The message 48695355@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Apologies for the delay but I have been away from home (looking at a
backhoe digger if you must know).

Did you buy it? Is it good?

I didn't buy it although I yet might, or at least bid (it is on e-bay
atm). It is (at last) the size I can live with but it is on turf tyres
and I am still waiting to find out what it will cost to convert to
agricultural which would be essential for me. There is now also another
similar machine on auction but that is over 200 miles away which makes
even going to see it more of a problem, let alone getting it home. (I
haven't driven more than 250 miles in a day (my trip yesterday) since
the early 90s).

snip

OK, fine, but do people really spend their time looking at this? Do
they understand the difference between median and mean.

It is a pretty fair bet that the majority don't appreciate the
difference which may be why those on below average incomes become so
embittered about their lot particularly when they see groups with
industrial muscle but limited talents (such as the Shell tanker drivers
you mentioned earlier) getting a better income than a good many
graduates.

Which for right or wrong and perhaps the wrong reasons, illustrates
that education and qualification do not result automatically in more
income.

There is nothing automatic about life (bar death and taxes) but
intelligence (rather than over rated qualifications) must be a given for
success in any occupation that doesn't depend largely on another talent
such as football skill or artistic merit.

snip

No it is you who are missing the point. For better of for worse NHS
dentistry is a subsidised service that would be out of reach of the much
of the population if the subsidy was withdrawn even if they got a little
bit of largesse from the chancellor as he further lightens the tax load
on the rich.

That goes full circle. The correct solution would be for the
government to get out of the delivery business and to provide treatment
vouchers instead. These could be spent at face value and
supplemented by the individual if he wishes to do so.

The correct solution for you but not for those who have to pay more tax
to subsidise you in opting out of the national system.

If the NHS were removed from the equation and taxes reduced
accordingly, more money would be left to individuals to purchase their
own dental care

For some reason, people have an emotional attachment to this NHS scam.
The reality is that proper treatment is available privately for very
little difference in cost once the incompetent public sector is
excluded from the equation.

Now that Andy is complete and utter bull****. If the cost of private
dentistry really was very little different to the cost of NHS treatment
many more of us would take advantage of it.

If all factors, including the tax aspects are taken into account, the
cost, related to gross earnings would not be as different as people
imagine


Since when has dentistry been such an arduous discipline that the only
entrants are the cream of the cream? And I trust that you will remember
your words just above when you complain yet again about the income of
public servants.

It doesn't matter. The market determines the price. People are
willing to pay for private dentistry. That results in the income
level. Comparing with something else is a nonsense.

*Some* people are prepared to pay for private dentistry, the majority
are not.

That's their choice and they can prioritise their outgoings as they
feel fit.

Oh yes, this month we are going to economise by doing without food so we
can visit the dentist. :-)

It is possible to get basic dental insurance for around £11 per month
and comprehensive cover for around £18; children at about half this.
Approximately the cost of a few drinks or packs of cigarettes.

If the tax take were reduced to compensate, the net cost to the
individual would be zero.

" According to a consumer survey, the average price of UK private dental
care treatment has fallen from £391 to £327 since 2005."

Now to someone like you that is just small change but to someone on a
low income it is their total tax bill. (Income circa £8000).

What you are advocating would lead to a sizeable proportion of
the population visiting dentists only as a last resort and then only for
extractions. And a mass emigration of dentists as the market for their
wares shrunk.

This has not proved to be the case. Since the contract for NHS
dentists changed, 500,000 people have switched to private care.

Little more than one percent of the adult population, hardly
significant. Apparently only 10% of dentists are wholly private.

snip

People in subordinate jobs tend to get stretched (or at least stressed)
these days by bosses who wouldn't dream of handing out such treatment
themselves.

There is always a choice.

Realistically only for the bosses.

Don't be coy. Which particular national or local government departments
did you have in mind either as essential to your well being or destined
for obliteration?

