FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Further Cuts In Spending
Further Cuts In Spending
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Today the government published part of its spending plans for the next fiscal year and depending on who you listen to and interpretation of the magnitude ranges from 1.8% to 8%.
I have been very fortunate and have always had good health and worked, paying my taxes. I would be happy for an increase in taxes in general if that is what is needed to help reduce the deficit. Just listened to various senior police officers on the news clearly state that the cuts are reducing front line police work. Similarly various hospitals are saying that services will stretched this winter to a point where patient care will be seriously hampered to a point of the service being dangerous.
Is a general increase in taxation part of the solution? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
The largest part of the spending cuts were always planned for the next two years. This was predicated on the _iew that tax receipts would be up but we have a situation where tax is down as people are in work but earnings are low. Increasing taxation at the moment would be difficult.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The largest part of the spending cuts were always planned for the next two years. This was predicated on the _iew that tax receipts would be up but we have a situation where tax is down as people are in work but earnings are low. Increasing taxation at the moment would be difficult.
"
But if the top 20% of earners in the country paid 15% additional tax for two years that would help with the immediate cash flow issue which you have pointed out.
Seems silly to me that we can afford a an increase in defence spending at a time like this? Nuclear weapons will not impact on savages that murder children in schools? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I pay enough tax each month....if they even think of raising taxes they have to raise wages to compensate for it..."
if asked would you not consider say a 2 pence in the pound increase?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Unless the top earners went abroad..."
That's a chance you take with an aggressive income tax policy. Personally I wouldn't loose much sleep if Griff Rhys Jones went walkabout.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's a 30billion surplus from income taxes just lying around, they should spend that to keep these services going.
Not happy that many MPs have recieved a 19% pay rise either, who the fuck are they representing here?
Instead of stupid ohrases like 'all in this together' and 'do the right thing' i'd like to see things like 'if you haven't lived my life then you can't represent me'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We could consider a cut back in universal benefits? Those earning £50k per annum did not receive child benefit or those of pensionable age with an income (from whatever source) of £50 or more did not get a state pension. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There's a 30billion surplus from income taxes just lying around, they should spend that to keep these services going.
Not happy that many MPs have recieved a 19% pay rise either, who the fuck are they representing here?
Instead of stupid ohrases like 'all in this together' and 'do the right thing' i'd like to see things like 'if you haven't lived my life then you can't represent me'."
Where do you find the £30b in taxes? Have you told George? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Having spent a large chunk of the day analysing the local government finance settlement, don't be fooled by the 1.8% reduction figure, it is smoke and mirrors and the real reduction in funding to councils is far higher. Unless of course you live in a wealthy Conservative-voting shire with a broad council tax base. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's a 30billion surplus from income taxes just lying around, they should spend that to keep these services going.
Not happy that many MPs have recieved a 19% pay rise either, who the fuck are they representing here?
Instead of stupid ohrases like 'all in this together' and 'do the right thing' i'd like to see things like 'if you haven't lived my life then you can't represent me'. Where do you find the £30b in taxes? Have you told George?"
think it was taxes? it's from the money they can only spend on NHS and welfare anyway.
http://www.welfareweekly.com/opinion-30-billion-national-insurance-surplus-kick-teeth-starving-families/
national insurance, sorry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
But in answer to the original question, no I would not be happy with an increase in general taxation. Pouring more money into the system will not 'fix' anything. Fundamental reform to the entire welfare system and NHS to take account of huge demographic changes is what's required, but because the majority of the public are wedded to now sadly unviable institutions, this won't happen any time soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Having spent a large chunk of the day analysing the local government finance settlement, don't be fooled by the 1.8% reduction figure, it is smoke and mirrors and the real reduction in funding to councils is far higher. Unless of course you live in a wealthy Conservative-voting shire with a broad council tax base. "
I do live in a wealthy conservative shire but I think the cut figure is 8% if you add the freeze on council tax.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Having spent a large chunk of the day analysing the local government finance settlement, don't be fooled by the 1.8% reduction figure, it is smoke and mirrors and the real reduction in funding to councils is far higher. Unless of course you live in a wealthy Conservative-voting shire with a broad council tax base. "
...saw this thread and knew you wouldn't be able to resist...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Having spent a large chunk of the day analysing the local government finance settlement, don't be fooled by the 1.8% reduction figure, it is smoke and mirrors and the real reduction in funding to councils is far higher. Unless of course you live in a wealthy Conservative-voting shire with a broad council tax base. I do live in a wealthy conservative shire but I think the cut figure is 8% if you add the freeze on council tax."
