Tim Cook Calls Apple's Tax Avoidance Accusations 'Total Political Crap'

[0488568]

If it was simple if would have been fixed already. US needs change, there needs to be better social services. Improve the quality of the current system, implement better checks and balances to prevent abuse. Im sure there are also people who really need it and don't get it.
Its unbelievable that this day an age there isn't a unified and affordable healthcare system.
Also, how crazy are the cost of higher education. For example, Germany provides free education to everyone including non-citizen. You do have to pay for your materials and house obviously. USA needs to change its act.

 

[dk001]

http://truecostofhealthcare.net/malpractice/

One opinion and missing significant data. I'll have to see who is really funding his studies or the data for them.
Try this one...
http://www.econ.ucla.edu/workshops/papers/applied/paper_on_liability_and_costs_080319.doc

 

[Rocketman]

If it was simple if would have been fixed already. US needs change, there needs to be better social services. Improve the quality of the current system, implement better checks and balances to prevent abuse. Im sure there are also people who really need it and don't get it.
Its unbelievable that this day an age there isn't a unified and affordable healthcare system.

The system is designed by politicians not managers. That is the only needed change. One page.

 

[dk001]

If it was simple if would have been fixed already. US needs change, there needs to be better social services. Improve the quality of the current system, implement better checks and balances to prevent abuse. Im sure there are also people who really need it and don't get it.
Its unbelievable that this day an age there isn't a unified and affordable healthcare system.

Absolutely agree it needs change. There is unfortunately far too much special interest, corporate interest, and interdependencies to make this achievable at this time. It is a heck of mess.

 

[1458279]

Someone very rich once said that people would be much more willing to pay more taxes IF they thought it would actually help.

The Fed has broken records in tax collections, yet the national debt has skyrocketed. I know tax avoidance isn't new, but when the state department losses $6 Billion while they had no inspector general, it's hard to think that anything will ever save our economy.

Add to that the fact that the government does insider trading, sells insider info that would be grounds for you going to jail. They aren't held accountable for their actions, it just make it hard to have much faith in our system.

The fact is we have no economic future, we've kicked the can down the road too long and we'll be crushed by the debt.

To quote Hillary: "What difference, at this point, does it make"

Is there anyone here that actually thinks Apple paying double tax rates would make any difference at all?

Washington has looted the US for their personal power gains, we've been sold out long ago.

There's not enough money to ever pay off our debt, it's only a matter of time before it's over.

 

[firewood]

What's tax avoidance?

Say you're about to get on a flight home to a state with high taxes and have tons of room in your carry-on bag. Do you buy booze (etc.) you really like in the duty free shop at the airport? Or do you wait till you get home to buy there and "contribute" some additional taxes to your state government by paying more? The former is tax avoidance.

 

[Rocketman]

The Fed has broken records in tax collections, yet the national debt has skyrocketed.

The fact is we have no economic future, we've kicked the can down the road too long and we'll be crushed by the debt.

To quote Hillary: "What difference, at this point, does it make"

This administration believes in tax, spend, borrow, fine, mandate, monologue. Linky.

 

[0488568]

Say you're about to get on a flight home to a state with high taxes and have tons of room in your carry-on bag. Do you buy booze (etc.) you really like in the duty free shop at the airport? Or do you wait till you get home to buy there and "contribute" some additional taxes to your state government by paying more? The former is tax avoidance.

The problem with your analogy is that Apple does not live in Ireland and it's not on its way home. It's deliberately staching cash outside of its "home" to pay less for that earned cash.

 

[Analog Kid]

Public and financial behavior changed when it became clear Sen. Obama had a lead in the polls. You could predict his presidency with high confidence in July 2008. Behavior changed when it became clear we would have a tax and spend president again. What we didn't know was the sheer magnitude of it with a $1.5T annual deficit and a 5 year CR on the budget due to a recalcitrant D majority senate.

The reserves accumulated because the Fed added IOR (interest on reserves) so banks and investment banks with access to the discount window could invest at 0.25% risk free which was almost as high as the NIM (net interest margin) they received from the loans they did. So they only loaned to the most credit worthy borrowers. The recent change in Fed interest policy will increase NIM 0.25% or less so there will be very little change in borrowing standards. It will not be until we get to about 1.5% the NIM will increase enough for some of the traditional borrowers to regain access to the banking system.

