What Goverment spending would you cut? poll discussion

barryd999

deedee71 wrote: »

I voted for defence, but wasn't thinking of troops funding, more along the lines of Trident.

Well, we probably should have it but we clearly cant afford it. I think I read somewhere that over 25 years it will cost £100 Billion. If it comes to a nuclear scrap the defecit will be the last thing we will be worrying about anyway so I guess we should bin it and put the money towards paying of the debt, soldiers safety, conventional weaponry, support and better pay.

rogern_2

Child benefit, it was introduced after the war to encourage, financially, couples to have children, no encouragement is needed now.
Farmers subsidies, again introduced to help farmers grow more food to feed the nation, now we import a vast majority of the food we eat. Farmers should not be financially supported, they get a handout for just about everything they do, most of them have gleaming new equipment but continue to winge about how hard the job is, I spoke to a "farmer" recently and he told me he had retired & rented out his farm, he said that the Single Farm Payment, I quote" "takes me and the missus on 2 or 3 nice holidays a year" They are nothing but a bunch of benefit scroungers who think they do a worthwhile job, if farmers all shut down tomorrow we would not notice the difference! if they need subsidies to run a business then they are kidding themselves that they are businessmen.
Pull the subsidies and the "real" farmers will survive.

cannot

1) The vast numbers of directors and highly paid managers in the
NHS Trusts. Far too many.

2) The banks profits should be immediately redirected to
government to pay off their bale outs.

3) Chancellors should only spend what money they have just like
we all have to do at home; and should be penalised for over-
spending.

4) There is a lot of waste in public departments and lets not
forget the large troop of mp's and their "advisers" cut cut cut.

June55_2

I would cut some benefits immediately. Are you aware that we are now on 3rd generation benefit claimants. People who say that they are unable to find work and yet moan as soon as the press publish figures that foreigners are coming here to work. If there are no jobs then this would not be possible.
The amount paid is too high to encourage people to go to work.
I worked for 45 years full time and now receive a state pension of £106 per week. A lot of claimants are on £20,000.00 per year. Who is the fool?

Disability Living Allowance was introduced for disabled people which it should be but why are we paying this benefit to drug addicts and alcoholics? The only thing that happens to their money is to spend it on their addiction. This money would be better spent on rehabilitation and getting them into work.
People on this benefit can also get a new car every 3 years with free road tax, how much does this add up to? Where else in the world would this happen. We are governed by too many do gooders and too scared to challenge them because of the Human Rights Act. If these scroungers did not get this money there would be more for the people who are genuinely disabled.
In some ways I agree with overseas aid but it seems that it never gets to the people it is aimed at. There is far too much corruption and it is difficult to see how this problem could be solved.
I also think money to the NHS should be cut but not to the front line staff. A lot of managers have not proved their worth and get paid far too much. If you don't perform well why should you be rewarded?
Boy am I glad to get that off my chest.

Paddy001

:question:

Watching the news last night it occurred to me that a way to raise money would be to up the tax on ALL forms of gambling wins. This would include profits from gambling, stock exchange, lottery and any other forms of unearned income which has not been earned by labour or knowledge.

This may be unpopular but in an era when we are urged to live frugally, how can anyone justify using money to make money wthout incurring seriously high taxes? Certainly it would discourage those who live off income which has not been earned and possibly help those with a gambling addiction to give up!

photodudeuk

The starting point for all cuts must be the salaries of MPs, which should be pegged at £25,000 for 10 years. However, all necessary expenses (on a fixed scale) to be paid out of public funds. Problem is, they would never pass such legislation. Hopefully the coming civil unrest will sweep them all into the dustbin of history.

tchap

i am sure that all areas of government spending could be cut to save money. However it is what will save money but not cost us the taxpayer over time. If huge cuts are made leading to unemployment then Benefits would rise as would NHS for those who would suffer health problems, Law & Order would need to rise to deal with the inevitable rise in crime & Disorder.
Perhaps what needs to be done is to carry out a complete revision of our Tax & benefit system.
Setting a realistic individual level of tax free income which can be transferred to some one else in the household then if one person in the household can earn that the other can stay at home (freeing up jobs cutting need for nursery schools for the very young).
Scrap NI set a tax level 33% (on earnings up to £100K) and 45% on eveything over that (with no exemptions) If its earned in this country then Tax is paid on it in this country.
Set Benefits so that they are set at say a maximum of 90% of tax free income (to encourage those out or work to find work) for those who are unable to work or are elderly benefits should bring them to a reasonable standard of living.
Tax on dividends and sale of 2nd homes (should be 50% of profit gained.

