Is revenue from taxation the best way to fund services?

[pietillidie]

^There's always the other option, Stui and Monkey: Choose between more- and less-appropriate things to privatise, and keep reassessing things.

Some necessary services and natural monopolies are just not naturally profitable without a great thick layer of intransparent contracts and oversight, and government guarantees. There's no point privatising something if the main benefit of privatisation, i.e., competition and risk spreading, doesn't exist.

A good example of something appropriate to privatise was non-core mail services, given the way transportation costs and human communication changed with technology. So, fifty years ago, you would say don't privatise it. Now, no problem.

The point being a fixed, general ideology one way or the other is generally sub-optimal.

[stui magpie]

Good point. I don't have a personal hardon to privatise everything. I do believe that private does it more efficiently but when there's profit to be made the service can suffer if you don't get the measures and KPI's right in the first place.

Each case on it's merits and don't be afraid to explore the options.

[Mugwump]

Good point. I don't have a personal hardon to privatise everything. I do believe that private does it more efficiently but when there's profit to be made the service can suffer if you don't get the measures and KPI's right in the first place.

Each case on it's merits and don't be afraid to explore the options.

And that pretty much sums up my position as well. Government in general is worse at operating things than private businesses in general, but some things have to be run by government because they are natural monopolies and competitive pressure - that great engine of improvement for football teams and for economies - is impossible. where you draw that line, of course, is pretty case-by-case.

[King Monkey]

yeah, nah, read the OP.

They only milk it if you put the wrong measures in place. Do it right, and avoid the multinational profit seekers, you can make it work well.

I did.

My initial comments were probably more based on my interpretation of what has actually happened in Victoria than your hypothetical.
Cost up, quality of service down.
This thought process makes it difficult to see any appropriate measures being effective in protecting the consumer, in relation to quality of service vs cost of service, once a private operator provides a traditionally centralised service.
(Perhaps I yearn for a simpler time........ )

PTID mentioned the appropriateness of selling off some mail services in this day and age; not so appropriate when trying to track a lost parcel sent from Laverton to Werribee and having to confuse some poor sod in Manilla about it!
(You might be onto something about a "fixed general ideology" on this subject. "Move with the times" he says..... )



Stui - What are (some of) the rules if you want a 3 year contract to run, say, the government run public transport system??
They can't be too prohibitive or nobody will tender.
They can't be too lax or we get Metro Trains.

[think positive]

Man tax

[David]

[roar]

Privatisation always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because savings occur but services are also cut so government departments could also spend less if they were allowed to cut the service provided.

Modern Monetary Theory actually suggests taxation isn't needed to fund government programs, the fed needs to simply print some money to cover the costs. Usually, the argument against this would be inflation and currency devaluation but it seems this isn't seen as that big a risk.