What do you think so far of the Condem proposals on welfare/public sector reform?

michaels

Yes - lets try and hit those with the money to hire accountants to avoid tax where possible and the wherewithal and skills to emigrate if they are forced too.

After all, if no one earns anything there will be no more poverty by the recognised definition..

marklv wrote: »

It's only right that those who have more should pay more - it stands to reason. I'm not just talking about the rich here, but the upper-middle strata who rake in the £100k+ household incomes.

wherediditallgothen

michaels wrote: »

Yes - lets try and hit those with the money to hire accountants to avoid tax where possible and the wherewithal and skills to emigrate if they are forced too.

After all, if no one earns anything there will be no more poverty by the recognised definition..

Exactly, it's all about the low-hanging fruit. In principle, closing tax avoidance loopholes is a great idea. In practice it's not quite so simple as that.....

StevieJ

purch wrote: »

Is it not possible to call these the Governments proposals, rather than using the rather childish 'Condem' moniker ?

I think ConDem sounds rather appropriate, childish or not

jamespmg44

drc wrote: »

What do you think so far of the Condems proposals to slash the debt (in terms of changes to the benefits system and reducing of the public sector)?

The benefits system needs to be slashed dramatically - far far too many people make the lifestyle choice of living on benefits and never having a job.

The bloated public sector with thousands of non jobs needs to be trimmed back as well.

So I'd say I probably do agree with them.

LydiaJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I dunno yet. They haven't specifically stated what they will do. I shall maybe answer on 20th October

To broad a question for a single answer anyway in all honesty.

I'm with Graham on this one. I see that the country is broke and I think something's got to be done but I'd need to know more specifics about where exactly the cuts are going to fall before committing myself to approval or disapproval of the government's strategy.

newleaf

Agreed there are benefit cheats and malingerers who play the system, but the proposed cuts will not only affect them, but also those who are genuinely sick, disabled, unemployed, children, elderly, low waged. As a nurse, I am concerned about those people and also worried about losing my own job - the redundancy word has already been floated in a rather threatening fashion. My Trust has to make £12M worth of 'efficiency savings' this year. How does that help those in need?

And yes, I am concerned about what changes may be made to my NHS pension scheme. I have worked bloomin' hard and paid into it for 30+ years, and ought to be retiring within the next few years. Are all my plans now to change?

My best mate is a PCSO, and very conscientious she is too, being a former nurse. She keeps an eye on the elderly and vulnerable on her very large patch, which she patrols on a pushbike. She also works bloomin' hard, knows all the troublemakers and where they live, and makes a point of being highly visible in the community, visiting schools, liaiasing with teachers, local shopkeepers etc. She even received a commendation (for bravery) very soon after she started the job, much to her embarrassment. She has been told her job is likely become obsolete next year. How does that help the vulnerable?

Personally I would be happier to just pay more tax, although I know that's not a popular view..

neverdespairgirl

marklv wrote: »

It's only right that those who have more should pay more - it stands to reason. I'm not just talking about the rich here, but the upper-middle strata who rake in the £100k+ household incomes.

It does stand to reason. Hence, they pay 40% tax, soon to be 50% tax, on their income over the higher-rate threshold.

They usually consume less in terms of public resources, too. Likely to have private health insurance, or private education for their children, less likely to claim a whole range of benefits.

LilacPixie

I am reserving judgment until we hear exaclty what they have to say in full. I have very little faith in this government and feel it will just widen the rich/poor gap. I worry about the proposed changes to disability benefits, I have Multiple Sclerosis an realistically I doubt I will be working to 65 and beyond. Nothing to do with laziness, wanting a lifetime of benefits because really they are a fraction of what i do and could earn. Just my mobility is getting worse. Cuts to NHS mean cuts to funding and research so hope of an effective treatment or cure (to repair nerve damage) gets more remote and the longer symptoms go on the more longer term damage done.

Purely selfish but I would rather be taxed more now while i'm earning and have the hope of continuing to be taxed for many years because I am earning and part of my taxes has contributed to research than be in a poor house.

shortchanged_2

There has been a report of late that states that the bonuses of top level companies are pretty much back to the level they were pre credit crunch.

And some people wonder why so many people are angry with certain areas of the private sector.

The main problem with a bloated private sector is that it promotes greed.

I don't disagree that there probably does need to be some trimming back of the public sector, just not to the extent the coalition government are suggesting.

marklv

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It does stand to reason. Hence, they pay 40% tax, soon to be 50% tax, on their income over the higher-rate threshold.

They usually consume less in terms of public resources, too. Likely to have private health insurance, or private education for their children, less likely to claim a whole range of benefits.

Nobody forces the 4X4 driving classes to send their kids to private school or pay £80 a month for private health and a similar amount each for gym membership, gold club membership, spa club membership etc. They do all this out of choice. If they were more conservative with their money instead of squandering it on inessentials they would be really well off, instead they moan about high taxes and the increasing cost of facials [sigh].