On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:37:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:34:24 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...


With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

My opinion is that ALL of the basic "core" services - water, gas,
electricity, health, defence, emergency, judiciary and
telecommunications are entirely appropriate to the public sector.

Out of those, having *any* of them apart from defence, judiciary and
emergency in the public sector is a demonstrable disaster.
Consider the UK telecommunications industry prior to the privatisation
of BT - a total shambles with customers being referred to as
subscribers - that alone tells the story.
I've seen the privatisation of the former nationalised telcos of most
countries in western Europe. The difference is stunning. Those
that were privatised early, like BT (even with all its faults) have
done superbly well in comparison with the later ones.



The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return. That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company. If it is poor or at
the wrong price and they have a choice, they buy elsewhere - simple as
that. It should absolutely be the case that users of services
should be in control of the choices they make - that simply doesn't
happen in the state sector, and moreover, in many of them such as
healthcare and education, customers are penalised for making their own
choices. This is fundamentally wrong.

The Internet is far from being an enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest and it should be that way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare, education and energy.



I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

Look, if you will, to
the privatised former public services. The recently privatised
"companies" seem to gloat about their profits, which are paid for by
Joe Public, who has no realistic alternative supplier.

There is plenty of price and service competition in the electricity
and gas industries at consumer level. In water there is not and
should be. The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

It's a nonsense to have a situation where when the government is in a
sector (e.g. health and education) that the customer is forced to pay
for that, then if he wants something better/different has to fund it
himself without contribution for the most part from the state, even
though the state system has been unburdened. Added to this there is
then a penalty by way of tax and national insurance if the person's
employer pays for healthcare insurance. This is a ridiculous state of
affairs.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl