Advanced search

To think that no cuts are ever going to be acceptable

(64 Posts)
loveisagirlnameddaisy Thu 25-Jul-13 14:57:06

Not sure if this has been done, I'm not on here every day. But all the news stories since the Coalition govt came to power about unpopular cuts gets me thinking... if I were Dave for a day, what would I do? I hear about cuts to local services impacting vulnerable members of society which really upset me, but then others say that the arts/culture cuts are bad for other reasons. Assuming there have to be cuts (and I'm not saying there does), what would you cut and why? It seems like an almost impossible task, whoever is in power.

(Not clear on Labour's latest viewpoint - they initially appeared to be behind more investment, not less, but didn't Ed suggest recently that there would have to be cuts?)

OfficerMeow Thu 25-Jul-13 14:57:59

I'd call in every single penny of tax owed by everyone, and not cut anythiing.

YouTheCat Thu 25-Jul-13 14:59:42

Pursue the tax evaders and avoiders so there would be no cuts.

If there was a need for cuts, cut the amount of expenses MPs get and all the free/subsidised stuff they get in the House of Commons.

NoComet Thu 25-Jul-13 15:00:01

Sacking all Ofsted inspectors, HMIs and officials from the DfE would make a lot if teachers, parents and pupils very very happy indeed.

YouTheCat Thu 25-Jul-13 15:00:45

And say no to Trident.

Tee2072 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:03:07

Yes, what Officer said.

Get all the money that is owed and get the wealthy to cough up their fair share and cuts wouldn't be necessary.

cory Thu 25-Jul-13 15:08:58

It would also be nicer to see any necessary cuts carried out without vilifying campaigns about vulnerable members of society. Perhaps savings could be made there? wink

Personally, I think this government is losing money: by failing to get the economy going, by a rise in (ultimately expensive) social division, by sudden and ill-thought through privatisation which will probably not result in more efficient running but in local services being tied through long-term and hastily pushed through contracts to providers with no incentive to deliver a good service because they've got a 25 year contract.

loveisagirlnameddaisy Thu 25-Jul-13 15:10:06

Recent Guardian article suggested £30bn lost every year in unpaid tax whether avoidance or evasion.

YouTheCat Thu 25-Jul-13 15:13:49

And what Cory said. Their economic policy is fundamentally flawed.

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 15:15:22

How do people suggest the government goes about "calling in every penny of tax owed by everyone"?

Tee2072 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:17:45

Change the laws and close the gaps, Tabitha. Swift and equitable prosecution for evasion with jail time or heavy fines.

That's the way other countries do it, with quite a bit of success.

Takingbackmonday Thu 25-Jul-13 15:18:13

I really hate this 'fair share' bollocks. The richest 1% already pay around a third of all income tax revenues. That seems deeply unfair to me.

cory Thu 25-Jul-13 15:18:39

Myyess, so much easier to run campaigns insinuating that disabled people are benefit scroungers.

YouTheCat Thu 25-Jul-13 15:19:28

They could ask their friends to pay up for a start. grin

Iamsparklyknickers Thu 25-Jul-13 15:19:59

I'm on board with the idea of getting taxes already owed paid up. I would also be more willing to spend a little to gain a lot.

I wouldn't be trusting public services to make their own decisions about whose job gets cut and which services are 'streamlined'. These places are full of people who (unsurprisingly) don't think their own jobs should be cut and don't really have a decent grasp of economics and business to be able to make sound decisions. It needs an outside organisation to put a plan in place neutrally.

I would also be looking to create a stable foundation to allow people to be less dependent on the state - social housing would go a long way. I wouldn't even object to the government commandeering land for a limited amount of for-profit projects rather than Barrett Homes.

Child care also needs looking at imho.

The majority of benefit claimants don't want to be dependent on the state, give a little security and perhaps there would be far more willingness to take on lower paid jobs or start a business.

YouTheCat Thu 25-Jul-13 15:20:01

What about corporations, Taking?

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 15:21:06

"Change the laws and close the gaps, Tabitha. Swift and equitable prosecution for evasion with jail time or heavy fines."
Which laws would you change, and how? What gaps would you close, and how?

"That's the way other countries do it, with quite a bit of success."
What other countries have zero tax evasion? Is it because of anything their governments do, or simply because people reside elsewhere and pay tax there?

itsnothingoriginal Thu 25-Jul-13 15:21:06

I agree with cory that what has been truly vile is the hate campaign directed towards what is seen as benefit scroungers and those such as the disabled who are claiming benefits. This has been purely so that cuts can be made towards the most vulnerable.

Whilst working in the public sector I've seen some projects with no outcomes thrown shocking amounts of cash whilst other services and practitioners have lost jobs or had to close sad

There seems to have been little or no interest in monitoring where the cuts have been made and what has been lost as a result.

Tee2072 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:21:36

Oh and stop vilifying the benefits users and start vilifying the tax evaders.

And/or make income tax a straight percentage of income. Everyone pay the same percentage of their after basic expenses income.

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 15:23:35

Who would decide what a suitable amount of "expenses" were?

BenedictCumberbitch Thu 25-Jul-13 15:23:36

this isn't 100 percent accurate now but it's close and proves the point

It's an easy-to-access fact and yet the general public, when asked would probably not know that the difference was so large.

Agree with tee and OfficerM

BlokesCantBuyPressies Thu 25-Jul-13 15:24:57

I've always thought that you could save a lot of money by simplification - eg Income Tax and National Insurance are separated only in order to obfuscate the total cost. Lump it all together, call it all tax and get on with collecting it.

Also, things like means-testing child benefit (although it sounds egalitarian) seem unlikely to save money given the administrative costs. Easier to just pay it to everyone, safe in the knowledge that the rich people receiving it are paying back vastly more in tax.

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 15:27:03

It's a lot easier to do something about benefit fraud than it is is tax evasion. Plus there's the difference between illegitmately keeping money you've earnt and and illegitimately taking money someone else has earnt.

Tee2072 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:27:57

I never said a suitable amount. I said basic living. So food/shelter/utilities/whatever, no matter how much, would be paid first. Then a percentage of what's left paid in taxes. Then any left would be for luxuries.

Perhaps have small allowable amount for luxuries as well, before the tax is assessed. Everyone deserves treats.

YouTheCat Thu 25-Jul-13 15:29:21

Tabitha that is bollocks. Many people pay tax and receive tax credits. Taken with one hand and given with the other.

Do you realise how tiny the amount of actual benefit fraud is compared to tax offences?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: