If you were PM... where would you cut back?

zygurat789

JustJewels wrote: »

Here's my suggestion



If a company trades in the UK, it is headquartered here. No moving operations overseas to save tax.
IBM, to name but one, trades in the UK


Where are the innovate ideas for old problems? If single mothers provoke fury, why not train them to become nursery nurses?
Many single mothers already work, should thhey have two jobs?
Did you mean those teenage girls who have a baby to get there own flat courteousy of the taxpayer?

If a person is disabled, stop concentrating on what they cannot do, and concentrate on what they can do. If you can read, you can make audio books for the blind. If you can use your hands, you can operate a telephone. More facilitation, less lip service.
I think you may find this is a very definite skill which only a few possess.

I think it is a human scandal that basic) housing is not a right if you are a single person. More social housing please (not estates), and no right to buy…social housing is for the community, not for profit. I would gladly volunteer my time to a social housing project.
I think you're overstating the case when you say human scandal
This should be reserved for situations like Darfur

Some countries have compulsory military service. We should have compulsory community service (in the widest sense of the word). Every citizen should serve at least 1 year on local council, charity board, court, prison, hospital, school etc – national compulsory service. To promote understanding, and lessen pontification on subjects most people have no direct experience of!

Really, I and most other people have never been to prison and all this sounds like pontification to me.


More "internships" or whatever you want to call them, for people on benefits who want to work, but can't because employers discriminate against them for being unemployed in the first place!

Yes make people work for their JSA, the local corporations are always bellyaching about how much they have to spend on clearing litter and cleaning graffitti. This way it would be free and we could have a council tax reduction:j

zygurat789

beer_tins wrote: »

No, I said the tax rates and the higher rate tax level can be adjusted accordingly. So for example the starting and/or higher rate of tax would be higher, so that people earning over a certain amount would be paying the same, or more tax.

I also said those at the bottom end of the pay scale, so the ones that are working, but not earning much. The unemployed would still need to get jobseekers and benefits. It would do away with the need for people to (effectively) pay tax, only to claim it back again.

But those who need the tax credits are not earning much and, therefore, do not pay much tax, therefore, if they do not pay much tax they will not be that much better off for not paying tax

beer_tins

zygurat789 wrote: »

But those who need the tax credits are not earning much and, therefore, do not pay much tax, therefore, if they do not pay much tax they will not be that much better off for not paying tax

But that's exactly what tax credits do, reduce the amount of tax they pay. I'm just saying to tweak the tax free allowances/tax rates to do the same thing without having to have people pay tax (even if it's not much), just to claim it back again via an expensively run government department.

To put it another way, say you pay £200 tax and then claim £100 back in tax credits. Just pay £100 in tax instead and be done with it.

Obviously, those on the lowest incomes would still need to claim some kind of means tested benefit. I just find it daft that the majority of people (I think) pay tax, only to claim some of it back. it is needlesly expensive to administer.

zygurat789

beer_tins wrote: »

But that's exactly what tax credits do, reduce the amount of tax they pay. I'm just saying to tweak the tax free allowances/tax rates to do the same thing without having to have people pay tax (even if it's not much), just to claim it back again via an expensively run government department.

To put it another way, say you pay £200 tax and then claim £100 back in tax credits. Just pay £100 in tax instead and be done with it.

NO That's not how they work. They are money given to you by the government they do not affect the tax you pay, they do not depend upon the amount of tax you pay and the amount of tax credit has nothing to do with the tax paid.

zygurat789

Getting money to the needy and deserving, without letting the spongers in on it does appear to be a problem, but should we let the needy and deserving be deprived just to stop the spongers getting some or should we let the spongers have some, as little as possible,so that the needy and deserving are not deprived?

Either way it aint easy so have a bit of sympathy for those in high places who have tried, there's plenty of other areas to castigate them.

beer_tins

zygurat789 wrote: »

NO That's not how they work. They are money given to you by the government they do not affect the tax you pay, they do not depend upon the amount of tax you pay and the amount of tax credit has nothing to do with the tax paid.

Ah OK. I don't know a great deal about them to be honest. The name is highly misleading in that case! The word "tax" especially.

It still strikes me as absurd though that half (or is it more/less?) of the population are effectively claiming "benefits". There has to be a better system, surely?

I'm not saying we shouldn't help out those on a low income, but for the thousands in mid income jobs to be claiming them is absurd.

zygurat789

Agreed, how about a higher minimum wage? That way those who are working benefit and they then need to claim less in benefits.
But we still haven't solved the basic problem of helping those in need without supporting the idle.

beer_tins

zygurat789 wrote: »

Agreed, how about a higher minimum wage? That way those who are working benefit and they then need to claim less in benefits.
But we still haven't solved the basic problem of helping those in need without supporting the idle.

I'm a big fan of raising the minumum wage anyway. The lowest earners spend the highest proportion of their income - because they need to. Hence, the money goes straight into the economy. Kind of a trickle-up theory!

As for helping those in need vs. supporting the idle, I'm afraid there's not a great deal we can do about that. Even if we manage to turn off the money tap to them, we'll cause all sorts of other problems, such as increasing crime (they won't have much choice without a job!). You can try to get the message through that they might actually have a decent life they try to make something of it. That's about it though!

zygurat789

No one seems to have any bright ideas. How about you Martin?

npw32jnw

McGazz - you say unearned income should be taxed - i.e. savings, and that if you don't want banks to earn profit, take the money out. However banks are being taxed on their profits too (when they actually make a profit....) therefore surely this is being taxed 3 times on the same money....?!

There are certain investments which should be taxed - quick bucks from share dealings yes, interest on savings, no - generally hits the lower paid who cannot afford to put their investments elsewhere.

As for what I would cut back on, defence looks like a cracker. Lets pull out of the various wars, and allow another country to pay for it all, for a change - I think our boys do a great job, but why can't other countries (step forward France, Germany, Russia etc) take their turn on the casualties.

SOcial security does need an overhaul, and I think there are savings to be made - we really do need to see a benefit from the benefits we pay out - voluntary work etc would probably see most of the 'scrounger types' (I am not stereotyping all unemployed as this, but there is without doubt some who play the system) think twice about either claiming or not working.

Civil service has come in for some stick, especially in terms of pay - some civil servants have called for private sector workers to lay off them. My view is that you create a lifestyle for yourself and work within it with your income. A significant part of private sector (in fact many businesses in my industry, insurance) have a nil pay increase. Add that to the fact that my pension contribution has gone up 1% this year, I am worse off. The reasons given by mgmt is that as everyone suffers, we should not be seen to be greedy and should show solidarity with other businesses - even though we are profitable and always have been. Civil servants need to realise that they are not immune from this thought process, and to see people striking for, in some cases absurd, pay increases, does not endear them to the general populous. Royal Mail employees take note...

And whilst we are at it, lay off company car drivers - we are not all petrol thirsty maniacs who make loads of money by having a car - I agree that mine is a benefit, but not nearly as much as people think. In fact, now my company allows it, I will be better off by owning my own car, and shall be opting for this.

What this question has shown is that people have their prejudices and will strike at those when they get the chance - lets appreciate that the next couple of years will be difficult for everyone, and if we can all help out, we should - according to my employer, I am doing my bit by not taking a pay rise, so will everyone else here....?