BTW this also explains why we have had such muted GDP growth. Traditional borrowers and all savers are removed from the consumption chain, which is 70% of GDP.

The unemployment rate only dropped when the extended unemployment insurance was ended and the participation rate dropped precipitously.

Starting from the bottom and working up:
Putting borrowers in the consumption chain is what set us up for the 2008 collapse. With the exception of short term shortfalls, you want borrowers in the investment chain and earners in the consumption chain.

Using a 3 letter acronym to sound technical doesn't change the fact that you just said what I said in different language. The reason banks can't make better investments than holding their reserves at 0.25% is because they are unable to earn better returns than that by lending. They can't lend because they don't expect to make their money back-- because the borrowers can't pay back their loan because there's no demand for the products and services they're investing in. The difference between credit worthy and otherwise is that the credit worthy know they can't pay it back and don't take the loan in the first place while the others try anyway and default.

The problem isn't the interest rate on reserves, however. Interest rates on loans is at an all time low-- people used to make returns on interest rates that were several percentage points higher and now can't.


So they need to raise their net interest margin by 0.25%-- what does that change? Businesses that used to be able to pay back loans at 6% or 8% now can't do it 4%. Banks can't sell their loans at historically low prices because nobody can afford them.

They can't afford them because the economy collapsed due to indigestion after a capitalistic feeding frenzy, and not because of polling results in the 2 months between July and September of 2008.

Simple arithmetic refutes the idea that deficits happen when you tax and spend. Deficits happen when you spend but don't tax as the so called "fiscal conservative" right wing tends to advocate. Take a look at the trends:


Deficits grew under Saint Reagan, were transitioned to surplus under Clinton the Philanderer, soared to record deficits under Bush the Defender of Freedom, and have been declining ever since under Obama the Crypto-Terrorist. Even looking at the deficit spike in the collapse, it's clear that the highest recorded quarterly deficit in modern history was under Bush the Lesser, and it's been going down ever since.

And, as has been well documented, the deficit as it stands is mostly a result of policies that came before:


Some of it is tax cuts that could have been reversed under the current administration, and wars that could have been ended, but they weren't initiated under the current President, nor was the economic collapse that we've been trying to dig out of.

Rewriting history is tough work, you should try just working from the facts and going forward-- it's much easier. Public and financial behavior changed when it became clear that we were way over leveraged in our financial system due to a combination of stupidity, short term thinking, and fraud that was poised to collapse and leave everyone without enough income to keep their homes.

 

[1458279]

Most of the conservatives are not happy with the numbers under W. He ended up being a big spender and tried nation building after saying he wouldn't. However, we are where we are. It's really become a completely corrupt system with little hope of changing.

Conservatives are really pissed at our leadership and I'm pretty sure the liberals feel the same way. Even the upcoming choices don't look like shinning lights.

Either way you slice it, we're cooked.

 

[antonis]

So how should they fund the police, schools, healthcare, infrastructure, pensions, child services etc etc?

I'm not against the idea of taxing per se. It is needed for all the things you mention and even more (e.g. defence etc). But financial instabilities cannot be cured by overtaxing everyone and everything, which seems to be the popular route lately. As a matter of fact, overtaxing policies enhance the financial instability of a country in the long term.

Again, though, I should declare that this is not regarding Apple. The big and rich international companies should never be allowed to tax avoidance and should be checked more than everyone else.

 

[kazmac]

Well, on my front and "Tax Avoidance" Tim Cook had one of his assistants work on my refund (which was the tax for the returned machine) and it's back in my account. A shame I had to go there, but it's done and I'm glad I emailed Mr. Cook.

Insofar as Apple and Tax Avoidance, I don't know a lick about the laws, but I do wish they'd bring more industry back to the States.

 

[Eraserhead]

I'm not against the idea of taxing per se. It is needed for all the things you mention and even more (e.g. defence etc). But financial instabilities cannot be cured by overtaxing everyone and everything, which seems to be the popular route lately. As a matter of fact, overtaxing policies enhance the financial instability of a country in the long term.

Again, though, I should declare that this is not regarding Apple. The big and rich international companies should never be allowed to tax avoidance and should be checked more than everyone else.

The problem is that the "essentials" like education, healthcare, pensions etc make up the vast majority of government spending.

I guess in the US there is the military that could be cut.