The list is very limited indeed. So far, I have written down the
armed forces, secret services and certain aspects of agriculture.
It gets difficult to go beyond there in terms of people who actually
produce something of benefit in the public sector.

You are still being coy but if you think that MAFF or its successor
DEFRA are worth admiration you have a very strange as well as a very
jaundiced view of public service.

By the time I got to agriculture, I was really having to scratch to
think of what to include. After this, I have difficulty seeing where
there is value in anything employing people in the public sector.

In a perfect world it shouldn't make any difference whether a service is
provided by the state or by a public company except that in one case any
profit reverts to the state and in the other the profit ends up in a
private pocket. That currently any advantage is squandered by a
cumbersome bureaucracy and constant political interference is no reason
for an irrational hatred of the public sector. The real villains of the
piece are the politicians who are responsible for the mess in the first
place.

snip

Exactly, which is why the public sector attracts the jobsworths and
others unable to think for themselves.

For most of us career choices are made at too young an age to appreciate
fine distinctions and are often determined by what jobs are actually
available for the qualifications on offer.

That's unnecessary limiting, mainly by what people are given to believe
that they can achieve. It is an appealing notion in multiple layer
public sector environments where everything is structured.

Large public companies are structured as well. It is probably a basic
rule that the larger the organisation the more structured it has to
become in order to function at all.

The trouble would be with paying unemployment benefits because most
would not be empoyable in the real world.

Why not. There is laziness and incompetence aplenty in the private
sector, quite possibly more than there is in the public sector.

The figures don't suggest that.

Which figures would they be then?

Take any of the stock indices over the medium to long term.

And do what with them? They don't so much as measure real inefficiencies
in the private sector let alone have any relevance to the public sector.

Stealth taxes hurt those on small incomes far more than those on large
incomes.

Which makes it all the more surprising that it's such a practiced art
of the present government.

Why would you think that? New Labour are Tory in all but name and a less
benevolent brand of Tory than the pre Thatcher 'one nation' sort.
Taxation policy has been driven by the twin evils of, on the one hand
keeping the big party funders on board, and on the other hand of buying
the votes of the middle income voters who really determine which party
is in power.


The reason the rich are paying more tax now than in the past is
because they are now declaring much larger incomes which must be down in
part at least to a reversal of the quaint notion that taxation should be
progressive.

This misses the point that the total tax take from the top decile of
wage earners is quite small even if it were doubled. These would be
referred to as spite or jealousy taxes.

Is it? Is it equitable that those on low incomes and living in poverty
are taxed into more extreme poverty so that the rich can enjoy an even
more affluent life style. Until ******* Browns 10% step too far the
single persons tax allowance hadn't varied much in real terms since at
least the mid 70s while real incomes have risen significantly and may
well have doubled over that period for all I know. All the income tax
changes since the days of Healey have favoured the rich over the poor.
Even Darlings sop to the 10% objectors has turned into an extra reward
for the swing voters while not restoring all the income lost to those
who suffered most.



Back in 1975/76 if your income had been £33500 (a very
comfortable one for those days) two thirds would have disappeared in
income tax alone. These days however many millions you declare the
proportion lost to income tax can not reach 40%.

National Insurance is Income tax by a different name.

You might think that but as I don't have to pay it I don't. :-)

Yes, the rich should be paying a higher proportion of their income in
tax, not a lower one.

Why?

Equity. (That's the moral one, not your portfolio of stocks and shares).
Possibly the reason you would give to justify anyone poorer than
yourself but without children contributing to the cost of your
children's heathcare and education and your wifes child allowance.

What is the basis for that? It doesn't make a significant difference
to Exchequer receivables so is essentially pointless. Could it be
that there is some other motivation? An emotional one for instance?

If you and your ilk want to suck a few thousand pounds out of the system
each year to subsidise private health care or education it has to come
from somewhere and if it doesn't come from those who can well afford it
then it will come from those who can't.


