Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil22
It's started already, 500,000 public sector jobs are to go.
|
At least some have to. Contrary to the pre-election rhetoric whichever party was in some had to go, just the timing and to a more limited extent the scale which would have been different. It very simply isn't an option to hike up the tax burden sufficiently to cover the total expense, it'd cripple the economy.
I'm sorry to say you can thank Labour for that - they shouldn't have hired them to the public sector in the first place and a perfect demonstration that they went too far with the public sector expansion. Even wiping out the exceptional items from the deficit there's still a structural one of nearly 100bn.
For all the wittering on about how much the public sector are better off thanks to Labour the very simple fact is the public sector don't pay the bills, the private sector do. Taxation is harmful to the private sector so a balance has to be struck and adding an extra 8% or more to our tax burden would be too much.
The thing that is noteworthy about posts talking about how much better off the public sector is and jobs coming and going ignores that the private sector is the section of the economy that pays the bills. The private sector has taken the brunt of the recession, jobs lost and pay frozen, why should the public sector be immune to this and have the private sector pay for them to be immune?
That said I am unfortunately speaking logically, which won't really wash when it hits the ideology that's blinding you to it.
In one paragraph, 2 sentences: The public sector is too large for the private sector to support it. The cost of the public sector must be reduced as it's not possible to raise taxation enough to support it, which will necessarily involve public sector job losses.