 

[1458279]

I'm not against the idea of taxing per se. It is needed for all the things you mention and even more (e.g. defence etc). But financial instabilities cannot be cured by overtaxing everyone and everything, which seems to be the popular route lately. As a matter of fact, overtaxing policies enhance the financial instability of a country in the long term.

Again, though, I should declare that this is not regarding Apple. The big and rich international companies should never be allowed to tax avoidance and should be checked more than everyone else.

One of the things that many don't realize about economics is that taxes remove money from the private economy and is used to pay people to figure out how to spend it, then spend it.

To compare, consider a company like Apple. How much money is spent on processing taxes (tax lawyers, tax accountants, tax planners, etc...). Then how much is actually spent on paying the tax itself. This adds nothing to the value of the product and nothing of value to the customers.

That's not to say that the price would go down or more people would be hired, it might just end up in the pockets of stockholders. These stock holders would then invest in the same or other businesses which creates more economic activity.

This is also not to say that the public doesn't need bridges, parks and education. The issue is that we have a government system that pays more than the private sector, offers pension and health benefits that most private sector people will never get but must pay for. They use tax money to pay for political favors.

Remember those riots in Baltimore? $2 Billion was given to Baltimore and they spent it on unions, then complained they had 15 liquor stores and no food stores. You can buy a lot of super markets with $2 Billion.

The problem with the government is they don't have to be productive with the money they spend. In fact, if they solve a problem like poverty, they won't get any more money to fix it.

Much like what they say about big pharma, they'd rather treat a problem than cure it because it keeps them in business.

We're forced to pay taxes that feed a system of corruption, the more we feed it, the more corruption and the worse the economy for regular people.

The government spend 20% more money trying to solve poverty than it would cost to end poverty.

Point: they are NOT trying to end poverty, they only want to treat it. If they wanted to end poverty, it would be gone and they wouldn't have a reason to take your money to solve it.

 

[Eraserhead]

One of the things that many don't realize about economics is that taxes remove money from the private economy and is used to pay people to figure out how to spend it, then spend it.

To compare, consider a company like Apple. How much money is spent on processing taxes (tax lawyers, tax accountants, tax planners, etc...). Then how much is actually spent on paying the tax itself. This adds nothing to the value of the product and nothing of value to the customers.

That's not to say that the price would go down or more people would be hired, it might just end up in the pockets of stockholders. These stock holders would then invest in the same or other businesses which creates more economic activity.

This is also not to say that the public doesn't need bridges, parks and education. The issue is that we have a government system that pays more than the private sector, offers pension and health benefits that most private sector people will never get but must pay for. They use tax money to pay for political favors.

Remember those riots in Baltimore? $2 Billion was given to Baltimore and they spent it on unions, then complained they had 15 liquor stores and no food stores. You can buy a lot of super markets with $2 Billion.

The problem with the government is they don't have to be productive with the money they spend. In fact, if they solve a problem like poverty, they won't get any more money to fix it.

Much like what they say about big pharma, they'd rather treat a problem than cure it because it keeps them in business.

We're forced to pay taxes that feed a system of corruption, the more we feed it, the more corruption and the worse the economy for regular people.

The government spend 20% more money trying to solve poverty than it would cost to end poverty.

Point: they are NOT trying to end poverty, they only want to treat it. If they wanted to end poverty, it would be gone and they wouldn't have a reason to take your money to solve it.

The vast majority US government spending is on healthcare, education, military, pensions and police.

Are you saying that's wasted?

By the way the reason wages are higher in government is because the low wage jobs - like dustmen - have been outsourced.

 

[1458279]

The vast majority US government spending is on healthcare, education, military, pensions and police.

Are you saying that's wasted?

By the way the reason wages are higher in government is because the low wage jobs - like dustmen - have been outsourced.

Low wage jobs have been outsourced? The compare was private vs public jobs inside the US, not jobs that have been outsourced. BTW, the government in California is the biggest outsourcer of high paying high tech jobs.
How would jobs not done in the US be a factor in comparing the job pay in the US (private vs public)? If the job doesn't exist in the US, it would not exist public or private and would not factor in a compare of these.

As far as waste goes, our education system has since 1970 continued to spend more money and produced worse results. It's a failure and a waste. The public teachers unions have a palace of an office and the students have moldy rooms. They are teaching an agenda that it now coming to flourish at the university level with people that aren't ready for the real world with any usable job skills.
Military, we've been the world's police for far too long, we spend more than the next 10 nations combined and what do we have to show for it. How'd the middle east turn out? 5 trillion spent for the mess we got?
Pensions are not common anywhere but the government. Why should a government worker get a pension and not a private sector worker? BTW, this is a part of the costs.

