How would you help George Osborne distribute the cuts in spending?

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

Hi lir,

It depends on the amount of benefit, I'm in general against means testing, because of the associated moral hazard and expense in administering and policing.

As an example, I know wealthy individuals who have in the past gone to great lengths be able to claim monies that they wouldn't ordinarily be entitled to.

Good points. One then wonders why these people get through. Where the holes in the system are. Incidentally, so do I, but I also know people who haven't claimed what they could. DH getting a NI number was a nightmare, because his parents had not claimed. (they could have, despite not living in Uk most of the time)

edit for clarification; ''so do I'' means so do I know such people, not so do I claim fraudulently

Malcolm.

A._Badger wrote: »

Prove it. It's simply an assertion.

In passing, note how 'not paying for' undergoes the magic translator of socialism and becomes transformed into 'not supporting children financially'.

To get the right answers you need to ask the right questions...

Question is, can you prove that what I've said is not correct?

If it can't be 'proven' either way, it's a grey area and a good topic for debate.

amcluesent

>2/ Cut all public sector pay by 5% for those earning over £25k for a fixed term period of 24 or 36 months.<

Or offer 3 or 6 month unpaid sabbaticals. TBH I'd quite fancy a 3 month break, just like the laydees get when they have a baby.

Gorgeous_George

It is just plain cowardly to ask the public - and stupid. The election showed that the public know nothing.

I'd introduce higher tax bands - upto 80% for the mega 'earners'.

And based on the policy of 'Polluter Pays', I'd ask the Americans to pay up. After all, is was their dodgy mortgage debt (handily packaged as AAA securities by their credit agencies) that provided the catalyst for the credit crunch.

The problem is, the school bully is too big and little Britain dare not upset the school bully.

B***** colonials.

GG

A._Badger

chucky wrote: »

because there would be children in the UK in a very bad way if it were not the case. i for one don't think that this is a good thing.

And paying people to have children is the only way you can think of to avoid that?

How about paying only those in serious need, instead?

lostinrates

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

It is just plain cowardly to ask the public - and stupid. The election showed that the public know nothing.


GG

Its only stupid if you necessarily implement what the public say in the way they say it...asking them, gettin the engaged...seeing where they complain about but accepting that most of them do not have the knowledge/experience to look at a bigger picture....two different things.

A._Badger

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

It is just plain cowardly to ask the public - and stupid. The election showed that the public know nothing.

<cut>

GG

So why have elections at all? Presumably, you'd prefer the Soviet method of choosing a government?

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

And paying people to have children is the only way you can think of to avoid that?

How about paying only those in serious need, instead?

i can live with that but then the only problem that you have is the financial cost of identifying these people and the financial cost of preventing others cheating the system. it's not as simple as you intend it to be.

i'm not sure what the answer is but it's definetly not what you said in your initial post.

Malcolm.

A._Badger wrote: »

And paying people to have children is the only way you can think of to avoid that?

How about paying only those in serious need, instead?

Nice phrase that 'in serious need'. Reminds me of the phrases 'cutting waste' and 'fairness'. They mean different things to different people.

Malcolm.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I'd introduce higher tax bands - upto 80% for the mega 'earners'.

I think I read somewhere that when income tax fell to 40%, the overall tax take went up, people stopped using schemes to avoid paying it.

I feel an 80% rate would drive the knowledge based services the UK relies upon abroad, it would be counter-productive to tax revenue.