Do public sector employees contribute to tax revenue?

[blueblood]

Wow this thread has become completely ridiculous!

Ok I have glansed over a bunch of the comments here and first I want to add that Shwa you are right about everyone haveing to pay taxes except I believe politicians salaries are tax free or only a portion of their wages are taxable(I would like to see Harpers pay stub!)

It seems many people here feel that the private sector is the goose that lays the golden egg.And without them our society would collapse.

Well the industrial revolution only started around the mid 1800's so that would make it around 160yrs old.No argument there.

Did democracies,police,health care,firefighters,roads,courts,international trade,military, start before or after this?I don't think there is any argument there either.

So why the confusion about what is essential?

The Roman empire built some of the best roads and bridges in Europe,not the private sector.Tested true over centuries.

We have become very dependant on the private sector and I think it is very healthy to once and a while be reminded of what actually came first.

WWWTT

Your joking. Please be joking.

[WWWTT]

Your joking. Please be joking.

At first glance what I have written may not make sence.However the original line for the thread does not aswell.All public sectors employees pay taxes and only a portion of politicians wages are taxable end of debate.

This thread degenerated into a debate of who generates wealth.This is much more complicated so if you are confused thats ok.

WWWTT

[William Ashley]

Whether you pay taxes or not doesn't matter. People who pay taxes just don't spend their money the way the government wants them to.

I'd like to eliminate federal income taxes. END TAXES!!! STRUCTURE THE SYSTEM TO GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY USE.

THERE IS NO REASON FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!!! DIVULGE THE DEBT GIVE CANADIANS A BLANK SLATE.

TAXES ARE MORALLY CORRUPT!!!

I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR WHAT I DON'T WANT!!!!

I DON'T VOTE FOR THEM, WHY SHOULD I BE FORCED TO PAY THIER PAYCHEQUE?

WHY SHOULD I BE FORCED TO PAY FOR THE STUFF THEY WANT WHEN I DON'T WANT IT?

FREE THE PEOPLE!!!!

GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE!!!

MEMBERSHIPS AND PAYFOR!!!!!

END THE SLAVERY TO THE MORALLY CORRUPT!

THEY HAVE EARNED NO RESPECT TO DESERVE PAYMENT FOR SIMPLY ALLOWING EXISTENCE, IT SHOULD BE A HUMAN RIGHT TO FREEDOM WITHOUT OPPRESSION AND FORCED LABOUR!

LET PEOPLE PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT... THE GOVERNMENT GIVES NOTHING I WANT, I SHOULDN'T PAY FOR WHAT I DON'T USE AND DON'T WANT. (I should note I actually get thousands of dollars from Government each year, and don't pay any taxes.. BUT IN PRINCIPLE, I HATE THE SYSTEM AND WANT A FREE SOCIETY NOT ONE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SLAVES!)

The tax system is broken and backwards. Public Sector paid jobs are just the same as the private sector, it is just what portion of the money supply is used.

Money is not a right it is a method of holding. The government "owns" the money supply. They set its values, and say how it can be distributed. (it is realtively free - capital gains tax etc.. is the clawback on private gains.

Due to the way the government spends each year the economy inflates about 70% of new money supply. 30% of money supply is used by the government. It is a pretty basic system.

It is just how that 30% is aquired that really matters in the system. The government should "earn" or create that 30% not take it on some "convoluted" forumal that is altered from year to year. They are socially engineering - and that is wrong.

PEOPLE ARN'T OWNED DAMNIT AND EITHER SHOULD THEIR LABOUR!!!!

Peoples personal property is their property and it should not be taxed.

People should be FREE TO EXCHANGE OR GIVE THEIR PROPERTY TO OTHERS!

The GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY CHARGE FOR SERVICES THAT ARE ACTUALLY USED. WHAT SERVICES ARE NEEDED THAT ARN'T USED?

HUMANS SHOULD NOT BE SLAVES!!!! WE ARE FREE! SOCIAL ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE CONSENSUAL!

END THE EXTORTION PROMOTE MORAL SOCIETY!

DIVULGE THE DEBT on a years of citizenship basis --- you only get the debt from when you were canadian. a price for citzenship to be implemented. Any debt not repaid on debt would be taken from any estates - with hardship taken into account.

FISCAL GOVERNMENT IS A MUST!

