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

A._Badger

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.

That isn't really a 'moral hazard' is it? Moral hazard refers to people behaving in a way that they wouldn't otherwise do - for example, driving less carefully because they are insured, thinking their behaviour is 'risk free'.

Yes, there is an expense involved in means testing. Surely, though, it isn't greater than dispensing largesse to one and all, regardless of need?

Malcolm. wrote: »

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.

Under a universal 'benefits' scheme they get money anyway. Look at the middle classes sucking at the 'tax credits' teat!

Surely, benefits should go only to the needy? If they go to all, an infantilised public is the inevitable consequence.

Which explains a lot....

Sandrock

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

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



GG

Don't agree with this.

I know several people who earn upwards of £200k a year and there would be no question of them all moving abroad should this occur, which would result in them not spending what money they have in our economy. The 50% band was enough to get them to look seriously about moving themselves and their assets out of the country.

Malcolm.

A._Badger wrote: »

That isn't really a 'moral hazard' is it? Moral hazard refers to people behaving in a way that they wouldn't otherwise do - for example, driving less carefully because they are insured, thinking their behaviour is 'risk free'.

Yes, there is an expense involved in means testing. Surely, though, it isn't greater than dispensing largesse to one and all, regardless of need?



Under a universal 'benefits' scheme they get money anyway. Look at the middle classes sucking at the 'tax credits' teat!

Surely, benefits should go only to the needy? If they go to all, an infantilised public is the inevitable consequence.

Which explains a lot....

I feel benefits should be apportoned such that the 'needy' do not go without. Taking a pragmatic approach, if middle classes receive £20 (they are paying taxes) in order to avoid wasting £10 on a public sector non-job means tester, I'm happy with this. In my view it's better, as a whole, for the said public sector worker to be employed in a more productive role, like the nhs.

bigheadxx

I think that the cutting public sector pay argument is gathering pace. A 5% cut would save £10BN a year and send a clear message.

Gorgeous_George

I'd cut the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer and replace it with 'Britain's Got a Defecit' on Saturday nights.

He is clearly clueless.

GG

Gorgeous_George

Sandrock wrote: »

Don't agree with this.

I know several people who earn upwards of £200k a year and there would be no question of them all moving abroad should this occur, which would result in them not spending what money they have in our economy. The 50% band was enough to get them to look seriously about moving themselves and their assets out of the country.

Ah, the old brain drain argument.

It was the brains that got us into this mess = let them go and lock the door behind them.

Oh, and £200K wouldn't reach the 80% tax rate - I said mega 'earners'.

GG

Sandrock

bigheadxx wrote: »

I think that the cutting public sector pay argument is gathering pace. A 5% cut would save £10BN a year and send a clear message.

As I mentioned before, I'm public sector and would be prepared to accept a 5% cut.

Whether or not it would happen is another matter - the unions would go absolutely mental and strikes would occur left, right and centre. We're talking police, nurses, education, military... quite a bit more than just the binmen .

Lets see how big Cameron's balls are . . .

My suggestion of it only affecting those over £25k would negate some of the argument that the Unions would use - "massive pay cuts for low paid workers" etc. I'd introduce a freeze on salaries for those on under £25k and the cut of 5% over £25k, perhaps even 10% over £75k.

bigheadxx

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

It was the brains that got us into this mess = let them go and lock the door behind them.


GG

I presume you mean Brown and Darling?

Sandrock

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Ah, the old brain drain argument.

It was the brains that got us into this mess = let them go and lock the door behind them.

Oh, and £200K wouldn't reach the 80% tax rate - I said mega 'earners'.

GG

'Mega' means different things to different people, at least provide a quantifiable figure to work with. To many, £100k/year is mega whilst to some £500k is not worth getting out of bed for!

Raising tax at that level would have little effect and would even be counter productive. Raising tax at the lower level (20-22%, 40 to 44%) would have a much better result (assuming simply increasing tax revenues is your desire) and wouldn't affect most people a great deal - those on £25k would simply pay an additional £30/month.

vivatifosi

Some ideas:
1) Remove final salary pensions for new starters.
2) Fixed term employment contracts for all new starters until the local authority/department knows better what its long term needs are. Not possible for some very key roles in high demand/where shortages exist, eg social workers.
3) Freeze salaries over median.
4) Training needs assessment for each employee by their manager. There's no point engaging in the expense of say, ECDL courses if the incumbent has equivalent course passes from the private sector.
5) Change the spending culture so that if the whole budget isn't spent, this is a good thing, it doesn't signal an automatic cut the following year.
6) Turn the lights off when space isn't in use, along with computers, photocopiers etc.
7) Complete move of non-core staff to less expensive locations as started by Lyons Review
8) Cut all non-jobs such as bin inspectors, fruit and veg coordinators etc - they are an expensive nice to have.
9) Consider returning to public sector employment levels of 1997.
10) Investigate opportunities for cost savings in two-tier local government (district and county) or in neighbouring unitary authorities where efficiencies can be made in back office functions.
11) Investigate radical ideas for revenue generation in the public sector. The sector doesn't like revenue generation very much, it is seen as gauche, but I'd pay extra to stay in a private room in hospital for example (ie public sector doctor, private sector nursing); renting out spare space in government offices to incubate local businesses, renting out study rooms in libraries for meetings etc.