Healthcare? That's another failure, they are supporting the higher prices that the healthcare industry commands. You can ask $1million for a cup of coffee, that's not a problem, it's when the government pays that with other peoples money that it becomes a problem. The government doesn't allow companies to compete across state lines. I needed an MRI, I found a place that would do it for 10% of the retail (insurance) price. The law required that I get permission from a Dr because they didn't want people to pay for something they didn't need. The cost of getting permission was 3X the cost of the MRI! How's that for government help?

Police, aside from pension and early retirement, I don't have a problem with them. Why should they be able to retire at 50 with full pension? What private sector job offers that? If you mention the risk they take, I'm mention they choose to take that risk and are well paid for that. I'm not bashing police BTW.

Consider: If an investor buys a house for $100K and asks $1K/Mo rent and doesn't get it, the government will come in and offer section 8 payments to the poor to have housing.
If the government did nothing, the investor would only get what the market would pay. The value of the house would drop and become more affordable to those that are poor and the public money could be better used to give to the poor so they could own instead of buying.

The government is all about control, it always has been all thru history. This is why the US was setup the way it was so that no branch could gain too much control. Our founders knew that these problems would happen, that's why it's setup the way it is. It's failing because the government is moving toward complete control.

 

[Eraserhead]

Low wage jobs have been outsourced? The compare was private vs public jobs inside the US, not jobs that have been outsourced. BTW, the government in California is the biggest outsourcer of high paying high tech jobs.
How would jobs not done in the US be a factor in comparing the job pay in the US (private vs public)? If the job doesn't exist in the US, it would not exist public or private and would not factor in a compare of these.

As far as waste goes, our education system has since 1970 continued to spend more money and produced worse results. It's a failure and a waste. The public teachers unions have a palace of an office and the students have moldy rooms. They are teaching an agenda that it now coming to flourish at the university level with people that aren't ready for the real world with any usable job skills.
Military, we've been the world's police for far too long, we spend more than the next 10 nations combined and what do we have to show for it. How'd the middle east turn out? 5 trillion spent for the mess we got?
Pensions are not common anywhere but the government. Why should a government worker get a pension and not a private sector worker? BTW, this is a part of the costs.

Healthcare? That's another failure, they are supporting the higher prices that the healthcare industry commands. You can ask $1million for a cup of coffee, that's not a problem, it's when the government pays that with other peoples money that it becomes a problem. The government doesn't allow companies to compete across state lines. I needed an MRI, I found a place that would do it for 10% of the retail (insurance) price. The law required that I get permission from a Dr because they didn't want people to pay for something they didn't need. The cost of getting permission was 3X the cost of the MRI! How's that for government help?

Police, aside from pension and early retirement, I don't have a problem with them. Why should they be able to retire at 50 with full pension? What private sector job offers that? If you mention the risk they take, I'm mention they choose to take that risk and are well paid for that. I'm not bashing police BTW.

Consider: If an investor buys a house for $100K and asks $1K/Mo rent and doesn't get it, the government will come in and offer section 8 payments to the poor to have housing.
If the government did nothing, the investor would only get what the market would pay. The value of the house would drop and become more affordable to those that are poor and the public money could be better used to give to the poor so they could own instead of buying.

The government is all about control, it always has been all thru history. This is why the US was setup the way it was so that no branch could gain too much control. Our founders knew that these problems would happen, that's why it's setup the way it is. It's failing because the government is moving toward complete control.

Jobs don't have to go overseas to be outsourced...

 

[1458279]

Jobs don't have to go overseas to be outsourced...

So you're saying low paying jobs inside of the public sector have been outsourced and that alters the data set so as to raise the average pay? Wouldn't that at least assume that the compare (private sector) didn't outsource?

Is there outsource that the government does that the private sector doesn't do for a comparable economic value?

Also, you'd have to include the fact that job pay is based on supply/demand. Fast food workers would get more pay if there were more jobs and fewer people. In the late 1990's, fast food jobs were offering sign on bonuses because of a labor shortage. The government decides what they'll pay for a job and the market decides to apply for the job or not.

This used to be the other way around, the government used to be a low paying job and private sector was higher paying.

