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

sdooley

It's called a tax credit because it is a negative income tax (a negative dual income tax for couples), though as you say there are inefficiencies because it is paid directly rather than through PAYE of the earner - this is for political reasons to allow the tax-credit to be paid to the non-earning spouse in a married couple.

It is only paid to people who work (16+ hours per week I think?). My view is actually it would be much more efficient to pay a credit of c. £50 p/w to everyone who declares full residence in the UK for a year for all tax purposes - reducing benefits pro-rata so that people are no worse off and removing the trap where it isn't worthwhile working more hours because the tax credits are withdrawn.

'paying benefits to millionaires' looks silly but actually if it is tied to UK residence is quite logical - if they keep UK residence we'll make a lot more out of them in tax then we pay to them in benefits!

beer_tins

sdooley wrote: »

It's called a tax credit because it is a negative income tax (a negative dual income tax for couples), though as you say there are inefficiencies because it is paid directly rather than through PAYE of the earner - this is for political reasons to allow the tax-credit to be paid to the non-earning spouse in a married couple.

It is only paid to people who work (16+ hours per week I think?). My view is actually it would be much more efficient to pay a credit of c. £50 p/w to everyone who declares full residence in the UK for a year for all tax purposes - reducing benefits pro-rata so that people are no worse off and removing the trap where it isn't worthwhile working more hours because the tax credits are withdrawn.

'paying benefits to millionaires' looks silly but actually if it is tied to UK residence is quite logical - if they keep UK residence we'll make a lot more out of them in tax then we pay to them in benefits!

Now THERE is a good idea. And again, you could tweak the income tax bands so that top earners still get the smae (rather than more) net pay.

beer_tins

npw32jnw wrote: »

... why can't other countries (step forward France, Germany, Russia etc) take their turn on the casualties.

Other countries pay for the war too, not just us and the US. They also send troops 9at least France and Germany do).

Germany aren't allowed to take part in combat missions outside of their borders. It was written into their constitution at the end or WW2 at the insistance of the allies (so we can't really complain on that count).

Lum

I'd cut back on the civil service by identifying all the workers who are lazy and incompetent and making them redundant. That would most likely remove 75% of the salary liability based on my own experience (the vast majority of my customers are civil service with the rest being private companies that run a civil service style operation)

Of course the downside to this is a massive increase in the unemployed (and for the most part unemployable) but at least then they'd only be getting paid dole rather than a full salary.

That said, the task is obviously very difficult because many governments have promised to cut down on waste and inefficiency within government and the civil service but none have managed it. Probably because the job is delegated to managers within said organisation and they're not much better, often promoted because it's so hard to sack useless people but if you promote them then you don't have to manage them any more, they become your boss' problem.

dronid

Personally I would look at nationalising non-competing businesses – the trains are a good start as it's very difficult to get them to compete in the same way phone companies do. There are very few rail companies which run identical services over the same routes. The main thing there is ensuring efficiency. Profit can be an excellent motivator in the short term but it tends to lead to underinvestment in the longer term – the recession was caused by short term profit over long term stability. Privatisation has led to some efficiencies, but now the MPs are responsible for none of it. If something went wrong with a public service we could go straight to them. Now it's often ambivalent, amorphous neo-public bodies with no clout.


The defence services need to have their remit looked at more closely. What service do they cover? What do they support in terms of the UK and European Infrastructure?


Health. Stop competition – making health services a more cohesive system and less focussed on theoretical profit benefits no-one, but does keep a number of vestigial business managers in work.


Education. Try for stability. Indeed one requirement in local and central government should be to not do anything until you've worked out how things work now. Most costs come from taking a working system and replacing it. And replacing it again. Activity is not progress.


Housing and Environment. Free up the housing sector, particularly where brownfield sites are concerned. And, in terms of planning, PLAN, don't just accept or reject building proposals, look actively for structure and solutions for people. Otherwise nothing gets built but flats – which are now worth little in a recession.


On the Environment side – co-ordinate the public bodies and make the people at the top responsible. Don't let sections bounce stuff around and blame everyone else.

Social Protection. :rolleyes: If I was being hard nosed I would say support no-one in having children at all. It's far more cost effective getting skilled immigration. They pay taxes from day one and means we could cut back on all child related support structures. Some here I think would be in favour of that – so long as it was only for the ill-educated dole cheats, but sometimes it can be a difficult thing working out exactly who they are. And, as is obvious from the TV these days, there are a lot of stupid and molly-coddled middle and upper class kids and parents who'll produce nothing for society – so who do we not support?:rolleyes:


As is the benefits system does need streamlining more than anything else. If there's one thing that costs more than anything else, with less benefit, it's excessive legislation. There is so much out there that requires people to jump through hoops and be tracked by people. And then someone legislates to get the tracking people to jump through hoops themselves.


Honestly one thing that would immediately benefit us all would be to make people in power use public services. If they don't think they're good enough for them, why should they be good enough for us. Make that statute – and that'll clear out the political free loaders.

lynzpower

I have so many ideas where I would cut waste.

There are a myriad of companies tendered to the Government ( both at local authority level and national) .I have known of repairs contractors charging over 400 pounds for the replacement of a tap, 300 for a lock change. And the government like mugs pays it! ( on our behalf)

Tendering is ineffective and has not brought value for money, it has brought widespread rip off culture and poor service. TUPE has been a bone of contention for many empoyees, who get merged into a private compnay whose employment rights diminsih, pay diminish, employment rights abused, just so this company can make a profit.

