Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug
Now maybe because of those changes, some day in the future the province will have less rig-pigs, geos or exploitation engineers, but we'll have more teachers, nurses and maybe some research scientists instead. Sounds like a decent trade in my books.
|
Unless those teachers and nurses and research scientists are selling amway on the side or drilling oil on the side, your model makes no sense.
When you pay those people from the public tax pool they become revenue negative, you pay them a lot more then you receive back in taxation.
They're net losses.
Of course, I'm not saying eliminate them, (However I would argue that if you cut 25% of non front line government workers and non essential services, that you would see little to no disruption in services becaues of over staffing and inefficiencies).
For every nurse that makes lets say 75,000 (I'm just guessing here) you have to find that amount in tax revenues to pay them, or probably 5 or 6 well paid people.
So trading off the people that form the positive tax base with people that form the negative tax base makes no sense.
If you want to increase government services you need to increase the amount of people in that positive position over people that take more then they give dollar wise.
You're argument is shy the federation in Star Trek would fail.