Actually, we do - we have the right to demand that private companies pay there fair share of tax for start, which they aren't doing at present.
So let's cut off the hand that feeds the mouth. Private companies are providing more than their fair share to society by providing employment. And while their profits are taxed at quite a low rate in this country, that is not the end of taxation, as shareholders have to pay tax on their income as well, which comes from the companies' profits.
The media aren't that interested in hearing about great public services. They don't report on the 1000's of medical procedures carried out successfully each day. They report on the one that screwed up. They don't report on the 1000's of safety inspections carried out by HSA staff every day. They don't report on the 1000s of tourists that visit the National Museum/National Gallery/Cliffs of Moher each day. There are plenty of excellent public services out there. Don't expect them to hit the headlines.
However, one-sided caps would be a recipe for a disaster. It would drive the best and brightest out of the public sector for a generation. If we don't have great public servants, we won't have great public services.
But this argument assumes (a) that these services would not be provided by private enterprises if government didn't have the monopoly and (b) if they were provided by private enterprises that the services would not be better and/or cheaper.
All of the services monopolised by government cannot be judged in any meaningful way, as there is no alternative to compare them to. Maybe the service is good, but that doesn't mean that the money spent on it is well or efficiently spent, including wages. I don't think the question should revolve around only how much senior civil servants are paid, but more importantly, is there any need for the services and civil servants in the first place. Merely assuming that everything government does, and sets out to do, is necessary and money well spent, has led to the mess this country is in.
Indeed - because they can get away with charging excessive prices, because every one else charges pretty much the same prices.
They can only charge prices that consumers are willing to pay. Prices are set by supply and demand, and unless there is sufficient demand at a certain price a company will not remain profitable.
This argument has zero merit, and ignores the fact that, in regards to prices, there is a market equilibrium, where prices tend to the same level. Using such arguments, private enterprises could never win in the public eye:
(1) If a company is large and resourceful and can charge significantly less than all others, then this is bad because they are "unfairly" bullying out competitors.
(2) If a company starts charging way more than competitors, this is bad as the company is ripping off the public.
(3) If a company charges the same as everyone else, this is bad as it is a price cartel.
At the same time, prices charged go up the more difficult it is for competition to enter the market. The most obvious examples of uncompetitive areas of the economy are medical services (GPs, Pharmacies), financial services and energy providers.
Let's look at parts of the economy where government doesn't directly meddle in, and ask yourself when you last heard someone complain about rip-off prices
without having a cheaper alternative available here or abroad:
(1) clothing, yes we are charged more here for certain branded products than abroad, but you can buy extremely cheap clothes here and abroad
(2) food, with thanks to especially two German retailers the cost of food has been driven down significantly
(3) kitchen appliances and consumer electronics, yes a Miele integrated dishwasher or an iPod are not cheap, but there are very good and cheaper alternatives available
I agree purple. I have no problem paying people high salaries but I do have a problem with them not doing their job or having any sort of accountability. Amazing how high salary seems to equate to zero responsibility. It's the one common feature that the public and private sector share.
Not doing the job is certainly one serious problem. The other problem is doing a job that is completely unnecessary, or could be provided cheaper and/or better by a private competitive industry. I think there is too much focus on reducing wages and not enough focus on reducing numbers.