Where will the cuts fall

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And an increase in NI. I know they recently stated they were cutting Class 2 NI for those self employed, but what they didn't tell you (but was announced the next day) is they are looking into a contributory element for Class 4 NI. So class 4 will likely go up to scoop up the "savings" from the axing of Class 2 contributions and they will likely increase Class 4 at the same time.

Because there's a loop hole that many people are using to obtain a better state pension yet pay only class 2 contributions.

There's also a strong argument for the self employed to receive better welfare support. Seems only fair that they contribute to the cost of provision.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Ultimately cuts have to come from where the money is spent: welfare, health and education. Everything else is tinkering around the edges.

The obvious way is to pay public employees less.

And this goes back to the point I'm making on the other thread about your own statement....

Generali wrote: »

Getting the country richer as a whole does far more for the poor than any number of well meant welfare policies.

Now, it depends how you define poor, but if you are cutting the wages of the public sector to make the country richer, you are cutting wages from huge numbers of people earning low wages....which seems to be the opposite of your theory?

So, as I said on the other thread, I'm not entirely disagreeing with your statement, but again, the theory doesn't seem to be backed up by anything substantive.... especialy if the way to make the country better off is to cut wages for thousands of people on lower wages.

I may have taken your statement completely the wrong way though. If you are talking about cutting public sector pay at the top....those management types on 300k a year in the NHS, or massive MPs expense claims etc, I'd agree. But considering your other posts on "if you want the best you have to pay for them" I would guess you are not talking about cutting these types of peoples pay while protecting those on the ground".

Loughton_Monkey

All forms of child benefit, child tax credits for child #3 and beyond.
Freeze such benefits as well.
Max benefit per household down to £23,000.
Means test disability benefits.
Ruthless abolition of Quangos.
Further cutting back of Civil Service Pensions.

This should produce a lot of money to cut the deficit, and leave just enough for:

• Increase heating allowance to £500.
• Issue £500 pensioner clothing vouchers to keep us warm outside the house.
• Give pensioners unlimited free taxi/Rail fares.
• Introduce an extra 6% granny bond, with tax free interest.
• Extend free TV license to all >65, including Sky/Cable/Broadband subscriptions.
• Double the ISA limit for pensioners.
• Abolish road tax for >65's.
• Abolish Council Tax for >65's
• Increase pensioner £10 'Christmas Bonus' to £500 [RPI linked].
• Tax relief on all 'Equity Release' arrangement interest.
• Abolish CGT on any BTL bought using money released from pensions/annuities.
• Automatic 60% discount for pensioners on Gas, Electricity, and Water bills.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Generali wrote: »

ROFL. This is a joke, right.

Nope, Not in "Mr Balls" eyes. :money:

stator

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

All forms of child benefit, child tax credits for child #3 and beyond.
Freeze such benefits as well.
Max benefit per household down to £23,000.
Means test disability benefits.
Ruthless abolition of Quangos.
Further cutting back of Civil Service Pensions.

This should produce a lot of money to cut the deficit, and leave just enough for:

• Increase heating allowance to £500.
• Issue £500 pensioner clothing vouchers to keep us warm outside the house.
• Give pensioners unlimited free taxi/Rail fares.
• Introduce an extra 6% granny bond, with tax free interest.
• Extend free TV license to all >65, including Sky/Cable/Broadband subscriptions.
• Double the ISA limit for pensioners.
• Abolish road tax for >65's.
• Abolish Council Tax for >65's
• Increase pensioner £10 'Christmas Bonus' to £500 [RPI linked].
• Tax relief on all 'Equity Release' arrangement interest.
• Abolish CGT on any BTL bought using money released from pensions/annuities.
• Automatic 60% discount for pensioners on Gas, Electricity, and Water bills.

I'd go the other way. Abolish all free benefits for old people and means test the state pension.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And this goes back to the point I'm making on the other thread about your own statement....



Now, it depends how you define poor, but if you are cutting the wages of the public sector to make the country richer, you are cutting wages from huge numbers of people earning low wages....which seems to be the opposite of your theory?

So, as I said on the other thread, I'm not entirely disagreeing with your statement, but again, the theory doesn't seem to be backed up by anything substantive.... especialy if the way to make the country better off is to cut wages for thousands of people on lower wages.

I may have taken your statement completely the wrong way though. If you are talking about cutting public sector pay at the top....those management types on 300k a year in the NHS, or massive MPs expense claims etc, I'd agree. But considering your other posts on "if you want the best you have to pay for them" I would guess you are not talking about cutting these types of peoples pay while protecting those on the ground".

I think that many people in the public sector earn more than is necessary for them to be paid. I'd pay nurses more as there is a shortage of them, teachers in London too.

Areas where there aren't shortages I'd definitely cut wages though or more accurately let inflation take care of the problem.

Loughton_Monkey

stator wrote: »

I'd go the other way. Abolish all free benefits for old people and means test the state pension.

I go along with this 100%, provided it starts for all people reaching 65 in, say, 2018 onwards. It would be very harsh to apply it to the boomer generation. Best to apply these cuts to the generations that had a much richer youth/middle age.

Graham_Devon

Good point actually Loughton.

Cut the £10 christmas bonus malarky and there you go.... 1.2% (nevermind the running costs) of the £12bn hole filled.

Pigs might fly, of course. Theres actually pressure to increase the christmas bonus to all pensioners to £126 a year to bring it into line with where it would eb had it risen alongside RPI since it was first announced.

It's seen as "It's a joke, it won't even cover my chirstmas card stamps" and other such stupid lines....supported by the likes of <spit> Janet Street-Porter.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Current focus within BIS appears to be on Travel and Subsistence. Compared to the Private sector there's a huge amount of abuse and lack of control over expenditure. Heard today about someone today who lives in France but works in the UK. Due to their aversion to flying and other means of public transport. They hire a car then catch a ferry. In the UK they then use the hire car to attend meetings around the country.

Makes you wonder if the individuals such as this actually offer value for money to the taxpayer when performing their job as well.

Public Sector? Evidence?

Sounds like one of expensive consultants that are being hired from our taxes to do a job when we have sacked public sector employees who used to do the job for about a quarter of the cost.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Current focus within BIS appears to be on Travel and Subsistence. Compared to the Private sector there's a huge amount of abuse and lack of control over expenditure. Heard today about someone today who lives in France but works in the UK. Due to their aversion to flying and other means of public transport. They hire a car then catch a ferry. In the UK they then use the hire car to attend meetings around the country.

Makes you wonder if the individuals such as this actually offer value for money to the taxpayer when performing their job as well.

Theres an MP with a constituency in the north who moved down here.

Now, for the vast majority of people, travelling costs to their day job would render their job out of the question.

But not for the MP. She just claims massive travel costs to run her surgery up in her constituency and claims a hotel stay on top twice a week.

I can't see any normal person having an employer who would do the same thing. If people want to move fine....but their commute costs are up to them. It doesn't seem to work that way for MPs, or councillors for that matter who it seems can do the same thing.