Why do you pay tax, Daddy?

Graphs make everything easier to understand.

For instance, if someone told you that our woeful Labour government had massively increased - largely for their own benefit - the number of public sectors workers during the 12 years they've had their grubby little socialist fingers on the levers of power, you might find it hard to picture what 'massive' meant.

So here it is, in pictorial form. Feast your eyes:





Would you just look at that fucker. Oh dear.

The boffins over at Burning Our Money have been looking into the figures, and that graph is just the tip of a particularly revolting iceberg.

There are just over 6 million people working in the public sector, suckling on the public teat, according to the official figures.

However, that number doesn't include any of the staff in Higher Education, any GP's or anyone working for (or rather, in most cases, employed by) Network Rail, all of whom are clearly dependent on taxpayers cash to fill their paypackets. Add them in, and we're at 6.7 million.

Then you can add in all of those on welfare: they don't even have to go to work to paid by the taxpayer. And there's nearly 6 million of them.

Then there are those on the state pension. They deserve their pensions, they've worked for them, but they're still paid from the public purse. And there's 12.5 million of them.

So, in all, around 25 million people are paid directly from the pot that we fill up with the taxes we pay.

'We'? Yes, we who work in the private sector, the 'real' world. But there's only 22 million of us.

Yup, that's right. Every single worker in the private sector is being taxed to pay for someone else, plus a little bit more. The staff of every 100-strong company are being taxed to fund the lives of 113 other people. Dear God.

Pretty fucking scary stuff, eh?

But who should really be afraid? Well, if you're one of those 6.7 million public sectors workers or one of the 6 million 'on the welfare' and if you don't think that Gordon Brown's glorious reign over us is going to continue for another 5 years, and if you think that whoever inherits this godawful mess is going to have to take some pretty fucking drastic actions, pretty fucking sharpish, then...

Be afraid. Be very afraid...



Hat tip to BOM for the graph, and all that hard maths.

13 comments:

Mr Rob said...

Yes, these levels, both of present spending and future commitments, cannot continue for much longer. It will be interesting if any government has the guts to do something about it in a planned way, or whether they will just wait for things to start (?)falling apart and then try tackling problems piecemeal. My immense respect for politicians leads me to guess the latter.

The Filthy Engineer said...

I worked in the "Public sector", in the now infamous "Royal fleet Auxiliary" of, couple held by pirates fame.

Not only did I pay out £1000 per month in deductions for tax and NI, but they are also taxing my pension.

Taxed to the grave and beyond.

Anonymous said...

While i don't disagree with your general point....

1) Its pretty disingenuous to show a graph where the y axis doesnt start at zero

2)If you assume a third of your wage is taken as taxes, then a third of public sector payroll is paid by their own taxes

3) the government has other revenue sources (corporation tax etc) - its not just our taxes paying these amounts

Edgar said...

@Anonymous: It is perfectly OK to draw graphs that don't start at zero. Part of looking at a graph involves seeing what the scales represent. What is dishonest about this report is that pensioners have paid for their pensions in National Insurance and certain groups of people who are paid out of public funds are not included in order to make the 'scroungers' seem a larger fraction than they are: Servicemen, for example.

Typical bullshit, politically dishonest report. Bloggers should have more integrity in my opinion.

doctor baloney said...

I'd have thought you'd be happy. Consider:

1. Most (with some exceptions) of these are jobs that need to be done (looking after the elderly, fighting baddies, teaching kids).

2. Public sector workers earn around 70% of their private sector equivalents.

The logical conclusion is that this is actually saving you money compared to having to pay people to do all this privately.

Hee hee

banned said...

Sometimes I like to ammuse myself by noticing a particular junkie or perfectly fit 'disabled' person and console myself that my tax contribution TODAY is paying for HIS heroin or session down the pub.

davidncl said...

