Thanks teacup. 
'all the money the government has comes from the private sector'
I think it would make sense for people to move away from this input-output model of economics, because it's not how the whole thing operates. It's more about keeping money moving around, about the flow of cash within the entire system, and whether it is sufficiently spread out and reinvested for the common good.
For example, if you are a private sector construction company building a motorway, or a large public building (law court, academy, GP surgery), your money has invariably some from the taxpayer in almost all cases. If you are a large-scale publishing company like, say, Pearson, then quite a bit of your profits are coming from underpaid teachers and academics in the public sector writing books for you for practically nothing (for example only £300 for writing an entire reference book) , and then you selling them to the school, library and university sector at an enormous markup (£7 profit per copy). Network Rail are a large private company running our railways, and developing related infrastructure, and the railways were originally built by private companies, but modernisation of infrastructure generally has to be funded by and accountable to the taxpayer for various reasons, safety being one of them.
Let's take it down a level, to smaller private businesses, or suppliers that could be private. The local grocery shop benefits indirectly from EU farming subsidies that make food supplies more reliable and cheaper for all of us (although it may not feel like that at the moment). We could remove these subsidies, and the associated controls, and leave it to the invisible hand of the market/private sector but then when your milk had melamine in it as happened in China, you would have to accept the risk. The local GP - that could be private, couldn't it? After all, in Jersey doctors are private as they don't have the NHS. I mean, anyone can afford to pay £20 to see a doctor, can't they, and it could save doctors' time? Actually what it means is that you start to see adverse selection as in the US, where people with more difficult or expensive health problems are unable to find insurance and also unable to afford the full costs of private medicine. This system culminates in increasing numbers of women not having any ante-natal care at all, and only seeking medical attention in labour, because hospitals in the US are legally obliged to accept them at no charge in such circumstances. It also means babies die and the US infant mortality rate figure are comparatively poor. Plus the proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on medical care overall shoots right up as shareholders need a return, and businesses buy each other out and need to ensure leverage, so ultimately everyone is worse off without socialised medicine (as people in the US would call it).
So what we really need is a system where we take a step back and look at the greater good, and how the markets can serve that, rather than arguing about which side is right and which is wrong (as there is no entirely public or private market in existence). If we do that we can reform society in a way that serves modern lives, rather than chasing diminishing economic resources.