic sense

This was suggested by Reform in their 'manifesto' last year. It is the only thing they proposed that I would be in agreement with. Based on the premise that business needs consumers to buy their products, so keeping the critical mass of consumers short of money makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to looking for growth.

It was one of the reasons I voted for them. It makes so much sense any way you look at it.

The problem is that the wage profile is a pyramid, many on low or no wages, less on moderate wages, few on high wages.
Tax lower wages less means higher rates need to be disproportionately higher.

At £50k the rate already doubles to 40% in addition NI and Pension has to be paid.

NI is only paid at 2% for earnings over £50,268. Moreover, anybody with a private pension and paying 40% tax receives a much higher subsidy towards their pension than basic rate tax payers. They don't do too badly!

Tax lower wages less means higher rates need to be disproportionately higher.

Absolutely as it should be!

Having already noted that, to be of any use to society, money should be circulating in the economy and that the wealthy have a marginal propensity to spend, taxation on an ‘if you don’t use it you lose it’ basis seems like a really good idea to me..😆

MaizieD

^Tax lower wages less means higher rates need to be disproportionately higher.^

Absolutely as it should be!

Having already noted that, to be of any use to society, money should be circulating in the economy and that the wealthy have a marginal propensity to spend, taxation on an ‘if you don’t use it you lose it’ basis seems like a really good idea to me..😆

Yes money should be circulating in the economy but in many cases it isn’t, it’s tied up in property or investments, then by various means passed to the next generation untaxed.
Taxation of income is high enough, if inheritance and gifting rules were less generous, more would be spent in economy, and “trickledown” would have a chance to work.

Trickledown is not thought to be as big a thing as it used to be.

If the Public sector really is bloated, then yes, it would damage the economy.

fancythat

If the Public sector really is bloated, then yes, it would damage the economy.

And your evidence for that statement is... what?

Common economic sense.

Others can explain it better than I can.

This all assumes you dont know that answer already.
Which I am pretty sure you definitely do.

fancythat, I repeat my earlier post - the word " bloated" was added by the journalist. It is not a quote from the source.