What cuts are you prepared to personally suffer to repay the deficit?

gravitytolls

I don't think anyone can answer the question set by the OP without knowing what gets spent where ~ tis easy to point the finger based on media presentation and a regular use of the word scrounger.

For instance, how much did the banks borrow? How much have they paid back?
How much is actually spent on benefits, ad which ones?
How much is considered to be lost through tax avoidance/evasion?

Perhaps before we even consider cuts, we should be looking at waste and ensuring budgets are used wisely, then a truer picture can be gained of how big a job is ahead of us, and how best to proceed.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

I got a lot of stick today for my attack on the child benefit changes, but almost entirely from the childless, funnily enough - ie those with no experience of the costs of bringing up children, and who themselves would not be affected.

Nobody forced you to breed if you can't afford it carol.

But of course you claim you can afford it, probably from all that money you're saving by renting instead of buying. :rotfl:

So don't complain when the majority of the board think you come across as a disgruntled champagne socialist with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

Particularly after you celebrated the housing benefits cuts so very much, whilst not caring that they would doubtless cause hardship to many. Just not you of course.

I'd like others to post about which cuts in benefits or raises in taxes they'd personally like to experience to help out, or services they currently rely on they would like axed to pay for the deficit, just so we know they're not all a load of hypocrites.

The problem in this country is that the overall tax burden cannot go up any further without it being counterproductive and ultimately reducing tax take.

We have reached the limits of taxation.

What you socialists need to understand is that there is no money left for you to spend, so cuts it will have to be.

Now you can argue all day long about how fast to cut, and what should be cut, but cuts to benefits and services will have to happen, and those on benefits or who use the most services will feel the most pain.

The people like us who use the least services, who are financially independant, who claim no benefits, will notice very little change.

Quite frankly, the hard working responsible people are sick of subsidising the lifestyle of the irresponsible. I have no problem with society and my tax payments providing a safety net for someone like singlesue. I have a very big problem with someone on a household income of 70K claiming thousands a year in child benefits.

I suggest you get used to it, because it's only the start....:cool:

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

People who have emigrated to the other side of the world and so are not of course going to be affected by any cuts here should tell us to the £ how much money they personally will be posting back to the UK Treasury in a big brown envelope, just to help.
.

Should be quite a lot but maybe not in that brown envelope, I guess, as their state pension is not uprated for inflation it should add up to pretty penny, there are many who after paying NI all there working lives now only receive a state pension of around £6 a month, also bearing in mind they won't be using those expensive NHS services in their dotage.

LilacPixie

gravitytolls wrote: »

I don't think anyone can answer the question set by the OP without knowing what gets spent where ~ tis easy to point the finger based on media presentation and a regular use of the word scrounger.

For instance, how much did the banks borrow? How much have they paid back?
How much is actually spent on benefits, ad which ones?
How much is considered to be lost through tax avoidance/evasion?

Perhaps before we even consider cuts, we should be looking at waste and ensuring budgets are used wisely, then a truer picture can be gained of how big a job is ahead of us, and how best to proceed.

HMRC guestimate it to be around 60bn a year, John Christensen, former economic adviser to the UK and Jersey governments thinks its closer to 120bn a year. He may well bias as he is lobbying to get HMRC to stop cutting staff but to redeploy them into tax collecting roles http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/sep/20/tax-avoidance-christensen

C_Mababejive

NONE..
Why should i? I didnt create the problem.

I have done what was always taught as good and sound practice i.e keep debt to zero or a minimum,work hard,pay your bills,save some for a rainy day.

Now i know i have been suckered so i shall build up manageable debt and try to screw the system at every opportunity.

Blessed are meek for they shall inherit nothing...

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Do you prefer:

removal of SMI
raising of interest rates
further reductions in housing benefit rates
rise in income tax
rise in capital gains tax
new property taxes
rise in VAT
rise in fuel taxes

etc etc?

Do tell us all how YOU are going to help, personally.

I sense a property theme here.

How about house prices drop by £100k which you'd obviously be very happy with and the increase the stamp duty by £100k.

Then you'd really be helping to repay the countries debt should you ever become a home owner

gravitytolls

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7901306/UK-deficit-fears-reappear-as-debts-hits-927bn.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html

Seems to me if the banks pay what they owe, the deficit won't look nealry so bad.

Funny innit? We forked out to save the banks, and now we're expected to fork out again because they left us in the poop. Actually, that's not funny at all.

Degenerate

gravitytolls wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7901306/UK-deficit-fears-reappear-as-debts-hits-927bn.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html

Seems to me if the banks pay what they owe, the deficit won't look nealry so bad.

Funny innit? We forked out to save the banks, and now we're expected to fork out again because they left us in the poop. Actually, that's not funny at all.

Those two out-of-date articles you posted are about two totally different things.

The £850B figure the Independent misleading labeled the "cost" of bank support is actually the theoretical total exposure, that would only be triggered in the event of total financial collapse. Some of this came from central banking operations (special liquidity scheme), which don't create Government debt, and do get paid back. Some was potential liability where the Government agreed to insure assets - again, no debt incurred, we've actually made a sizable profit on this as there has been no claim and is not likely to be now. Only the Equity stakes cost us actual money that added to the national debt. The best way to recover that money is to nurse them back into healthy profitable businesses, that we can sell on at a profit.

The Telegraph article sensationalized the deficit figure because a couple of months it blipped above predictions, conveniently ignoring the fact that it undershot by similar amounts in previous months, and broadly speaking is on target to Alaisdair Darling's projections (Before the Tory slash and burn really hits.)

Degenerate

Oh, and my suggestion to help reduce the deficit:

Legalize, regulate and tax drugs and prostitution.

Masomnia

Cuts could easilly be made to the NHS.

Considering that this year I'll only be a tax payer by a few hundred quid increasing income tax isn't going to affect me too much so I don't know if you'll count that.

If the council only collected my bin every fortnight that'd be ok.

I don't claim any benefits so cutting there won't affect me.

Hmm... I have very little involvement with the state so it's not going to be an issue either way!