One of the economic impacts of this is the government doesn't produce anything, they don't make cars, boats, or phones, they simply regulate the people.

 

[Eraserhead]

So you're saying low paying jobs inside of the public sector have been outsourced and that alters the data set so as to raise the average pay? Wouldn't that at least assume that the compare (private sector) didn't outsource?

Is there outsource that the government does that the private sector doesn't do for a comparable economic value?

Also, you'd have to include the fact that job pay is based on supply/demand. Fast food workers would get more pay if there were more jobs and fewer people. In the late 1990's, fast food jobs were offering sign on bonuses because of a labor shortage. The government decides what they'll pay for a job and the market decides to apply for the job or not.

This used to be the other way around, the government used to be a low paying job and private sector was higher paying.

One of the economic impacts of this is the government doesn't produce anything, they don't make cars, boats, or phones, they simply regulate the people.

I think you lack a basic understanding of business. If a private company outsources a job to another private company that job is still in the private sector...

You also seem to misunderstand that role of government. It isn't possible for the private sector to effectively and cheaply educate, provide healthcare, infrastructure etc to anyone but the rich. That's why the public sector does it.

 

[1458279]

I think you lack a basic understanding of business. If a private company outsources a job to another private company that job is still in the private sector...

You also seem to misunderstand that role of government. It isn't possible for the private sector to effectively and cheaply educate, provide healthcare, infrastructure etc to anyone but the rich. That's why the public sector does it.

So you think the government is providing education cheaply? California spends 52~55% of it's budget on education and it's failing badly. Meanwhile, in the private sector, Apple has iTuneU, Khan Academy, and the University of the People. All free or dirt cheap. A study (I think it was Stanford) showed that the online students outperformed the in person students.

Suggesting that the government is better equipped to provide a product or service than the private sector is simply not supported by the data. The total debt of the US government is estimated to be well over $100 trillion (public debt and unfunded mandates), they are past bankrupt.

I think pubic vs private was proven in post WWII Berlin. People died trying to get away from too much government control. The public school system is union controlled and agenda driven. Charter schools are doing much better.

Compare public sector housing solutions, how well are they doing?

I'm not against public funds for infrastructure, I'm against the waste of the government. BTW, on of the best infrastructure builders is a private company (CC Myers). One reason is they compete, the government doesn't have to compete, they get paid no matter how bad they do.

Look at the management of cities: Stockton, CA. Detroit, San Bernardino, NYC in the 70's because of over spending.

How about the city of Chicago? How are they doing? Per capita, they owe more than the national debt. They have a Junk Bond rating.

How's Puerto Rico doing?

Look at the under funded public employees retirement accounts.

How well did the public sector regulate the banks? 26 different agencies missed the bubble that turned into a global financial meltdown.

How well did the pubic sector do with Bernie Madoff, EnRon, Savings and loans, or WorldCom?

How well did the pubic sector do with Solyndra and many other examples?

The government has failed to educate the people, failed to regulate companies and have run the nation bankrupt, spend every penny of the Social Security money, and are causing businesses to leave the US.

BTW, I have a BS in business and a few decades working as a professional business analyst.

 

[Eraserhead]

So you think the government is providing education cheaply? California spends 52~55% of it's budget on education and it's failing badly.

If you think the State of California runs schools badly then you could have a voucher scheme or something instead for private schools. However you are still going to need state funded schools, as otherwise the bottom 20-30% of society won't be able to read and won't be able to get jobs in the 21st century.

I'm not against public funds for infrastructure, I'm against the waste of the government. BTW, on of the best infrastructure builders is a private company (CC Myers). One reason is they compete, the government doesn't have to compete, they get paid no matter how bad they do.

Getting private companies to build stuff works quite a bit of the time, not always, but it's not a bad model - still that infrastructure is publicly funded.

BTW, I have a BS in business and a few decades working as a professional business analyst.

I very much doubt it, if it was actually true you'd understand the basic business concepts I have been discussing. I mean jesus you don't understand the difference between offshoring and outsourcing.

 

[1458279]

So let me see if I understand the logic you are using. You saying the test for a person to have a degree in business is knowing the difference between offshoring and outsourcing?
I can go back and check with the university, but I don't remember that being the qualification for graduation, otherwise it sounds like a standard you just made up. Much like the offer of proof concerning the justification of higher pay for public over private.