Edited April 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

William, why are you yelling ?

To my mind, taxes work - they're a tithe and they're also a check on the accumulation of wealth and power by those who know how to take advantage of the community structure for their own enrichment.

[William Ashley]

William, why are you yelling ?

To my mind, taxes work - they're a tithe and they're also a check on the accumulation of wealth and power by those who know how to take advantage of the community structure for their own enrichment.

NO THEY DON'T WORK I AM A FREE PERSON I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WANT!

I'm NOT YOUR DADDY.. PAY FOR YOUR OWN STUFF

IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS MONEY THEY SHOULD EARN IT.

THE CHURCH CAN PAY FOR ITS OWN STUFF TOO... GOD WILL GIVE IF HE WANTS THEM TO HAVE MONEY..

ITS GOD... WHY THE HECK DOES MAN NEED TO MAKE UP FOR GOD NOT PAYING? ISN'T THAT A SIGN?

You can help with social order and establishing programs you want, there is nothing wrong with that or supporting your church. BUT, there is a definate problem with me supporting the deamon worshiping church by being forced to with threats of imprisonment or death if I resist imprisonment.

Arbitrary Taxes are the Deamon church system.

Government is a monopoly if it is needed it could generate its own income morally. Extortion isn't moral. They only spend because they have it, if they didn't they wouldn't. If a government project can't support itself there is no public interest in it. If only THEY have an interest, it isn't public it is Oligarchratic greed.

If you don't beleive people would donate, then THAT IS IT RIGHT THERE - PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THAT JUNK.

Is there not enough money to go around.. make some. Let the government pay for the programs with the money it makes. Either print or earn, stop SOCIALLY engineering people do do stuff, they havn't got it right yet regardless.

You want something then the governemnt needs to make money from that project... get shareholders like the rest of society.

The only thing that differentiates government is that it is suppose to protect society. To govern... to etablish rules. It isn't their role to control the economy - if they want to build stuff then get support to build it. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

It is OVERKILLED AND abused by a minority... we need to free society, not perpetuate ongoing abuse of society by the few.

They are using tax money to buy support of 30% or so the population - rather than having 100% support of the money they use for what people want.

The people without money don't have economic power anyway in the system as it exists, it offers no penalties to them. It is a morally corrupt system. The government needs to print money to dilute wealth centralization and extert controls on public resource sale to insure public ownership of public wealth - such as mining and extraction of crown lands.

Likewise deeds should insure that deed usage promotes societies interests. They should not be a carte blanch but firmly entrench the law, and insure that deeds represent deeded use for specific purposes, and that deeds are aligned to have benefits of the land shared by the public - but that deeded land without return not given The current property tax system doesn't properly represent the real values derived from land deeds. Why is a home assessed a value if it doesn't generate income. Are we suppose to pay just to have access to land? IT IS OUR LAND? Property taxes arn't representative of return on land value. With removal of income taxes property taxes should represent land earnings not personal earnings or corporate earnings, and any publically derived gains should be determined, not on value of property but on returns from property that are derived from the public.

Deeds should be able to be challenged to entice court order for refurbishment of land use or public access to land use or expropriation at fair value. Refurbishment values for public benefit is an important missing element with land use.

Edited April 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

This thread is moronic.

When the government increases public sector spending, the budget suffers for it. That has ALWAYS been the case. There has NEVER been a case where spending on public sector employees has reduced the deficit or increased the surplus. The math simply doesn't work that way.

[blueblood]

Wow this thread has become completely ridiculous!

Ok I have glansed over a bunch of the comments here and first I want to add that Shwa you are right about everyone haveing to pay taxes except I believe politicians salaries are tax free or only a portion of their wages are taxable(I would like to see Harpers pay stub!)

It seems many people here feel that the private sector is the goose that lays the golden egg.And without them our society would collapse.

Well the industrial revolution only started around the mid 1800's so that would make it around 160yrs old.No argument there.

Did democracies,police,health care,firefighters,roads,courts,international trade,military, start before or after this?I don't think there is any argument there either.

So why the confusion about what is essential?

The Roman empire built some of the best roads and bridges in Europe,not the private sector.Tested true over centuries.

We have become very dependant on the private sector and I think it is very healthy to once and a while be reminded of what actually came first.

WWWTT

I gave you an out, now I get to rip this nonsense to pieces.

