RonJeremy Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Some services might not be necessary for you, but lets push that issue to one side. For some of the services that the public sector offer they are actually saving the private sector money. For example in the USA, most people's healthcare is provided by their employer via healthcare insurance. That means that part of the price of every service used or product created and sold has to cover the cost of providing healthcare, a cost that companies based in countries with a national healthcare service do not have to carry. This is one of the driving factors behind Obama-care in the USA, where business wants to relieve itself of this burden and become more competitive. But the NHS is paid for through taxation - taxation on private companies - or private sector employees. EE NI or the job tax as it should be known pays towards this ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 22:55 ---------- ANYWAY we're way off topic here again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 and the example you quoted - whoever did that should have been sacked on the spot. It breaks every procurement rule in the book and is not how you conduct a tender exercise. I don't know what the particular contract said about IP obviously but on the face of it sounds like a 5year old wrote the contract ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 23:03 ---------- Government procurement has very strict rules - it's taxpayers money so it has to be . Yes it goes wrong sometimes and when it does hits the news and can't argue with that. However there are checks and balances in place not just through procurement for big projects via OGC. If I'm being honest what happens with us and am sure exactly the same happens in all Govt depts the Minister says I want and then there's a rush to do it. I can only speak for where I work. You do your bit but we won't sign off something unless it's right - those who are leaping up and down really don't like us for it but better it's right at the outset than to discover later there's a problem as mistakes are expensive to fix afterwards - always! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 But the NHS is paid for through taxation - taxation on private companies - or private sector employees. EE NI or the job tax as it should be known pays towards this So in the USA, they decide to spend their tax money on things like sustaining their mighty armed forces instead of putting together a national healthcare service. It is expected that the private sector provides the healthcare for their employee's as well as providing the tax funds needed for their government. I remember a few of the automotive industry complaining that this was one of the reasons as to why they struggle to compete with Europe, because they perceived that they had higher costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 and the example you quoted - whoever did that should have been sacked on the spot. It breaks every procurement rule in the book <...>They weren't (AFAIK) and tell me something I don't know...but that's just one example I know of 1st-hand: I could go on (still with 1st-hand examples). For a while. loooads in the NHS, and Unis. Before I then need to consider headline-making examples I've only heard about. Like, say, aircraft carriers Anyways...we've strayed. So, about them 50p tax band heads of procurement in the private sector, who are accountable to directors and shareholders, and never any better than their last deal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 : Anyways...we've strayed. So, about them 50p tax band heads of procurement in the private sector, who are accountable to directors and shareholders, and never any better than their last deal... Thing is if they paid people properly to start with whether 50p rate or not the welafre bill which this is meant to try and offset would reduce. My view is pay folks a living wage so the don;t have to claim tax credits, housing benefit etc. the biggest proportion of welfare paid is to working people all because they get paid washers. However since we're all in it together apparently those that earn more should pay more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 : Anyways...we've strayed. So, about them 50p tax band heads of procurement in the private sector, who are accountable to directors and shareholders, and never any better than their last deal... Thing is if they paid people properly to start with whether 50p rate or not the welafre bill which this is meant to try and offset would reduce. My view is pay folks a living wage so the don;t have to claim tax credits, housing benefit etc. the biggest proportion of welfare paid is to working people all because they get paid washers. However since we're all in it together apparently those that earn more should pay more Again - in English please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Again - in English please Easy enough. If firms pay all of their employees enough to make sure that they don't need taxpayer help, then what they pay their executives is nobody else's business. And, given those conditions, 40% is enough tax for anyone to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Ok Ron. There are millions of people who earn the minimum wage but have to claim child tax credit, working tax credit, housing benefit because they don't earn enough to live. The money paid to them is by far a higher proportion of the welfare bill than people signing on or on the sick. So pay them a living wage then they don't need to claim anything from the state at all. Yes I appreciate they have shareholders who want their profit but if we're all meant to be in it together (I doubt it!) then until that happy day arrives (I won't be holding my breath) then you earn a high wage then you should pay more tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Ok Ron. There are millions of people who earn the minimum wage but have to claim child tax credit, working tax credit, housing benefit because they don't earn enough to live. The money paid to them is by far a higher proportion of the welfare bill than people signing on or on the sick. So pay them a living wage then they don't need to claim anything from the state at all. Yes I appreciate they have shareholders who want their profit but if we're all meant to be in it together (I doubt it!) then until that happy day arrives (I won't be holding my breath) then you earn a high wage then you should pay more tax. People who earn more pay a hell of a lot more tax than those on blow wages. Don't say they should pay more implying they don't. They pay masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobos Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 OK so you are a successful business man through your hard work and entrepreneurial skills you have built a good business up you make yourself a good few quid, is it fair that you have to hand half of it over to the tax man its does not give any intensive to any business man,you should be able to enjoy your hard work buying a nice house a nice car making sure your family are OK.I think you should pay your dues and demands but over half to the tax man,don't forget all the other taxes they get out of business people,some of the business I've run in the past by the time I've finished paying every thing out I used to wander why I bothered in the first place.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.