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

ihatebt_2

The list could have included things such as:

- Foreign aid. We constantly see our tax money (c.£1 Billion + each year) given to India despite the fact they have more millionaires than Britain, a space programme and a multi-million dollar cricket league. And the hundreds of millions that go to Africa to build roads or whatever. This is OUR money. We pay the tax - the money should be spent on US.

- Illegal wars. How much was spent in Iraq and Afghan?

- Benefits. Too many people see this as a career choice. People get put on incapacity benefit too easily when there's not much wrong with them, my neighbour being one of them.

- Non-jobs in local councils. Too many of them.

Just think of all the schools and hospitals that could be improved if we stopped funding the above. Just think of those nurses, policemen and teachers that could have a pay rise. Or how about lowering tax for all of us? Or does that sound too much like common sense?

bumpoowee

Wasn't on the poll, but the easiest thing to cut should be public sector pensions and benefits. Moving all public sector workers onto Defined Contribution schemes and removing all other excessive perks would save a fortune.

Recently found out NHS workers get 6 months full pay + 6 months half pay on maternity leave - meanwhile my private sector fiancee got 6 weeks full pay and since then has been on £123 a week. This inequality is scandalous.

The advantage of this is that it would save money without further damaging the economy (well except for the inevitable whiny striking, but public sector unions need to be put in their place at some point) as it would keep people in their jobs (although the next area for savings would be cutting back the number of unnecessary jobs in the public sector!).

peewitty

Add to this universal child benefit. Why should this be paid to the well-off? A colleague of mine collects the benefit to pay for a manicure and pay her ironing lady.

rommers

billbennett wrote: »

I'd reduce benefits, and turn them from cash into vouchers.

It's obscene, the number of people on benefits who can't be bothered to find work because they wouldn't be better off, who are spending their benefits on booze, smokes, and Sky TV.

I think that is an excellent idea :T

bumpoowee

peewitty wrote: »

Add to this universal child benefit. Why should this be paid to the well-off? A colleague of mine collects the benefit to pay for a manicure and pay her ironing lady.

I agree, scrap child benefit. In addition, scrap tax credits - raise everybodies tax codes so that those on low incomes keep much more of their money, and are able and encouraged to support themselves.

This would also put an end to people having kids in order to obtain handouts - let's face it, for the most part the people who do this should be discouraged from having kids as much as possible.

And the final positive side effect I can think of is that the end of child benefit + tax credits would save a fortune in beurocratic government waste.

shaz22

A Council chief exec I know gets between £160,000 and £170,000 per year. He won't say the exact amount, but when you add the £30,000 bonus for each occasion acting as a Returning Officer at an election (at least three in every four years) that's more than the Prime Minister. That's just wrong. A GP in this neck of the woods gets less and they potentially save lives.

WelshGandalf

The vast majority of benefits should be means-tested (see child benefit for example). I have no time for those who say "I'm too proud to fill in the form" - it's your loss then mate!

I know some 70+ year olds who claim the winter fuel allowance despite being very well off. They have no need for it but claim it anyway.

Also I don't think the government have yet done something about the fact that a single parent on 16 hours a week (minimum wage) gets more money than a couple working 80 hours a week on minimum wage. Now I think single parents should get some support (they aren't all ciggie-smoking spongers....) but this is just wrong...

It seems to me that cutting benefits in general is a very popular idea from many people (especially employed people!) but none of the main parties seem to be taking the bull by the horns here? If anything, the last 5 years has brought more benefits & more complicated ways of earning/paying them - employing more people in teh process and sometimes getting them wrong anyway (haven't billions been over-paid in tax credits in past years?)

Finally I would put a tax on people owning more than one property. This would have so many ripple-through benefits for the rest of the economy - and it would only hurt those people who have a lot anyway (and whilst having a lot, are denying others the chance to buy their own property at a reasonable price).

glossyhair

I would imagine that most of the people suggesting cutting benefits are not in the unfortunate position of having to live on them! :mad::mad::mad: To those people I say, not everyone who is claiming is a lazy scrounger; I am unemployed through no fault of my own and I have paid NI and taxes when I have been in work for the past 25 years . . . why should I not be entitled to some of it back when I am in need??

BTW, I am a single woman, with no kids and I have to live on the standard rate of £68 per week. You try it!! :eek::eek::eek: It is a constant fight to stay out of debt and endless juggling of funds in an attempt to make ends meet.

I don't have a posh car, plasma TV, Sky subscription TV, or an iPhone. I don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol very often and I don't spend my days watching Jeremy Kyle on TV. I am getting very,very tired of being judged unfairly.

I remember reading the book The Phantom Tollbooth when I was much younger and the one phrase that sticks in my mind is something along the lines of "it is very easy to jump to Conclusions but very difficult to get back again."

glossyhair

WelshGandalf wrote: »

The vast majority of benefits should be means-tested (see child benefit for example).

Finally I would put a tax on people owning more than one property.

Two very good points there WelshGandalf!

Perhaps another idea would be that those who can afford to pay for their healthcare should do so and thus leaving the stretched NHS resources available free of charge for those who are really in need of it . . . also abolish the immoral car park charges for patients at the same time.

dudius

I'm one of the few who opted for health ...
Should have been a slightly different option.
I'm talking about getting rid of the useless extra staff and administrators, as well as the stupid sums of money spent on unnecessary 'procedures'. :mad: Why the %&$ should I be paying for someone wanting IVF? :mad: Since when was not being pregnant a medical condition? If it is, then every man in the country should have themselves some much-needed sick leave

WelshGandalf wrote: »

It seems to me that cutting benefits in general is a very popular idea from many people (especially employed people!) but none of the main parties seem to be taking the bull by the horns here? If anything, the last 5 years has brought more benefits & more complicated ways of earning/paying them

Cutting benefits is an instant vote-loser, I think.