Private companies are making profits from the provision of your councils call centres, is this OK for you to know they are making this profit- instead of ploughing that cash into improvement for all.

Its staggering that home care for elderly people at home can cost over 20 per hour. Thats becasue there are profit margins to be made. Im sorry but this makes me ashamed to be british.

I too am constantly agog at this apparently rabied desire for everyone to have less- cut pensions/ benefits, tax credits- everyone must sink or swim in the clamour what whast tiny amount of available employment is out there right now. Why do our european cousins seem to wish to crave more enjoyment from thier lives, and more rights, yet here in the UK we seem to want everyone to have a rubbish time. Maybe its that miserable mentality- we brits want to have someone to belittle?

To think, what would happen in terms of crime,disobedience, increased pressure on services such as social services, homelessness charities. I mean really is this what we truly want, disabled people begging in the streets, and people dying in thier homes as hey cant afford to eat,.

I dont get it

zygurat789

lynzpower wrote: »

I have so many ideas where I would cut waste.

There are a myriad of companies tendered to the Government ( both at local authority level and national) .I have known of repairs contractors charging over 400 pounds for the replacement of a tap, 300 for a lock change. And the government like mugs pays it! ( on our behalf)

Tendering is ineffective and has not brought value for money, it has brought widespread rip off culture and poor service. TUPE has been a bone of contention for many empoyees, who get merged into a private compnay whose employment rights diminsih, pay diminish, employment rights abused, just so this company can make a profit.

Tendering is actually requesting estimates. I get estimates when I have work done, don't you? The real point is "The government like mugs pays it"
The government is an inanimate item, it is actually paid by civil servants, who, as you say, have no common money sense because they are cocooned in over high salaries and a generous pension scheme.
But the rest is just moaning, try and be positive.

zygurat789

dronid wrote: »

Personally I would look at nationalising non-competing businesses – the trains are a good start as it's very difficult to get them to compete in the same way phone companies do. There are very few rail companies which run identical services over the same routes. The main thing there is ensuring efficiency. Profit can be an excellent motivator in the short term but it tends to lead to underinvestment in the longer term – the recession was caused by short term profit over long term stability. Privatisation has led to some efficiencies, but now the MPs are responsible for none of it. If something went wrong with a public service we could go straight to them. Now it's often ambivalent, amorphous neo-public bodies with no clout.


The defence services need to have their remit looked at more closely. What service do they cover? What do they support in terms of the UK and European Infrastructure?


Health. Stop competition – making health services a more cohesive system and less focussed on theoretical profit benefits no-one, but does keep a number of vestigial business managers in work.


Education. Try for stability. Indeed one requirement in local and central government should be to not do anything until you've worked out how things work now. Most costs come from taking a working system and replacing it. And replacing it again. Activity is not progress.


Housing and Environment. Free up the housing sector, particularly where brownfield sites are concerned. And, in terms of planning, PLAN, don't just accept or reject building proposals, look actively for structure and solutions for people. Otherwise nothing gets built but flats – which are now worth little in a recession.


On the Environment side – co-ordinate the public bodies and make the people at the top responsible. Don't let sections bounce stuff around and blame everyone else.

Social Protection. :rolleyes: If I was being hard nosed I would say support no-one in having children at all. It's far more cost effective getting skilled immigration. They pay taxes from day one and means we could cut back on all child related support structures. Some here I think would be in favour of that – so long as it was only for the ill-educated dole cheats, but sometimes it can be a difficult thing working out exactly who they are. And, as is obvious from the TV these days, there are a lot of stupid and molly-coddled middle and upper class kids and parents who'll produce nothing for society – so who do we not support?:rolleyes:
If you reread this you may wish to write it again 'cos it really isn't clear.

As is the benefits system does need streamlining more than anything else. If there's one thing that costs more than anything else, with less benefit, it's excessive legislation. There is so much out there that requires people to jump through hoops and be tracked by people. And then someone legislates to get the tracking people to jump through hoops themselves.
But you managed to hit a nail on the head here. Get rid of that nonesense factory the HSE and save a fortune.

Honestly one thing that would immediately benefit us all would be to make people in power use public services. If they don't think they're good enough for them, why should they be good enough for us. Make that statute – and that'll clear out the political !!!!!!!!!!s.

My insertions are in bold

zygurat789

sdooley wrote: »

It's called a tax credit because it is a negative income tax (a negative dual income tax for couples), though as you say there are inefficiencies because it is paid directly rather than through PAYE of the earner - this is for political reasons to allow the tax-credit to be paid to the non-earning spouse in a married couple.

It is only paid to people who work (16+ hours per week I think?). My view is actually it would be much more efficient to pay a credit of c. £50 p/w to everyone who declares full residence in the UK for a year for all tax purposes - reducing benefits pro-rata so that people are no worse off and removing the trap where it isn't worthwhile working more hours because the tax credits are withdrawn.

'paying benefits to millionaires' looks silly but actually if it is tied to UK residence is quite logical - if they keep UK residence we'll make a lot more out of them in tax then we pay to them in benefits!

No you don't need to be in work and it is only limited by your inability to have children, £1800 pa for each one you support either her or elsewhere in the EU

tinawina_2

cut benefits and transport
you can't possibly cut defence budget when the troops we have are not properly equipped.