The private sector has been around long before organized govt. Probably around trading some meat for tools or whatever stone age thing going on. Organized govt came around to ensure that there was no funny business in the tools or the meat trading scheme, thus creating stability for the exchanges to take place and thus economic growth.

So did farmers, sailors, and merchants suddenly pop out of the industrial revolution or not.

Its quite simple, no private sector; no funds for public sector to spend on infrastructure. That is why spending on public sector employees has to be done carefully.

One only needs to look at the ussr to find proof that you can't rely only on the public sector.

[Saipan]

Do public sector employees contribute to tax revenue?

They could. If they brought some money to work.

[ToadBrother]

The private sector has been around long before organized govt. Probably around trading some meat for tools or whatever stone age thing going on. Organized govt came around to ensure that there was no funny business in the tools or the meat trading scheme, thus creating stability for the exchanges to take place and thus economic growth.

Prior to organized government we had hunter-gatherer and semi-nomadic groups, with economic systems much less complex, and probably nearer in form to a sort of primitive communism, but with definite lines of governing power. There was no private sector until societies got large enough and diverse enough to create the capacity for specialization, and part of that large, organized society was the evolution of the state.

In other words, you're wrong.

[Wilber]

Do public sector employees contribute to tax revenue?

They could. If they brought some money to work.

That's the problem with this attitude in a nutshell, it assumes the labour of public employees has no value.

[blueblood]

Prior to organized government we had hunter-gatherer and semi-nomadic groups, with economic systems much less complex, and probably nearer in form to a sort of primitive communism, but with definite lines of governing power. There was no private sector until societies got large enough and diverse enough to create the capacity for specialization, and part of that large, organized society was the evolution of the state.

In other words, you're wrong.

I disagree, to start it off somebody is in it for themselves, which only gets somebody so far. However, by starting to work with others sacrifices had to be made which in the end benefit everyone else and gets into the point of your post..

[WWWTT]

I gave you an out, now I get to rip this nonsense to pieces.

The private sector has been around long before organized govt. Probably around trading some meat for tools or whatever stone age thing going on. Organized govt came around to ensure that there was no funny business in the tools or the meat trading scheme, thus creating stability for the exchanges to take place and thus economic growth.

So did farmers, sailors, and merchants suddenly pop out of the industrial revolution or not.

Its quite simple, no private sector; no funds for public sector to spend on infrastructure. That is why spending on public sector employees has to be done carefully.

One only needs to look at the ussr to find proof that you can't rely only on the public sector.

When I read your first line I actually thought I was going to get called here.

Ok lets analyticly(I know its spelt wrong) diesect a couple of things you are saying then.

The private sector came before the govt.So why the term private?The term private is used to distinguish from public or

government.

And then the rant about cave-men

A picture of caveman Joe came into my head "OK honey I won't be back home to the cave until latter tonite.We've got to re-negotiate a deal with the Neanderthalls over flints and bearskins.They aren't happy with the third quarterly reports about clubs used to hit potential mates over the head with and this could get nasty so I love you babe and I'll see you tonite"

Secondly governments grew and evolved over centuries in primarily agricultural based economies.

In actual fact agriculture is the largest sect of most of the economies in the world today and without it we would have complete chaos.It is in my opinion the most important sector.Followed by housing and then so on.Just look at what is essential for a human beings survival and that list should be reflected in rank of importance in an economys.

I will reinterate that the initial thread was very simple and somehow decayed into an arguement of who has value in our economy.

WWWTT

[jamescanuck2001]

any entity that provides a public service is paid by the government responsible for the service (federal/provincial/territorial/municipal).

the entity could be private company, a non-profit group, an individual, a public servant.

the government needs to answer the question of who delivers and gets paid for the service, but firstly whether the service is needed at all.

when harris was ontario premier, he decided the private sector should deliver a higher proportion of public services, and slashed the public service. in the area of infrastructure, the result has been very poor. instead of administering (1) public service employees as per the collective bargaining agreement, and (2) the building contractor as per the construction tender, it is now necessary to administer (1) the public service employees who oversee a consulting engineering firm providing construction inspection services, (2) the agreement with the consulting engineering firm, and (3) the construction tender. basically, outsourcing of inspection services by harris added another layer of administration, to oversee and administer the private firms now doing the work of the laid off public employees.

