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

mcgazz

zygurat789 wrote: »

you really could earn a lot more in the private sector or would this not be worth your while?

Maybe I just like working in a not-for-profit culture? I'm certainly not deliberately impoverishing myself so that I'll be a bit better off 30-odd years from now - no pension scheme is *that* good.

zygurat789 wrote: »

And as for prisoners losing their job through no fault of their own - PLEASE

You've misunderstood me - I meant it was inhuman to treat the umemployed like prisoners, when they've committed no crime.

zygurat789 wrote: »

Drive there MPVs - FACTUAL see above.

Obviously it's impossible to contradict your second hand anecdotal evidence, but when you consider
(a) this woman allegedly had no job, but drives a car no one on benefits could afford and owns luxury goods that I can't afford.
(b) her boyfriend is supposedly in prison
I would think it was fairly safe to assume this woman had another, undeclared source of income.

zygurat789 wrote: »

fact you are talking through your lower orifice I rely on Facts

Facts? I'd hardly call you extrapolating from anecdotal reports, making sweeping generalisations, harking back to a golden age and accusing people who disagree with you of talking out of their !!!! as constructing a watertight case with empirical evidence.

Eco_Miser

zygurat789 wrote: »

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

I doubt that Fred would claim JSA - far too many hoops to jump through if you don't need the money.

zygurat789

mcgazz wrote: »

Obviously it's impossible to contradict your second hand anecdotal evidence, but when you consider
(a) this woman allegedly had no job, but drives a car no one on benefits could afford and owns luxury goods that I can't afford.
(b) her boyfriend is supposedly in prison
I would think it was fairly safe to assume this woman had another, undeclared source of income.




Facts? I'd hardly call you extrapolating from anecdotal reports, making sweeping generalisations, harking back to a golden age and accusing people who disagree with you of talking out of their !!!! as constructing a watertight case with empirical evidence.

The other source of income self financing trips to Spain, 3 so far this year
and if you could see the social network site (I'll try and get the address)
they talk about graft which to me meant work but apparently round here it means something else.

mcgazz

harryhound wrote: »

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why can't I compare France and Latvia? Latvia hasn't been under a "communist" government for nearly 20 years and has one of the most free-market capitalist systems in Europe. The fact is, attempting to get more work out of Britons by turning this country into a sweatshop will fail.

Are you using Peronist as a general pejorative, without really knowing what it means, or do you genuinely think that the uncontroversial mild Keynesianism I've proposed would turn the UK into Peronist Argentina?

You should maybe explain further - especially given that the Peron Government believed in the same kind of nationalist autarky that Eurosceptics like you sing the praises of (anyone who brings up the CAP twice on a thread about the UK budget has to be some kind of full-on eurosceptic, and I'm guessing you're a KIPper). You're the nationalist here, not me.

And again, how the CAP is administered does not affect how much the treasury has to spend - as you yourself point out, the amount that goes to Brussels is fixed. We could leave the EU, but that would reduce trade, tourism, etc, and possibly cost us more in the long run.

zygurat789

mcgazz wrote: »

And again, how the CAP is administered does not affect how much the treasury has to spend - as you yourself point out, the amount that goes to Brussels is fixed. We could leave the EU, but that would reduce trade, tourism, etc, and possibly cost us more in the long run.

Now there's an idea for a poll Martin

gb57

I absolutely disagree that the really poor and needy don't pay tax!!!

If you have an income (from work, that is) above £6475 then you start to pay tax at 20% - and I reckon that if you are earning, say, £9000 pa then you are pretty poor and needy, and of course you are paying tax. On an income of just over £10k a year about £900 per year goes in tax, and then also about another £1k on NI.

The people who don't pay tax or NI or anything else are those on benefits. (By the way, I don't think of the short-term unemployed desperately looking for a job in the same way as those who make it their life's "work" not to go to work).

So, scrap tax credits altogether (why are they being paid to people with an income of £20k and more?). Increase Tax allowances so that no-one earning, say, £10k or less pays any tax at all. Find some method of helping those who are then still truly poor although working that does not include mountains of bureaucracy.

No, I don't know the answer....

zygurat789

So if you earn £6400 you aren't poor & needy by definition (yours)?

And you can receive tax credits with a combined income of £50000+!!!

BobbinAlong

Number one I would end free health and education and benefits. It has to be earned by the person being a British taxpayer for at least 40 years. Parents tax paying counts towards their offspring so if you are Brit born and bred of Brit taxpaying parents and grandparents then you get free health and education and qualify for any benefits. Everyone else has to pay on a sliding scale according to their "length of service".

Send back any immigrants that we possibly can to free up their jobs for British jobseekers. Then make them take the jobs or lose benefits.

Tax to the hilt any second homes which are not someone's permanent residence with a minimum of three months tenancy. This would mean permanent residents instead of empty holiday cottages thus bringing life back to parts of Cornwall and Devon and other places.

Tax caravans by length - 12 and 14 foot vans were normal for families when I was a child so why does everyone need 18 to 20 foot vans with big awnings now?

Tax boats by engine size - sailing dinghies are environmentally friendly so free. Yachts with sails have litttle engines so cheap. Stinkboats should pay most. Except working boats and lifeboats and club rescue boats of course.

Tax incoming foreign vehicles. Many eastern european EU cars are in this country on foreign plates with long expired insurance/tax/MOT equivalent and in an awful state of unroadworthiness. Make them buy a short stay tax disk for say 6 weeks on entry then they have to re-register the vehicle here.

Probably the most contentious - Bring the army home and use them to defend our borders from illegal immigrants.

Andy_L

harryhound wrote: »

Originally Posted by mcgazz
Not sure if this is directed at me or not, but if it is:

1. Why just the Civil Service retirement age? You want me to work for less *and* for longer? I think the national retirement age should be raised *for new entrants into the job market*. The Government should have had a bit more forward planning and brought this in years ago. Another option would be a flexible retirement age of
65-70.
I agree with the "flexibility" idea.
But forgive me, don't Civil Servants retire at 60?
"Ordinary" private sector workers are being pushed towards 67.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suspect I've cocked-up attributing quoting imbedded comments so apologies in advance

Depends, Civil Servants (as oposed to other public sector) who joined since 2007 have a normal retirment age (NRA) of 65 (and, just to muddy the waters have a carear average rather than final salary scheme), anyone who was in before then kept a NRA of 60,
The wider public sector (excluding Police/Millitary/Fire) kept 60 for accrued service but future service has an NRA of 65.
All of them only receive the (basic) state pension at the same age as the private sector, ie, as you say, raising towards 67

Anecdotally (ie with no real statistical valadility) most CS don't retire at 60 because they haven't accrued the maximium pension by then & can't bridge the 5 years until the state pension kicks in

Aldahbra

mcgazz wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing from people who work in the private sector moaning that, as they haven't had a pay rise for 3 years, no one else should get one either. .

Who do you think has to pay for your pay rise?