What Goverment spending would you cut? poll discussion

SD-253

axxerz wrote: »

And is it really fair that 11 people sharing one house pay the same council tax as 2 poeple sharing a house?? - council tax is supposed to pay for council services, this should be based on the number of people in the property (like Maggie Thatchers 'poll' tax, although she implemented it wrong and ended up charge everyone more money that the original tax)

Yes I am afraid I agree or at least don't disagree with council tax based on house size. I live alone so get it for half price but still charging based on number in house is not going to work they will simply deny there are more than 2 in the house. A local tax might work based on income but thats not going to happen so you will have to live with it.

SD-253

voiceofreason wrote: »

Brilliant stuff - good to see that the level of yesterday's high-calibre, reasoned, intellectually-convincing arguments is being kept up today......

Still think you are superior to all of the people on here...yet you never actually say whose or what are the inferior views........is it everyones but yours? You have yet to tell us what you would cut, whys that then? Afraid that someone will sneer at your views in the same way you sneer at everyone elses?

ceebeeby

G. Overseas aid (money to the developing world – £12bn)
H. Social Protection (state pension and benefits - £171 bn)
E. Housing £4bn
C. Environment (waste and pollution - £5bn)
I . Transport (roads & railways - £11bn)
F. Law & Order (police and courts - £15bn)
D. Health (the NHS £124bn)
B. Education (schools and universities - £32bn)
A. Defence (military spending - £35bn)

IMHO In order of where I would want to see maximum cuts first, but think all areas should share the cuts but to a differing degree ....

keet83

like they say, 'Charity starts at home'

voiceofreason

brandeberryj wrote: »

Still think you are superior to the majority of people on here...yet you never actually say whose or what are the inferior views........is it everyones but yours? You have yet to tell us what you would cut, whys that then? Afraid that someone will sneer at your views in the same way you sneer at everyone elses?

They clearly have a late half-term break in your part of the country, it seems - can't you go outside and kick a ball about or something?

And does your Mum know you're online while she's at work?

puckstopper

I work for my local authority and have done for the last 27 years. I no for a fact that there is massive amounts of waste within our organisation and by the very nature of this waste it must be the same in other local authorities. The whole pay structure is a complete shambles, our staff have had at least 3 payouts over the last 5 years for equal pay,shift work pay and for terms and conditions that were bought out 10 years ago but apparentky this was illegal.Some staff recived payouts of 20 to 30k , these are just manual staff doing non skilled work within the authority. Now in fairness to them it is not there fault that they recived all this money, its the fault of the powers above making stupid cost saving desicions which were wrong, the whole system is wrong and rotten to the core.

As a manager i and my collegues have 3 claims in for equal pay,weekend enhancements and something else which i cannot disclose. If we win all of these then we stand to get payouts which run into many thousands of pounds. THIS IS NOT OUR FAULTS so do not start having a go about greedy council workers.

These situations should never been allowed to occur in the first place and my argument is that the people who made these decisions that will cost you and me the tax payers are never held to account for making these serious and costly errors. We are paid under national terms and conditions but we also have local terms and conditiond too this is were the problems occur and it needs to be sorted out.

I also think we should look at making sure the government gets in all the money it should be. There was a gentleman on the news on Tuesday night who had worked out that there was in the region of 11 billion pounds being lost through unpaid VAT, you no "how much for the job if i pay cash in hand" wink, wink. This was even backed up by a financial expert, it makes you wonder what else does not get paid in i.e unpaid fines?

bryanb

Make ALL benefits means tested, including those designated as allowances. That is, ensure that people spend their own money before they start on the tax payer's.

Chrislincs

Personaly I believe that we will all suffer a lot in the next year or so, so we need to be fair to all and freeze all wages for at least a year.
Alao, DSS benefits are too indiscriminate - as an over 60 I qualify for heating allowance, bus passes, etc. yet I am still working and could manage without. It might be unpopular but all benefits should be means tested. Why should the Beckhams, et al get childrens benefit, the very rich DLA or wealthy widows single persons council tax relief? However, the level at which the means testing lets people qualify for benefits needs to be fair and higher than at present. Neither should there be an automatic qualification for several benefits if one qualifies for another. This will help with those who find working is less well remunerated than qualifying for basic allowances, as they would lose access to all the others, too.
I also think that there could be a tax rise on cars that are over, say, 2000cc, second cars, second homes ( these that currently are taxed lower than first homes!), etc.
Perhaps stamp duty could be addressed, too. The jump from 1%-3% at £250,000 is too drastic, and too low in todays house market. Why not step up in 1%s at each £100,000 to enable more families to afford family sized homes, (outside the London area, where prices still need reducing. ) This would ensure, too that rediculously expensive properties return a reciprocal taxation.
I am sure that all Gvt. controlled services could save money by reducing the gvt. instigated paperwork, and those employed to correlate it all. Every event in these services stimulated a gvt. reaction that added another sheaf of paper in the relevant dept. In the NHS that is C Diff, MRSA, malnutrition, targets, bed occupancy, etc. Schools, police, fire, ambulance, etc all suffer similarly, and it all costs money.
Yes, cut chauffears, big cars, and other luxuries for MPs, limit bonuses for all, for a limited period of a few years, and generally make everyone more efficient. It will hurt us all in the short run, but kife goes on much longer.

snooky

brandeberryj wrote: »

Still think you are superior to the majority of people on here...yet you never actually say whose or what are the inferior views........is it everyones but yours? You have yet to tell us what you would cut, whys that then? Afraid that someone will sneer at your views in the same way you sneer at everyone elses?

I think voiceofreason is just trying to wind people up as (s)he doesn't seem to want to share his/her clearly superior views with us lot. Best if we just ignore him/her like a naughty little child.

Gallovidian

voiceofreason wrote: »

Useful link, that - very interesting.

So in short, your earlier claim that the UK alone pays £1.9bn/yr to India in aid:



Is actually a lot of b*llocks, right?

Many thanks for the clarification.

Yes, it was in total not per year. I accept that I made that error. I also note that you have not, cannot, justify the amount of aid given, no-one could. May I say I find you personally offensive and your language unacceptable. I have therefore reported your post as abusive