there is recent data that shows that the cost of providing the construction inspection service by public service employees is roughly 60% the cost of hiring a consulting engineering firm to provide the service. you can expect similar data for most of the harris changes. Some of the harris changes resulted in cost savings/delivery efficiency, but the majority of his changes increased the cost of delivering the service.

interestingly, it is known throughout government that the outsourcing of public services to the private sector is often more costly than directly delivering the service by public servants, but despite this knowledge the change will not happen, as it is politically unpalatable to increase the size of the civil service.

this is taking the discussion off on a slant, but lets see where it goes

Edited April 2, 2011 by jamescanuck2001

[ToadBrother]

I disagree, to start it off somebody is in it for themselves, which only gets somebody so far. However, by starting to work with others sacrifices had to be made which in the end benefit everyone else and gets into the point of your post..

Your notion of how societies work is so atypical it's almost like you made it up in your head.

To repeat, pre-urban societies did not have notions like "free enterprise". They didn't have the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. Small hunter-gatherer groups had little or no specialization at all. Larger groups, say tribes, were quite hierarchical with a definitive governing structure, and more specialization but certainly not of the kind you find in urban societies, the vast majority of peoples living in larger tribes still partook quite equitably in most economic matters. But urban societies couldn't even exist without government. What do you think happened, all the farmers dug their own little bits of canal? Everyone was responsible for their own defense?

Free enterprise economics, however you define that, cannot exist without the social framework to enable it. You need a stratification of society, you need an organized governing structure.

This is the problem with Libertarians, you guys have this bizarre pseudo-history that bears no resemblance to reality. Governments are not some artificial layer imposed on everyone, governments, however they are structured, are an organic part of a society. In small groups, governance can often be shared, a sort of simplistic communist economy with a primitive democracy, but larger groups require more complex structures, the larger you get, the more complex the government.

Free enterprise as we know it is wasn't even historically the dominant economic form, and I'd say it didn't become so until the Industrial Revolution. Why do you think for centuries landed gentry and aristocracy were the dominant political and economic factors in Europe, because most people did not live in cities, and it was only in the cities that you found anything like free enterprise, though more properly it was mercantilism.

Edited April 2, 2011 by ToadBrother

[blueblood]

Your notion of how societies work is so atypical it's almost like you made it up in your head.

To repeat, pre-urban societies did not have notions like "free enterprise". They didn't have the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. Small hunter-gatherer groups had little or no specialization at all. Larger groups, say tribes, were quite hierarchical with a definitive governing structure, and more specialization but certainly not of the kind you find in urban societies, the vast majority of peoples living in larger tribes still partook quite equitably in most economic matters. But urban societies couldn't even exist without government. What do you think happened, all the farmers dug their own little bits of canal? Everyone was responsible for their own defense?

Free enterprise economics, however you define that, cannot exist without the social framework to enable it. You need a stratification of society, you need an organized governing structure.

This is the problem with Libertarians, you guys have this bizarre pseudo-history that bears no resemblance to reality. Governments are not some artificial layer imposed on everyone, governments, however they are structured, are an organic part of a society. In small groups, governance can often be shared, a sort of simplistic communist economy with a primitive democracy, but larger groups require more complex structures, the larger you get, the more complex the government.

Free enterprise as we know it is wasn't even historically the dominant economic form, and I'd say it didn't become so until the Industrial Revolution. Why do you think for centuries landed gentry and aristocracy were the dominant political and economic factors in Europe, because most people did not live in cities, and it was only in the cities that you found anything like free enterprise, though more properly it was mercantilism.

I see where your coming from, I however am of the notion that people look out for number 1 first. With this foundation in hand, early on it worked out that by making sacrifices and organizing into communities, it allowed for advancement.

for example people can feed themselves and will find a way to feed themselves. With organized society it allows people to feed themselves more efficiently by working together, which in turn allows for more time for other things.

[Battletoads]

Do private companies contracted by the government contribute to tax revenue?

[ToadBrother]

I see where your coming from, I however am of the notion that people look out for number 1 first.

And yet we see altruism both in human and other animal social structures. We can debate whether it's true altruism or not, but co-operation and division into dominance hierarchies is literally in our genes. We don't organize small or large social units because it makes sense, we do so because it's part of basic nature.

With this foundation in hand, early on it worked out that by making sacrifices and organizing into communities, it allowed for advancement.