The aptly named doctor baloney said...
“1. Most (with some exceptions) of these are jobs that need to be done (looking after the elderly, fighting baddies, teaching kids).”
Bull.
In the first instance fact is that for every front line or face worker in the pubic sector there are nine others in managerial or administrative roles. For example there are 32 thousand GP in the NHS yet the NHS employees 1.3 million people.
Secondly, why should the state look after the elderly or teach kids or “fight baddies” (do you think that's what the cops actually do?) All of most or all of those services could and should be provided by free markets – if in fact that's what people actually want to buy.
Thirdly, its not that many of the people employed by the state aren't actually doing anything useful, it's that they are creating plans, policies, procedures, systems, supervising, measuring, sampling, recording, filing, regulating and controlling us to death.
“2. Public sector workers earn around 70% of their private sector equivalents.”
Not true. Use google and look for yourself.
The Pensions Policy Institute, an independent research charity, puts average public sector salaries at £25,600 and those in the private sector at £25,300. And then there's the pension thing. The public sector is about 2k a year ahead.

“The logical conclusion is that this is actually saving you money compared to having to pay people to do all this privately.”
Laughable.

JuliaM said...

davidncl beat me to it:"In the first instance fact is that for every front line or face worker in the pubic sector there are nine others in managerial or administrative roles...."

Indeed. If we need to cut out dead wood in the civil service, let's get rid on the diversity/equality/sustainable working/statistics gathering roles first.

KiddR said...

Just this once, I'm inclined to agree with the nay-sayers. As pointed out, pensioners have paid their whack. But also, many people claiming benefits have paid their stamp, too. The dishonesty of the figures is in the assumption that millions and millions of people have never worked in their entire lives, or have worked in the public sector for their entire lives, and that only 22 million in the private sector have always and always will be paying for everybody else.

While there is a reasonable point being made here, that the public sector is bloated, the conclusion is rather alarming. Frankly, I'd rather live in the fuckhole we have now than in the future you suggest, where "if you're one of those 6.7 million public sectors workers or one of the 6 million 'on the welfare'" you're going to suddenly need to turn to mugging and house breaking to put bread on the table.

This is just the kind of thing I expect to see on the front page of the 'Daily Fail' =(

davidncl said...

If mugging or house breaking is a viable option so then is getting a real job.

That does mean we have to get rid of the barries to employment such as the minimum wage and national insurance and a whole range of other bullshit.

Oh, yeah. Some sensible punsishments for crime - oh I don't know, putting thieves in jail, say - might have some effect too.

davidncl said...

And... come to think of it you don't have the option of:


"Frankly, I'd rather live in the fuckhole we have now than in the future you suggest, "

Your actual choice is:

1) drastically cut spending by around 30% and use force to make it stick - it means tanks on the streets, executions the whole nine yards. It'll make the battle of orgreve look like a teddy bears picnic.

2) Collapse. The lights go out. Fighting in the streets. Then (post coup) tanks on the streets, executions the whole nine yards.

3) Flight into socialsim. Full on central planning then the usual mass death events then collapse. Then (post coup) tanks on the streets, executions the whole nine yards.

There's soft option of muddling on.

Look at the numbers This isnt heading to a good place

Those are inflation adjusted figures by the way. The real situation is worse still.

David Weber said...

The graph looks a little less shocking once you take into account the fact that it has a range of 1 million, and doesn't cover the full range of public sector workers employed. This is basic GCSE "lying with statistics" stuff, btw.

stasination said...

@ davidncl

"If mugging or house breaking is a viable option so then is getting a real job."

I missed the part where somebody just created 12.7 million 'real' jobs.

"barries to employment such as the minimum wage and national insurance and a whole range of other bullshit."

Sure, we could remove these "barriers" and then watch every one of your newly created 'real' jobs being snapped up by somebody from Lower Transylthuanialand who thinks living 15 to a room and earning a pound a day is an acceptable quality of life.

"oh I don't know, putting thieves in jail, say - might have some effect too."

Who is going to pay for these jails you speak of? Perhaps we should think the unthinkable and just euthanize the less desirable crims and social underclass.

"Your actual choice is: (cue right wing knee-jerk reaction)"

What concerns me is that I suspect you'd quite like to see "tanks on the streets, executions the whole nine yards."

There is a difference in critical thinking between "reactions" and real "solutions". And the way that the graph and statistics are used really does fall well into the "lies, damned lies and statistics" of the old saying. The pro-warming lobby use similar tactics.