It may well be 8%. For a number of inner London boroughs and urban metropolitan districts the reality is higher. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"But in answer to the original question, no I would not be happy with an increase in general taxation. Pouring more money into the system will not 'fix' anything. Fundamental reform to the entire welfare system and NHS to take account of huge demographic changes is what's required, but because the majority of the public are wedded to now sadly unviable institutions, this won't happen any time soon. "
I agree but a three programme of aggressive tax changes and reform of the benefit system (see Universal Benefit comment above)would get the deficit under control and allow a cogent debate to take place on a fiscal revenue re_iew
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *umpkinMan
over a year ago
near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack! |
I don`t know how much of the Local Authority spending "cuts" are actually a re-direction of funds from the education program towards schools that have gone to "acadamy status". Smoke and mirrors, whatever you want to call it, but it has to be taken into consideration. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don`t know how much of the Local Authority spending "cuts" are actually a re-direction of funds from the education program towards schools that have gone to "acadamy status". Smoke and mirrors, whatever you want to call it, but it has to be taken into consideration."
It does have to be taken into consideration, as does the fact that the funding has been "redirected" by central government to such an extent that funding per pupil in secondary academies is now, on average, around £700 higher than for non-academy local authority controlled secondaries. It has not been a like-for-like switch of funding for costs - councils have lost a lot from this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you think this year is bad...the top tax rate needs to be returned to where it was; tax avoidance should be made a crime as in US; spend on infrastructure; scrap the Minimum Wage and replace it with the Living Wage which will reduce in work benefits but put the onus on the employer not the state to pay fair wages. And btw Universal Credit is not the answer to our prayers, it treats working people as badly as non working people, levelling down. Rant over!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Scrap the Minimum Wage and replace it with the Living Wage which will reduce in work benefits but put the onus on the employer not the state to pay fair wages.
I agree with this, how can it be fair, that a worker for a company declearing billions of pounds profile still be able to claim some benefits  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
Scrap the Minimum Wage and replace it with the Living Wage which will reduce in work benefits but put the onus on the employer not the state to pay fair wages.
I agree with this, how can it be fair, that a worker for a company declearing billions of pounds profile still be able to claim some benefits "
Or an elderly Queen getting Winter Fuel Allowance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Scrap the Minimum Wage and replace it with the Living Wage which will reduce in work benefits but put the onus on the employer not the state to pay fair wages.
I agree with this, how can it be fair, that a worker for a company declearing billions of pounds profile still be able to claim some benefits
Or an elderly Queen getting Winter Fuel Allowance?"
are you talking about her maj or are you just being an ageist homophobe? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The largest part of the spending cuts were always planned for the next two years. This was predicated on the _iew that tax receipts would be up but we have a situation where tax is down as people are in work but earnings are low. Increasing taxation at the moment would be difficult.
But if the top 20% of earners in the country paid 15% additional tax for two years that would help with the immediate cash flow issue which you have pointed out.
Seems silly to me that we can afford a an increase in defence spending at a time like this? Nuclear weapons will not impact on savages that murder children in schools? "
You're quite right. However, should Pakistan succumb to the Taliban it's probably worth noting that the country is a nuclear power.....gulp! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The largest part of the spending cuts were always planned for the next two years. This was predicated on the _iew that tax receipts would be up but we have a situation where tax is down as people are in work but earnings are low. Increasing taxation at the moment would be difficult.
But if the top 20% of earners in the country paid 15% additional tax for two years that would help with the immediate cash flow issue which you have pointed out.
Seems silly to me that we can afford a an increase in defence spending at a time like this? Nuclear weapons will not impact on savages that murder children in schools?
You're quite right. However, should Pakistan succumb to the Taliban it's probably worth noting that the country is a nuclear power.....gulp! "
.
Yeah freighting or what .. Still don't mention about sorting out those terrible Muslims or you'll just be a racist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you think this year is bad...the top tax rate needs to be returned to where it was; tax avoidance should be made a crime as in US; spend on infrastructure; scrap the Minimum Wage and replace it with the Living Wage which will reduce in work benefits but put the onus on the employer not the state to pay fair wages. And btw Universal Credit is not the answer to our prayers, it treats working people as badly as non working people, levelling down. Rant over!!"
absolutely! tax avoidance in this country is rife...apparently accounts for over 16 times the cost of benefit fraud here...and tax avoidance IS fraud!
as you say, in the states its a crime...not just 'creative accounting'! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"...........