A libertarian fable, it looks like to me. Certainly has nothing to do with how we observe the smallest units. Remember, societies didn't grow out of strangers coming together, they grew out of kin groups.

for example people can feed themselves and will find a way to feed themselves. With organized society it allows people to feed themselves more efficiently by working together, which in turn allows for more time for other things.

We're not orangutans. We did not start out as individuals. Humans have always lived in social groups, just like chimps and gorillas.

[Saipan]

That's the problem with this attitude in a nutshell, it assumes the labour of public employees has no value.

You missed the point. Work has (may have) value, but being paid for by taxes there's no net contribution.

[TimG]

To repeat, pre-urban societies did not have notions like "free enterprise". They didn't have the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.

That is a question that is debated: http://www.economist.com/node/3839749?story_id=E1_PRPJSQJ

One thing Homo sapiens does that Homo neanderthalensis shows no sign of having done is trade. The evidence suggests that such trade was going on even 40,000 years ago. Stone tools made of non-local materials, and sea-shell jewellery found far from the coast, are witnesses to long-distance exchanges.

...

Only in the case of the trading and specialisation variables did they allow Homo sapiens an advantage: specifically, they assumed that the most efficient human hunters specialised in hunting, while bad hunters hung up their spears and made things such as clothes and tools instead. Hunters and craftsmen then traded with one another.

It is not free enterprise in the modern definition but it is closer to bluebloods than yours.

You also do not need a 'stratification of society' for trade to take place.

[Wilber]

You missed the point. Work has (may have) value, but being paid for by taxes there's no net contribution.

Of course there is, the service they provide. Money has no value other than what it can buy, aside from wiping your ass with it.

[ToadBrother]

That is a question that is debated: http://www.economist.com/node/3839749?story_id=E1_PRPJSQJ

It is not free enterprise in the modern definition but it is closer to bluebloods than yours.

You also do not need a 'stratification of society' for trade to take place.

Yes, H. sapiens traded, but there's little evidence that it was so prevalent prior to large population increases to have meant that the job of "trader" would have existed as such. It looks more like a just-so story, and one, I suspect, most anthropologists and archaeologists wouldn't put a heck of a lot of stock in. When your population numbers are small, you can't afford a lot of specialization, and in some cases, when specialization arose, it was, oddly enough, ritualistic specializations (ie. shamanism), which doesn't have an out-and-out economic value at all, though it does possibly improve social cohesion.

But the larger issue I have is Blueblood's idea that somehow our pre-urban ancestors were libertarians of some kind. It shows an incredible lack of knowledge of how such societies exist. It's almost like some sort of attempt to give a political system a mythical beginning, but if you look at how hunter-gatherer and semi-nomadic peoples that exist today, or at least up to the last few hundred years existed, they don't operate on Libertarian principles, but almost more like communistic ones.

Edited April 3, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bryan]

Do private companies contracted by the government contribute to tax revenue?

Depends. Is the government their only client?

[Wilber]

Depends. Is the government their only client?

When are you guys going to understand th contribution is in the service not the money? Example. You are charged with an offense an have to go to court. By your logic, Crown makes no contribution because he is paid by your taxes but defence does because he hands you a bill. Two lawyers in the same place, doing the same job. That makes no sense. By the way, because you are the customer in both cases, you re paying both their taxes.

[Shwa]

When are you guys going to understand th contribution is in the service not the money? Example. You are charged with an offense an have to go to court. By your logic, Crown makes no contribution because he is paid by your taxes but defence does because he hands you a bill. Two lawyers in the same place, doing the same job. That makes no sense. By the way, because you are the customer in both cases, you re paying both their taxes.

Because they are beholden to flawed premises based on limited and fixed ideas.

They ignore labour because it crushes their argument.

They ignore other revenue streams because it crushes their argument.

Etc.

[blueblood]

When are you guys going to understand th contribution is in the service not the money? Example. You are charged with an offense an have to go to court. By your logic, Crown makes no contribution because he is paid by your taxes but defence does because he hands you a bill. Two lawyers in the same place, doing the same job. That makes no sense. By the way, because you are the customer in both cases, you re paying both their taxes.

That just shows how crime hurts the economy. Instead of the money being spent on infrastructure (which helps your argument) or in potential tax breaks, that money is spent on processing a bozo.