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

Tone14

I am afraid to say that as PM i wouldnt cut back on any of them instead i would remove this stupid expences that ministers get as they are redicoulous that is what their wage is for. For crying out loud if anyone else was to get also recieve the redicoulse stuff they do this country would be a mocary. Use your wage for paying for this stuff not the public's money its for us not you!

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people are no worse off and removing the trap where it isn't worthwhile working more hours because the tax credits are withdrawn.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!

That's like saying stop global warming. I don't think you understand what you're talking about

thejazzpunk

As someone who is at the moment unemployed due to redundancy, I am amazed how many people chose Social Protection as the area that they would cut first. It is any area that seems less necessary until you are in need and then you are glad to have the lifeline. I have been signing on every two weeks while seeking work and have been getting £64 each week. I have to explain each time what I have been doing to seek work, which is fair enough, if I was to stop seeking work then the money would stop. It is actually quite hard to get benefits and when you do get them they are not really enough to live on. I took out an insurance to pay for my mortgage, without which I would be in serious trouble. I think a little more compassion wouldn't go amiss, bad luck can strike anyone and when it does then we are all grateful that we have the welfare state to fall back on. Benefits also help the ill, handicapped, old and generally the less fortunate members of society. The welfare state is one of the aspects of living in the UK that I am most proud of and not the area that I would be choosing to cut. Obviously there are areas that can be reformed because some people get caught in a benefits trap, but generally I think social protection is a good thing.

borkid

rcs28 wrote: »

I'm shocked by all the posts advocating cuts to benefits! I live on disability benefits because I have a progressive neurological condition that leaves me too tired to have even a part-time job. From my experience it is very difficult to claim Incapacity Benefit and I doubt that anyone who does not need it could have a successful claim, considering how many people who do deserve it are turned down.
Disability and ill health can hit anyone at anytime, they turn your life upside down and battling to get the benefits you need in order to survive financially is an unbearably stressful experience.
Incapacity benefit is a contributory benefit - I worked before I became this disabled, I paid national insurance, and now I claim IB as my right.
I hope all those who have posted advocating cuts to benefits never have to claim themselves, but show some compassion for those of us who have to rely on the state to survive financially.
So what should be cut? Nuclear weapons and pointless military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And why do we need cuts at all? Increased income tax and tax on bonuses would supply us with all the money that's needed. Why should it always be the poor who suffer?

Hi rcs28, you seem to be in the same position as my daughter. She had a demanding job she worked hard for and in, had her whole life ahead of her. 8 years ago she became ill and within a week it was taken away from her. She had to leave her job, they were very good and paid her for 18months but she was too ill to go back. Last year she did start to improve a little and took on a part time job, 20 hours a month from home, she told the DWP as soon as it was offered her. Within 9 months she was too ill to work again.

There is no cure and we just live each day as it comes. The trouble is she looks 'well', that's because if she is feeling unwell she is too ill to go out and people don't see her. Once I took her with a couple of my friends to a museum. She was taken ill and they were all for calling an ambulance. Took me a while to convince them this was usual and happened several times a week, she just needed to get home to rest.

To outsiders she's looks OK maybe its people like her people think are scroungers on benefits. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy, her body systems are slowly being affected and malfunctioning and from recent research I have read she has a reduced life span due to her illness.

Please distinguish between benefits for people who are really ill and those who are unemployed there is a difference.

Lum

I think the problem a lot of people have with benefits is not those who have fallen on hard times, lost their jobs in the recession, or have a genuine illness, but the people who play with the system for their own gains.

Sometimes I've heard the term "the non-working class" to describe such people. The career single mums whose main reason for having a kid is some extra cash and to get bumped to the top of the council house queue. The chavs who know how to play the system while putting in the mimimum effort and have no intention of actually getting any of the jobs they apply for. It's these people that bring the whole system into disrepute.

The problem is coming up with a reliable way of distinguising between the two, and even if you can identify the scroungers what to do about them.

Eco_Miser

tinawina wrote: »

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

Yes, you can. It is quite possible to increase that part of the defence budget that pays for equipping the fighting/peacekeeping personnel, while cutting that part that disappears into a black hole even more.

samw_3

Eco_Miser wrote: »

Yes, you can. It is quite possible to increase that part of the defence budget that pays for equipping the fighting/peacekeeping personnel, while cutting that part that disappears into a black hole even more.

If we weren't fighting other people's wars then we would need to be fighting in some of these places, that would save money.

EdInvestor

Not sure what category it's in but the Govt currently shells out around £25bn a year in tax relief on pensions.The vast majority of this goes to higher rate taxpayers.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1283

(Scroll down to the bottom)

Ending relief at the 40% rate would make a good start.

tr8

It must start with benifits as vouchers only, so those abroad on benifits its worthless, smokers have to quit, etc.
The stop all these goverment pensions on final salary, and they all including police etc do a full term for full pension, why have police etc retire early when they could do a office based job when they get older and cut down on the other staff brought in to do the office work.
Then you will have people in thge back room that knows the job, same with firemen etc

fiddling_flower_petals

If I was PM, I'd employee dozens of top accountants solely to work on tax evasion loop holes and close them up.