All of the above woukld need some refining but if common sense and plain english used then no loopholes would be left for the legal profession or accouintaants to exploit. all laws should have a section which requires application of the spirit of the law and not the precise wording to be used.

Funding for universities should only be made where the course being undertaken will be of real use in the real world in a real Job.
Student fees should be set at a level whereby once qualified and in employment the benefiiary pays back to cover future students costs.

Vehicle excise Licence should be scrapped and a realistic amount added to fuel that way Heavy users pay more and no one escapes paying it. (for the transport industry there should be appropriate discounts on offer). All monies collected in this way should be ring fenced for transportmatters increasing public transport etc. Fuel companies should be made to maintain a pricing structure which means that those who live in rural areas pay the same as those who live in urban areas.

As for cutting Defence / Law & Order we need tham there shoould be a review of waste in both to allow for increased front,ine usefulness.
Trident replacement I think it should be dropped and spent on frontline units.

Levels of management in the NHS could be cut drastically without affecting frontline services. be honest with the public we cannot afford to give an open cheque to cover all the latest drugs which may give a little more life span for a few people perhaps supporting Hospices and similar would be more cost effective.

rahulchat

Dear All,

I think the following should be done which will redue the deficit to a lot.

*Pay cut all Ministers Salaries to average of 30k p.a.
*Everyone in the country should contribute £1 per person per
family.
*All the Govt Leader are Billionaries, I think they should contribute
to the country which has given them so much.

Cheers
Rahul

mayb_2

I was shocked to see how little is spent on housing and the environment in times of global warming and lack of affordable housing for young people in particular.

At the moment the most popular cut is in overseas aid - this could be counter productive if we want peace in our time and to spend less on defence - however I do think India in particular could support their own poor as they are a rich country in many respects, rather than leaving it to aid agencies to do their work for them.

I would cut costs by removing the Tribunal system and allowing ACAS the job of settling disputes in the work place. The Tribunals have become a place for solicitors and barristers and the new costs system means their is no assurance that no costs will be awarded against claimants.

The whole basis for the establishment of the tribunal system has been undermined and the only people benefiting are the solicitors and barristers whose coffers grow with every case. As the system of considering cases does not mean looking at all the evidence. hearing all the witnesses and finding right from wrong, the need for a Judge to be paid to oversee this is not justifiable. The decisions made is on the balance of probabilities - if it is not a legal decision it does not require a Judge to make it. No decision taken can be challenged on factual issues so facts can be ignored, overlooked or misinterpreted when arriving at a decision that is not wholly enforceable anyway. Jobs do not have to be returned, costs do not get enforced by the Tribunal and many who win are left feeling like loosers.

Statistics also show that win or lose, your chances of finding another job after going through the process are significantly diminished and most people are also left feeling stressed and depressed by the whole experience. So who are these systems benefiting in the long run? We are paying through our taxes for this. ACAS is already heavily involved and their powers could be expanded to deal with employment issues. Laws without proper teeth are a waste of paper and money.

fnaptagurgl

It is suggested that we need to think the unthinkable. So:

1. The Met Office. Operates Britain's most expensive computer, yet its medium/long term forecasts have been, at best, ludicrous. Though not wholly to blame, it is also heavily implicated in the recent no-flight zone fiasco, which ruined so many people's holidays. Other private organisations forecast the weather better. The Met Office costs the government a lot of money and could be sold off or simply closed down.

2. Climate Change. This is set to cost the country billions in the coming years, yet the evidence is growing weaker not stronger. Last year's Global Warming Conference was immediately followed by the worst winter in a generation. The passage of the Climate Change Act in Parliament caused the first snowfall in London for 30 years. Someone up there is trying to tell us something.

3. Why is overseas aid to be ring-fenced when disability benefits are not? Kindness begins at home.

4. Withdrawal from the EU would be an extreme step, but it would certainly go a long way toward taming the budget deficit.