Extra £4bn welfare cut

bendix

lemonjelly wrote: »

It appears to me that the private sector got us into this mess. The public sector will bear the cost.

We're in this together though, right?

Could you explain to us how the private sector contributed to years of Labour spending more money than it had. THIS is the issue at hand, not the credit crunch.

The government's plans are to reduce public spending and the budget deficit. The private sector, banks etc had absolutely nothing to do with that. Last time I checked, Goldman Sachs didn't control the Exchequers spending plans.

On the contrary, had it not been for the huge influx of taxes paid to the government by the Square Mile during 2003-2007, the deficit would be considerably higher.

And before you start on about the government bank bailouts, let me remind you that they had absolutely no impact on the deficit. The government's shares in the banks appear on the balance sheet as assets - not liabilities - and either are or are close to generating a PROFIT for the taxpayer.

bendix

misskool wrote: »

School funding cut, higher education cuts, great way to create a better Britain? It's not going to be as easy as having cuts and not having a detrimental impact towards society.

It's going to be bad.

Nobody wants education to be cut (although I personally would like to see fewer university places available, to make degrees truly worthwhile and reverse the dumbing down of higher education over the last twenty years), but what is the alternative.

This budget deficit has to be tackled. Not everything can be ringfenced.

Rather than blaming the government who has to do the hard and unpopular things to rectify the mess, how about focusing your resentment towards the fiscal mismanagement of the last ten years that created it?

Graham_Devon

Well it's a tough one, but heres my thoughts...

- Cut free bus passes for pensioners with over X in the bank.
- Cut winter fuel payments for pensioners with over X in the bank.
- Cut winter fuel payment for anyone disabled with X in the bank.
- Cut, or at least halt, child benefit for over 2 kids from now on.
- Cut the courses for those out of work. Make them pay a certain amount. That way, all those who go on the courses for something simply to do won't cost the rest of us.
- Cut tax credits....give them only to those who need them, so again, an income over X amount.

And of course any obvious wastage, such as the massage therapy & pamper sessions for those on job seekers which was done in Mnachester to make the jobless "feel good" and therefore more likely to get a job can be binned ASAP.

I've never really been one for cutting benefits for certain people with over x in the bank....as they have all paid in. However, don't think there are many options left. If they are going to cut, I'd rather the cuts were delivered to those who can carry on with life, rather than seriously effecting someone who really does depend on them to live.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the benefit system per se. Cutting those eligible for stuff should help remove the attraction of the benefits system without hurting those who really do rely on them and have no other choice. It's the people taking advantage of the system who DO have a choice who spoil it. I think the cuts would be quite easy to achieve to hit the right people...however, not sure what the cost of hitting the right people would be (i.e. looking individually at people).

Mr_Mumble

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it's a tough one, but heres my thoughts...

- Cut free bus passes for pensioners with over X in the bank.
- Cut winter fuel payments for pensioners with over X in the bank.
- Cut winter fuel payment for anyone disabled with X in the bank.

The costs of administrating this would be too burdensome. Afaik the coalition government are thinking of simply bumping up the age of those who can receive free bus passes, winter fuel payments and free TV licenses so not to break Cameron's, ridiculously stupid*, promise to maintain these 'benefits'.

*It really is tokenistic nonsense that just because you're 60-65 you can get all these freebies no matter how healthy or rich you are. Yet another example of the outright greed of the baby boomers. /rant

Graham_Devon

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

The costs of administrating this would be too burdensome. Afaik the coalition government are thinking of simply bumping up the age of those who can receive free bus passes, winter fuel payments and free TV licenses so not to break Cameron's, ridiculously stupid*, promise to maintain these 'benefits'.

*It really is tokenistic nonsense that just because you're 60-65 you can get all these freebies no matter how healthy or rich you are. Yet another example of the outright greed of the baby boomers. /rant

That's what I was thinking and said at the end of the post. I'm just thinking outside of the box really. Would hit the right people, but would have an associated cost. Over the long term however, I think the cost of the exercise would be worth it.

Maybe one for another time.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

- Cut free bus passes for pensioners with over X in the bank.
- Cut winter fuel payments for pensioners with over X in the bank.
- Cut winter fuel payment for anyone disabled with X in the bank.

that's not very nice - those people have contributed to the system all their working lives; worked hard and have saved hard to have that that money and now because cuts are needed they're the ones to be hit with the cuts.

not nice devon, not nice at all.

dopester

chucky wrote: »

that's not very nice - those people have contributed to the system all their working lives; worked hard and have saved hard to have that that money and now because cuts are needed they're the ones to be hit with the cuts.

not nice devon, not nice at all.

They were never made promises about having these benefits in their older age Chucky. They were gifts from Labour post 97.

(Except free bus-passes which I'm not too sure about.. but think so.)

chucky

dopester wrote: »

They were never made promises about having these benefits in their older age Chucky. They were gifts from Labour post 97.

(Except free bus-passes which I'm not too sure about.. but think so.)

a very fair point

i think that they should cut them completely then and try and supplement those that need it in a better way - instead of people who "have over X in the bank"

trying to administer something like this and even the possible 'bending of the rules' creates a whole new world of paper and unnecessary job creation to save just £200 that would be a winter fuel allowance.

lynzpower

Can I ask, as there seems to be a rather "slash and burn" view on here, which services do people think SHOULD NOT be cut at all.
From the largest service to the smallest- what are YOU personally dedicated to keeping?

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

- Cut, or at least halt, child benefit for over 2 kids from now on.

Child benefit rates are frozen.

The only thing the government can do off value is count it as income than tax it for those earning over a certain amount.

This is much cheaper in administration, and not as cruel as punishing children of low income parents.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

- Cut the courses for those out of work. Make them pay a certain amount. That way, all those who go on the courses for something simply to do won't cost the rest of us.

I've just had two Adult Education leaflets through my door in the past 2 weeks from 2 different London boroughs, who administer their own education.

The courses that receive massive subsidiaries and are free in my area are GCSEs in English and Maths if you don't have that qualification already.

Those that receive some subsidiaries are GCSEs and A levels for those who have don't have those level of qualifications already.

For those two areas above there is ring-fenced government funding.

Courses like Wine Tasting, Aromatherapy and Clay Pigeon shooting have one rate regardless of whether you are in work, unemployed or an OAP.

Clearly it's up to each council what courses they decide to subsidise above what the government gives them.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

- Cut tax credits....give them only to those who need them, so again, an income over X amount.

They already are cutting that.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And of course any obvious wastage, such as the massage therapy & pamper sessions for those on job seekers which was done in Mnachester to make the jobless "feel good" and therefore more likely to get a job can be binned ASAP.

There is loads of wastage in back to work sort of things. The problem is that the job centre is trying to cater for everyone that means they aim at the lowest common denominator.