Benefits and the deficit: what would you cut?

vivatifosi

PayDay wrote: »

Can't remove that one as the courts ruled those that pay their taxes to the UK can have the same benefits for their families, even if they aren't living in the UK.

How ridiculous...

PayDay

vivatifosi wrote: »

How ridiculous...

Those who have claimed benefits for a certain length of time, can keep some of those benefits if they move to cheaper warmer places. They even still receive their winter fuel payments!

Radiantsoul

vivatifosi wrote: »

I go along with a lot of the more moderate posts made so far - cutting the £250 per child savings, not paying for children who aren't living in this country, etc. However I feel that pretty much every government department ought to be able to save between 2-5% of their budget, through cutting consultants, pointless large IT projects and large scale capital projects, scaling back on some management and cutting those posts that serve purely to be politically correct or a bit goody two-shoes. If you've worked in the public sector several years and aren't diversity-aware, then you're probably never going to be, no matter how much training you get.

Whilst in theory it makes sense to cut IT spend and consultants it seems that these people might very well be improving efficiency or effectiveness. Pretty much every political party attacks waste, but it never really happens.

dopester

Kohoutek wrote: »

Winter Fuel Payment currently has virtually no strings attached I think - it's paid to my grandmother despite the fact she lives in a carehome funded by the NHS! Pretty crazy.

StevieJ wrote: »

I think even 60+ millionaires can receive this, this should definately be means tested.

Google News:
Winter fuel bonanza for 64000 expats in Europe
Times Online -
36 minutes ago‎

From The Times
February 16, 2010
Winter fuel bonanza for 64,000 expats in Europe
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

British taxpayers paid £14 million in fuel allowances last winter to expatriates living in Spain, Portugal, Greece and elsewhere in Europe.

Official figures obtained by The Times show that the number of expatriates collecting the benefits rose by nearly 14 per cent last year to a record of 63,740 people.

As temperatures plunged last night across much of the country, Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said that it was a fresh sign that Britain’s benefits system was unaffordable.

“To get the deficit under control, cuts in unnecessary benefits are going to be essential,” he said. “We should start with winter fuel payments to retirees in the Algarve.”

The scheme was launched shortly after Labour’s 1997 election victory as part of its commitment to eradicate fuel poverty. It is not means-tested, and nearly 50,000 households with a net income of more than £100,000 per annum receive the benefit.

Continues: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7028401.ece

vivatifosi

Radiantsoul wrote: »

Whilst in theory it makes sense to cut IT spend and consultants it seems that these people might very well be improving efficiency or effectiveness. Pretty much every political party attacks waste, but it never really happens.

What's the point in employing highly paid consultants from outside if you don't listen to lower grade staff who understand where efficiencies can be made because they do the job? I've only worked in the public sector part time and for a short period of time, but this is the biggest difference I've noticed between this and the private sector organisations I've worked for. I'm sure its not across the board, but it is an ingrained in the public sector management pysche and other people I know who work in the public sector say the same.

In terms of IT and capital spend I understand that efficiencies might be made through these projects, but the government hasn't got a good track record on such projects and we don't have the money. If it comes down to it, that's a much better place to cut than front line services and make no mistake, we will need to make cuts.

mouseymousey99

Gordon Brown interview on regional TV last night:-
Current cost of being in Afghanistan 4.1 billion {does not include anywhere else}
Flying a helicopter in Afghanistan 30k per hour
Firing missile 100k (per missile)

Whatever your views of the war, sort of knocks everything else into a cocked hat.

Kohoutek

mouseymousey99 wrote: »

Gordon Brown interview on regional TV last night:-
Current cost of being in Afghanistan 4.1 billion {does not include anywhere else}
Flying a helicopter in Afghanistan 30k per hour
Firing missile 100k (per missile)

Whatever your views of the war, sort of knocks everything else into a cocked hat.

I agree we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, but £4.1 billion a year is a very small percentage of the government budget.

The benefits and pensions budget is £203 billion a year, or £550 million a day/£22 million a hour.

It's almost double the budget of the NHS, which employs 1.3 million people.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

I agree we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, but £4.1 billion a year is a very small percentage of the government budget.

The benefits and pensions budget is £203 billion a year, or £550 million a day/£22 million a hour.

It's almost double the budget of the NHS, which employs 1.3 million people.

From your eagerness to attack this budget, I assume you think YOU or your family will never need it

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

From your eagerness to attack this budget, I assume you think YOU or your family will never need it

we haven't seen mbga1234 for quite a while now... do you think he'll be re-incarnated?

ray123

blueboy43 wrote: »

Anyone over 75.

If you are blind, you receive a 50% discount!