'Colossal' spending cuts to come, warns IFS

TheBlueHorse

shouldn't the first people to be hit by any cuts be those who don't pay in? The ones purely in receipt of handouts should see their income fall first and fall the most. People who pay in should be protected until they can't be protected anymore.

the next to be hit should be public sector workers. If you work for a "company" that doesn't have money, you have to either sack staff or take a pay cut. The public sector workers should get a vote - redundancies or pay cuts.

In my opinion, the problem is under labour the public sector salaries became far too large, and they have not been adjusted back to what they should be.

I have a primary school teacher friend (not a head, not a deputy head) that has been teaching 8-10 yrs on 50k!!! Its madness.

massive cuts are needed - not just these pay freezes. If they want pay freezes, they shouldn't get an increase for another 80 years.

TheBlueHorse

Tromking wrote: »

I`m genuinely interested to see what our non ring-fenced public services will look like after the bulk of the cuts have been made by 2020!
The prison service in England and Wales is already a basket case, I dread to think what a further 30% in cuts will do to it.
Interesting times!:)

if we just locked the prisoners up for the duration of their sentence it will save loads. No need for libraries, tv's, games rooms, exercise, gyms, lunch halls, dinners, therapy and so on. Just stay in your cell for sentence - get a bit of food twice a day and when you're finished your time, you come out.

thescouselander

Having seen some of these things first hand I can definitely say some of the cuts in the public sector have already been quite brutal. With the sums being talked about and some of the biggest budgets ringfenced I don't see how the deficit can be eliminated without abolishing some departments in their entirety.

Pete9501

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

the next to be hit should be public sector workers. If you work for a "company" that doesn't have money, you have to either sack staff or take a pay cut. The public sector workers should get a vote - redundancies or pay cuts.

In my opinion, the problem is under labour the public sector salaries became far too large, and they have not been adjusted back to what they should be.

You are completely out of touch with what has been happening in the Civil Service for the past 5 years and more to come if the Chancellor has his way.

Of course you can cut back on tax collectors, but then who is going to be catching those who don't pay their share. Okay, how about cuts to the Army, you know those folk who just do stuff for the benefit of others.

You have already mentioned one of the solutions for those who need benefits, next lift the ring fence on the NHS and Education which are the other big budgets will be needed to make any impact on the debt.

Alternatively, bollicks to the debt, perhaps the plan is never to pay it back.

Marktheshark

I wonder, if the total tax dodging amounts were added up and I mean them all, I bet we dont know 90% of it.
How would it compare with this deficit over the same period.

thescouselander

I'm not sure "hitting public sector workers" is even possible. These are not in the same class as people receiving "handouts" but are skilled employees who's services can also be employed outside of government - essentially they have choices if conditions become unacceptable. Don't forget on average civil servant is significantly better qualified than the average private sector employee because all of the lower skilled work was contracted out years ago. Squeeze too hard and they'll just leave for other employment - in fact quite a few have done this already.

Andy_L

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

In my opinion, the problem is under labour the public sector salaries became far too large, and they have not been adjusted back to what they should be.

It depended which bit of rhe public sector you were in under labour. If you were in the "golden child" areas of health and education you did ok, anywhere else you didn't (if I get to a proper computer & remember I'll repost some graphs) Seeing as how esucation and health were manifesto commitments and both had (and in some areas still have) huge recruitment & retention problems its hardly surprising salaries increased

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its inconceivable to see where it can come from based on current tack. Not a penny of the debt has been paid off, they have only managed to lower the amount that we usually borrow a bit.

The fact is that we just cant afford to give every boomer a gold plated pension,a winter fuel allowance, a free bus pass to go whereever they want at no cost, and completely free health care. Much as we might like to they haven't paid in themselves anything like enough to fund these things, and its unfair to expect younger people to fund them when they won't receive anything like that when they retire.

Boomer age related benefits need to be means tested. That is all there is to it.

Meanwhile they can axe trident and every employee of a bankrupt state owned bank can get a living wage and no bonus. That should help.

My bet is that the whole plan is based on the idea that they will not be re-elected so will not have to make the decisions.

If they do, then complete privatisation of the NHS, without a corresponding reduction in tax, but with all citizens required to pay additionally for healthcare beyond 2017 would go a long way to addressing the problem. It will have little impact of the rich and the poor will die at an increasing rate.

BobQ

thescouselander wrote: »

I'm not sure "hitting public sector workers" is even possible. These are not in the same class as people receiving "handouts" but are skilled employees who's services can also be employed outside of government - essentially they have choices if conditions become unacceptable. Don't forget on average civil servant is significantly better qualified than the average private sector employee because all of the lower skilled work was contracted out years ago. Squeeze too hard and they'll just leave for other employment - in fact quite a few have done this already.

I doubt that Osborne cares about such those nuances. Those horrible public sector workers are the root of all evil and a complete waste of space, employed in the private sector they will become the highly skilled professionals that will help make this country great again.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its inconceivable to see where it can come from based on current tack. Not a penny of the debt has been paid off, they have only managed to lower the amount that we usually borrow a bit.

whose fault is that? They have cut taxes for those like me who can afford to pay more.

The fact is that we just cant afford to give every boomer a gold plated pension,a winter fuel allowance, a free bus pass to go whereever they want at no cost, and completely free health care. Much as we might like to they haven't paid in themselves anything like enough to fund these things, and its unfair to expect younger people to fund them when they won't receive anything like that when they retire.

Not every boomer has a gold plated pension. Many people retire with limited pension provision that is not enough to live on.

Are you talking about state pensions or occupational pensions?

State pensions are the same for everyone. Why criticise what parliament has decided? They may be gold plated but they are fairly modest, and those that have paid in more generally get more out.

Occupational pensions are I agree generous (by today's standards) for those retiring now. Public and private sector pensions have changed over the years to become less generous and those that have many years till retirement will have less generous pensions. Those retiring now have paid in for them, either as a cash contribution or as a salary related benefit. You cannot retrospectively change this.

But these people often started work at 16 and have worked till they are 65. Many of the subsequent generations did not start work until they were 22 and will have to work till they are 70. Of course there are examples (midwifes, firemen) who had better deals but in the main most people retiring today have worked and contributed.

Boomer age related benefits need to be means tested. That is all there is to it.

I agree with this to some extent, but I dislike the lack of respect that your remarks show for those who retire. They are not boomer benefits they are benefits that Parliament has agreed should be paid.

You will get old one day and be subject to abuse of this kind.

Meanwhile they can axe trident and every employee of a bankrupt state owned bank can get a living wage and no bonus. That should help.

Well why do you not vote for a party with such policies.

Do you really think that every employee of a bankrupt state bank is to blame? Your policy is idiotic since most would leave for better paid jobs at other banks or elsewhere.

I sometimes wonder about the future of this country when I see brainless posts of this type.