A correction needed here

But this ignored the fact that 80 per cent of the planned tightening comes in the form of cuts in projected public spending, compared with just a fifth from this and other tax increases. So the burden would fall primarily on the users of public services.

No, not really. The burden would fall primarily upon the producers of public services. Or at least it should, by clearing out a few hundred thousand, perhaps a few million, of the leeches on the public tit.

6 comments on “A correction needed here

  1. “spending is now projected to grow by just 1.1 per cent a year on top of inflation”

    Erm, shouldn’t we be cutting rather than increasing real term expenditure? Just a thought from the outfield sanity section.

  2. The burden will fall chiefly on the users of public services, because the money spent on public services is the sum remaining after the public sector wages have all been paid.

  3. What this article does not explicitly say, is that public sector functionaries will make bloody certain that the burden will fall upon the main customers of public services. There will be no diversity coordinators or communidee outreach officers falling on their clipboards. They will be looking to hit front line medical care, policing, and firefighting. Launching a pre-emptive strike against the taxpayers in case we start questioning their cosy little sinecures.

    And the government will help them do it to us.

  4. What Monty said.

    In the words of the great Pournelle: “The purpose of government is to recruit and pay government employees”.

    All other objectives are secondary and expendable.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.