So offshoring vs outsourcing. You're saying this is the reason the government pays more than private business. Is there some study you can site that would support that? BTW, if that were the case, then couldn't we end poverty now by having the private sector follow the same path as the government?

The government pays 78% more for the same work and this is because of outsourcing? So if they stop outsourcing, we could cut the federal payroll and probably balance the budget? I guess the people in Washington didn't get the memo

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits...re-private-sector-workers-study-finds/122586/

So we need the state to make sure people are educated? How's that woking in Detroit?

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/0...-meet-proficiency-levels-in-math-and-reading/

Almost a complete failure. This is something that would shut down a private sector business, however Detroit and California just keep asking for more money.

Parents have protested for years against public schools and for charter schools, it's the unions that want to retain power and they can't when the schools go private or voucher, it's all about controlling money and they control most of the money. More than 1/2 the California budget.

BTW, a lot more than the lower 20/30% already are not getting a usable education, but the money is still being spent.

Checkout what happened to $200,000,000.00 donated by FaceBook. It's a failed system, money won't fix it. http://www.businessinsider.com/mark...lion-donation-to-newark-public-schools-2015-9

 

[Eraserhead]

So let me see if I understand the logic you are using. You saying the test for a person to have a degree in business is knowing the difference between offshoring and outsourcing?

I would expect someone with a degree in business to understand that, yes. I'd also expect them to understand that a job outsourced by the private sector stays in the private sector.

The government pays 78% more for the same work and this is because of outsourcing? So if they stop outsourcing, we could cut the federal payroll and probably balance the budget? I guess the people in Washington didn't get the memo

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits...re-private-sector-workers-study-finds/122586/

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Because you aren't comparing equivalent positions in the private and public sectors so it is just a meaningless conservative talking point.

Here is a source which backs up my point though - http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay

EDIT: here's a study by the CBO about US. Federal compensation, which shows it is higher - especially at the lower end, but not by as much as your source says - 15% seems more plausible - https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-30-FedPay.pdf

It backs up my point about higher skills etc.

So we need the state to make sure people are educated? How's that woking in Detroit?

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/0...-meet-proficiency-levels-in-math-and-reading/

Almost a complete failure. This is something that would shut down a private sector business, however Detroit and California just keep asking for more money.

Still better than them not being able to read at all.

Parents have protested for years against public schools and for charter schools,

And charter schools are still funded out of taxation. So they are still publicly funded.

EDIT: By the way I've shown no issue in my posts with private companies delivering the service (although the NHS is rather efficient and is pretty much entirely public sector run) just the money must be public.

 

[1458279]

Where did you get your definition of outsourcing?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/1090/offshoring-vs-outsourcing-d1412/

Outsourcing
Outsourcing refers to obtaining certain services or products from a third party company, essentially sourcing something like accounting services or manufacturing of a certain input to another company. While many think outsourcing refers to using a service provider in another (usually cheaper) country that is not necessarily the case. Outsourcing can be done to a company that is located anywhere, the location isn’t important.

The issue of education is the value that the people are getting for their money. When that much money is being spent and that's the results we get, saying it's better than nothing doesn't help. They can't compete, the money is being wasted. Facebook's money was wasted on unions, it made no measurable difference.

That kind of "better than nothing" is why we are failing, you've just excused failure. Those students are not getting a usable education, the system is a waste of money.

 

[Eraserhead]

Where did you get your definition of outsourcing?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/1090/offshoring-vs-outsourcing-d1412/

Outsourcing
Outsourcing refers to obtaining certain services or products from a third party company, essentially sourcing something like accounting services or manufacturing of a certain input to another company. While many think outsourcing refers to using a service provider in another (usually cheaper) country that is not necessarily the case. Outsourcing can be done to a company that is located anywhere, the location isn’t important.

Yes, that's the definition of outsourcing. You thought it meant moving jobs overseas - which obviously for cleaners and dustmen doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The issue of education is the value that the people are getting for their money. When that much money is being spent and that's the results we get, saying it's better than nothing doesn't help. They can't compete, the money is being wasted. Facebook's money was wasted on unions, it made no measurable difference.

Great, so have a publicly funded voucher scheme for education that allows private schools to compete for pupils.

But if you want everyone to be educated the funding will have to come from taxation.

That kind of "better than nothing" is why we are failing, you've just excused failure. Those students are not getting a usable education, the system is a waste of money.

Getting some education is better than none, but I agree we should strive to be as good as possible.