You're quite right. However, should Pakistan succumb to the Taliban it's probably worth noting that the country is a nuclear power.....gulp! .
Yeah freighting or what .. Still don't mention about sorting out those terrible Muslims or you'll just be a racist"
It's worth noting that the Glasgow councillor who's gone to Pakistan because some of his relatives were killed was in the papers a few years back for taking his kids to Pakistan and teaching them how to use AK47s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"If you think this year is bad...the top tax rate needs to be returned to where it was; tax avoidance should be made a crime as in US; spend on infrastructure; scrap the Minimum Wage and replace it with the Living Wage which will reduce in work benefits but put the onus on the employer not the state to pay fair wages. And btw Universal Credit is not the answer to our prayers, it treats working people as badly as non working people, levelling down. Rant over!!
absolutely! tax avoidance in this country is rife...apparently accounts for over 16 times the cost of benefit fraud here...and tax avoidance IS fraud!
as you say, in the states its a crime...not just 'creative accounting'!"
I am laughing as tax avoidance as its called accounts for circa £17b of the deficit. Avoidance is morally wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
That said the very intelligent lady from NOT is right chucking money at the problems has been tried hence the deficit so we need to think smarter and maybe dispense with things we no longer need like
A nuclear deterrent
House of Lords
The House of Windsor
The British Council
As a start?
Lordy I am turning into a bleeding heart Liberal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Is there any evidence that tax avoidance being illegal means collection rates are significantly higher in the US? (Genuine question)
And re scrapping things we no longer 'need' - there are some valid arguments for getting rid of the House of Lords and House of Windsor (although I disagree with most of them) but money wise it would be a drop in the ocean, and any alternative such as an elected head of state or could well end up costing more.
Even scrapping nuclear arms capability wouldn't do what's needed. I was thinking more of wholesale change to the way pensions, social care and the NHS are funded and provided, that's the ticking time bomb because we are all loving longer lives and therefore many more years with complex health and care needs - with not enough people of working age to support it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Why does everyone assume that by getting rid of the royal family, you need another head of state, and an expensive one at that?  "
I fess up I am not a Royalist and I happen to believe that giving the head of a family who is head of state circa £32m per year when that person has an estimated personal wealth of circa £1.5b, is just morally wrong. As a democratic country we should have a say in who represents the vox pop on the world stage. As it stands at the moment our attempt to promote democracy in Afghanistan is to send a prince to that country put him in a helicopter gun ship and shoot at them.
If a democratically elected HOS costs more then so be it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But in answer to the original question, no I would not be happy with an increase in general taxation. Pouring more money into the system will not 'fix' anything. Fundamental reform to the entire welfare system and NHS to take account of huge demographic changes is what's required, but because the majority of the public are wedded to now sadly unviable institutions, this won't happen any time soon. "
what language is that?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does everyone assume that by getting rid of the royal family, you need another head of state, and an expensive one at that? "
Point me in the direction of a functioning, democratic country without some kind of head of state in whatever shape or form. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
what language is that?
The language of someone who knows what they're talking about, that's why no one understands me  "
I understand you perfectly. I may differ on some of your _iews and comments but that's why people gave their lives and continue to so in order that we can debate such matters? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does everyone assume that by getting rid of the royal family, you need another head of state, and an expensive one at that? I fess up I am not a Royalist and I happen to believe that giving the head of a family who is head of state circa £32m per year when that person has an estimated personal wealth of circa £1.5b, is just morally wrong. As a democratic country we should have a say in who represents the vox pop on the world stage. As it stands at the moment our attempt to promote democracy in Afghanistan is to send a prince to that country put him in a helicopter gun ship and shoot at them.
If a democratically elected HOS costs more then so be it. "
Like I said, there are good arguments for getting rid of the Royal family (even though I AM a royalist) but money is not one. £32m a year? The public sector organisation I work for has had to cut four times that over the past few years, and it's not even a particularly large one. £32m in the context of overall public spending would be lost in the rounding of figures. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"We have a prime minister. Why do we need a head of state?
Everyone else has one, so we should isn't a valid reason. "
The reason a non elected head of state is not democratic is quite simply they are there for life and cannot be removed if they do not represents the requirements of the country. Last time I was in Moss Side in Manchester I didn't see a polo club............. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does everyone assume that by getting rid of the royal family, you need another head of state, and an expensive one at that? I fess up I am not a Royalist and I happen to believe that giving the head of a family who is head of state circa £32m per year when that person has an estimated personal wealth of circa £1.5b, is just morally wrong. As a democratic country we should have a say in who represents the vox pop on the world stage. As it stands at the moment our attempt to promote democracy in Afghanistan is to send a prince to that country put him in a helicopter gun ship and shoot at them.
