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

zygurat789

gb57 wrote: »

Some things like universal child benefit made sense in 1948, but do not now; the complicated tax credit system brought in by GB needs to be scrapped. Tax allowances should go up so that the lower paid keep more of their own money. Taxes need to be fair. The whole system needs to be comprehensively overhauled, but it will NEVER happen as it will lose votes.

Unfortunately the really poor and needy do not earn enough to pay tax and therefore will not benefit from a tax reduction, hence the benefit is called a tax credit

Deanevans

I would put 100% VAT rate on xboxes and such stuff. I would also put a £10 tax on ringtones and mobile phone calls that last more than 1 minute, double the duty on any beers over 4% alcohol. remove VAT exemption from football club sports wear, 200% increase in car tax on cars that have boom boxes in the boot or have power to weight ratio over a certain figure, instal congestion charge areas around all schools with £5 fee for anyone who stops in one and double it for a 4X4, double VAT on garden trampolines, impose tax on TV adverts that are shown more than once in 24 hrs, put 99% income tax on all that Jonathan Ross gets, I won't say earns, tax TV and radio companies for each swear word said on air, interview all benefit claimants and deduct £1 each time they say" you know what i mean", Only give benefits to real single parent families- ie the other partner has died, charge contractors for carrying out work in the road, by the hour, then after lunch i would start on my longer list.

centi2005

each time people talk about saving on the beurocracy they are just avoiding the issue since the necessary savings will never come from just those savings. Whatever decision is made is going to hurt someone and I have yet to see someone saying to cut the things that would hurt them most. I bet those who say cut on benefits are those not relying on them etc. Having said that I would cut the benefits to those who do not need them as has been suggested elsewhere.....baby bonds/ child benefits to those above a certain level...the only thing i would leave outside this principle is health...noone should balance health with worrying about the cost

JimmyTheWig

Deanevans wrote: »

double VAT on garden trampolines

What's wrong with garden trampolines?

zygurat789

Deanevans wrote: »

I would put 100% VAT rate on xboxes and such stuff. I would also put a £10 tax on ringtones and mobile phone calls that last more than 1 minute, double the duty on any beers over 4% alcohol. remove VAT exemption from football club sports wear, 200% increase in car tax on cars that have boom boxes in the boot or have power to weight ratio over a certain figure, instal congestion charge areas around all schools with £5 fee for anyone who stops in one and double it for a 4X4, double VAT on garden trampolines, impose tax on TV adverts that are shown more than once in 24 hrs, put 99% income tax on all that Jonathan Ross gets, I won't say earns, tax TV and radio companies for each swear word said on air, interview all benefit claimants and deduct £1 each time they say" you know what i mean", Only give benefits to real single parent families- ie the other partner has died, charge contractors for carrying out work in the road, by the hour, then after lunch i would start on my longer list.

Now THAT'S what I call a rant
ONLY 99% on Jonathon Ross?

zygurat789

centi2005 wrote: »

each time people talk about saving on the beurocracy they are just avoiding the issue since the necessary savings will never come from just those savings. Whatever decision is made is going to hurt someone and I have yet to see someone saying to cut the things that would hurt them most. I bet those who say cut on benefits are those not relying on them etc. Having said that I would cut the benefits to those who do not need them as has been suggested elsewhere.....baby bonds/ child benefits to those above a certain level...the only thing i would leave outside this principle is health...noone should balance health with worrying about the cost

The problem is its our health service and we pay for it and yet all and sundry can and do come here and benefit from it. If you pay in to an insurance scheme you can expect to benefit if you don't you should not be able to.

Eco_Miser

WelshGandalf wrote: »

The vast majority of benefits should be means-tested.

So you think that people who have saved to provide for themselves in their old age and during any period of unemployment should be penalised.
That's what means-tested benefits really menas.

All benefits should be paid to everyone who meets the criteria for that benefit (eg unemployed, or disabled) and be taxable, so the well-off don't benefit too much.
The savings from not administrating the means-test would pay for the extra money paid out.

Andy_L

bumpoowee wrote: »

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.

You are mistaken, NHS (Agenda for Change) maternity pay arrangements are:
8 weeks full pay
18 weeks 1/2 pay + statuatory maternity of £123
13 weeks Stat maternity of £123

zygurat789

All benefits should be paid to everyone who meets the criteria for that benefit (eg unemployed, or disabled) and be taxable, so the well-off don't benefit too much.
The savings from not administrating the means-test would pay for the extra money paid out.

But paying Fred Goodwin JSA on top of his £000,000 pension sticks in the craw after what he has done to us.

dudius

Andy_L wrote: »

You are mistaken, NHS (Agenda for Change) maternity pay arrangements are:
8 weeks full pay
18 weeks 1/2 pay + statuatory maternity of £123
13 weeks Stat maternity of £123

Still seems a little excessive for filling the already over-populated world with yet more little "miracles" :cool: