Surely the cost implication of bringing it in house would be much higher, no?
It says that many of these 1.3 million people are on low wage jobs - if they were brough into government contracts they would cost more no?
It seems to me that you’re damned if you do and damned if you dont
If more money is going to UK workers than more money is paid in UK taxes or spent in the UK economy. Right now, the UK workers get as small as amount as possible whilst the profits is extracted to shareholders who are either:
- mostly outside the UK, (no UK tax or spending)
- are pension pots where the UK tax is lower and the money is tied up for a long time before being spent, or
- are UK investors, who again pay less tax (investment is taxed less than employment income) and wealthy people spend less of their money on things than poorer people
Yes it would cost more in the short term but lead to long term growth.
That’s just from an economic point of view, not mentioning human dignity, helping the poorest, reducing inequality, etc.
11% of private expenditure is £150 Billion. divided by 1.3 million workers is ~£115,000 per worker per annum.
That’s considerably more than the average currently spent on public sector employees (£46,000).
I’m sure there’d be some extra costs from not being able to hire/fire as readily, various support those workers would need etc… but let’s not pretend these bills are evenly balanced.