If a democratically elected HOS costs more then so be it.
Like I said, there are good arguments for getting rid of the Royal family (even though I AM a royalist) but money is not one. £32m a year? The public sector organisation I work for has had to cut four times that over the past few years, and it's not even a particularly large one. £32m in the context of overall public spending would be lost in the rounding of figures. "
Every little helps. That's what Georgie boy reckons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
what language is that?
The language of someone who knows what they're talking about, that's why no one understands me "
big ass and a big brain
truely gifted  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Why does everyone assume that by getting rid of the royal family, you need another head of state, and an expensive one at that? I fess up I am not a Royalist and I happen to believe that giving the head of a family who is head of state circa £32m per year when that person has an estimated personal wealth of circa £1.5b, is just morally wrong. As a democratic country we should have a say in who represents the vox pop on the world stage. As it stands at the moment our attempt to promote democracy in Afghanistan is to send a prince to that country put him in a helicopter gun ship and shoot at them.
If a democratically elected HOS costs more then so be it.
Like I said, there are good arguments for getting rid of the Royal family (even though I AM a royalist) but money is not one. £32m a year? The public sector organisation I work for has had to cut four times that over the past few years, and it's not even a particularly large one. £32m in the context of overall public spending would be lost in the rounding of figures. "
Or put another way could fund a youth training programme in an inner city................I understand the figures and the enormity of the deal but sometimes principles need to be order of the day! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The deficit is debt, mainly accumulated due to the banking crisis and its effects...so we borrowed money to shore up banks behaving badly; we borrowed that money from markets run by...banks!! If anyone tells me the public sector and the poorest parts of the country need to suffer and use food banks to "share the pain" whilst our current government won't regulate banker bonuses but won't pay a fair wage to its own employees either? Priorities here people?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"we need a revolution babyWell we need something to get priorities correct perhaps a good old fashioned change in direction. "
change is coming
people are starting to show that the big 2 that have ruled forever arent invincible anymore. Voting UKIP was a big fcuk you to the blues and reds more than anything
people want change |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"we need a revolution babyWell we need something to get priorities correct perhaps a good old fashioned change in direction.
change is coming
people are starting to show that the big 2 that have ruled forever arent invincible anymore. Voting UKIP was a big fcuk you to the blues and reds more than anything
people want change"
Does anyone think if UKIP was in power anything would really change?
All the main parties look the same because that is the way the country has to be run. You can only tinker at the edges.
So under UKIP we would be dragged out of Europe but then what? I listen to what they say but they look like a one trick pony to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"we need a revolution babyWell we need something to get priorities correct perhaps a good old fashioned change in direction.
change is coming
people are starting to show that the big 2 that have ruled forever arent invincible anymore. Voting UKIP was a big fcuk you to the blues and reds more than anything
people want change"
But not the UKIP..............dear lord no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The only good thing ukip had done, is show the electorate that a vote for A.N.Other, is NOT a wasted vote. Keeping the status quo seems more of a waste of a vote to me. Political parties don't change unless the voters show their disdain with them and threaten their livelihood.
Vote Green!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does everyone assume that by getting rid of the royal family, you need another head of state, and an expensive one at that?
Point me in the direction of a functioning, democratic country without some kind of head of state in whatever shape or form. "
.
The isle of man is about as close as you get, technically the queen is the head of state, holding the title the lord of man but she had no real power, on another note they probably have a claim for the oldest democracy in which time they have flicked between having no states to royal heads. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I would probably agree with the Green vote as being one for change. The thread has been watered down somewhat. My thoughts were if we can afford bombs and missiles we should be able to maintain a decent level of public services?
But then I am but a dreamer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Untill we get MPs that actually care about what happens to this country things will never change.
Stop the state from propping up multi national companies wage bills,with TAX CREDITS, stop corrupt MPs from being able to hold any kind of position, in any company, while they hold a seat in Parliament.
Force by law that every single MP, to list publicly all of their own and their families, share holdings in companies that hold government contracts.
Corruption in the house is so rife it beggars belief.
We may all be in it,just those at the top are standing aloof of those at the bottom.
No matter what colour the tie, they are only in it to make money for themselves.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