Vouchers given to everybody irrespective of means. That alone amounts
to massive redistribution of wealth.

No it doesn't. In the final analysis it doesn't matter at all whether
the service you get is funded directly through taxation or via vouchers
that can only be used to buy a particular service.

It makes an enormous difference. I can spend a voucher at a place of
my choosing and augment if I see fit. I can't do either with a direct
funding arrangement. I don't need or want the government making my
healthcare choices, thanks.

It might make an enormous difference to you but it is just an added
burden to those less fortunate than yourself.

Those individuals who wish to supplement the vouchers can do so, those
who don't wish to or can't still get what they do today. All that
changes is putting the customer in the driving seat, not the government.

No it doesn't. The state still has to run the schools for those who
cannot or will not afford to pay the extra to go private and it will no
longer have the money hived off to subsidise the private education of
the rich. Ergo someone has to make up the shortfall in state school
funding that you want to weasel your way out off. The same argument
applies to private medicine.

There is a huge difference between cannot and will not. I have no
problem with subsidy for the cannots. I have a big problem with
subsidy for the will nots.

Why? The can nots are by and large the freeloaders of the shirking
class. The will nots are those with limited resources who may have a
different set of priorities to you.

Therefore I do not feel that I can be reasonably criticised for not
"caring a toss about the lower orders". If people are making an
effort to support themselves to the maximum of their ability and are or
have given value to their customers, then it is quite right and
civilised for them to receive nett help, aid and assistance from those
more able to do so than themselves.

Which sentiments are totally at odds with the usual scorn you reserve
for public servants so I assume you are excluding them from any "nett
help, aid and assistance".

I did say "if they are making an effort to support themselves"

But that is just your paranoia taking over. Public servants are making
an effort to support themselves.

Really? How? What are they actually producing?

They are in gainful employment. To claim otherwise really is paranoia.
They provide an allegedly useful service, whatever they do.

You find the army essential but I am sure that the police are also
essential to protect your great wealth from the criminal classes . Then
there is the border police to keep out the undesirable aliens. All this
costs money and money has to be extracted from the unwilling so by
extension Revenue and Customs are needed as well. You don't need the NHS
or education but that does leave the majority of the population up ****
creek without a paddle.

Local government is harder to justify particularly as much of the
funding comes from central government but without it mundane things like
street maintenance might go by the board in areas where householders see
no reason why they should foot the bill for the advantage principally of
others.

Sorry but it's a hard world. I haven't yet heard a justification for
most of the public sector.

That is because you are a smug self satisfied snob who is totally out of
touch with the vast majority of your fellow citizens. :-)

They are out of touch with me :-) Actually, if asked the question,
most people would like to have more self determination. They assume
that it isn't possible because they are told plenty of times that this
is the case.

Which reminds me of that old joke (pre war Punch in origin IIRC) of the
proud mum watching her soldier son on parade and proclaiming they all
were out of step bar him.

Pick a jobsworth and I will endeavour to justify his existence, even a
traffic warden.

As a public sector employee?

Let's put all of these people on the open market and see how good they
are at getting people to pay for what they do.

People move in and out of public service jobs all the time. Neither side
of the fence has a captive workforce. What determines the quality of
staff in the long run is the comparative pay. Various sections are
deemed important from time to time - Thatcher found police support
essential - but when the crisis passes the squeeze on pay is back on.

Think about the huge benefit to the economy if all of the hangers on
were gainfully employed. The trouble is that I suspect that most are
not capable of dealing with the world of hard knocks.

They probably get enough hard knocks for dealing with the likes of you.

It's my speciality. They need to be stretched.

You mean you want special treatment on account of your exalted status.
ISTR you bragging that you were regularly dined by your bank manager. I
am not particular poor myself (in terms of wealth, not income) but my
bank manager (I presume I do have one) wouldn't be available to discuss
my investments even if I could find out who he was.

--
Roger Chapman