to think that seeing our national debt might

[rottentomatoes]

stop people moaning about the government spending cuts? Aibu to think that if this timebomb was put on every computer screen as a screen saver people might be less likely to moan about the cuts being made in government spending.

Our Debt

Where it goes

So Yonikeeper where would you make the savings? Genuine question

Well, the question wasn't directed at me but I'd start with defence spending. I don't believe we need Trident for a start.

12. means test pensions

13. national service for 16 - 25 year olds that are not in work or education.

I love that the fact that the debt is going up is being ignored.

Im not ignoring it but i think the gov dont care that much. The cuts are ideology not nessaerry.

tee are you saying that we'd have to massively increase benefits to compensate for the poor having to pay the same tax as the wealthy?

Or we should cut the tax that the wealthy are paying?

Or we should increase the tax that the poorest pay and allow them to starve?

Dawndonna
That is interesting! I didn't know that, basically we're in a terrible state aren't we.

Anairofhope
So if they means test pensions wouldn't all people with private pensions refuse to pay in thus making the situation worse?

I think they should means test things like bus passes, heating allowance, free TV licence, free prescriptions etc. They should also raise the age to be in line with retirement age.

Thank you rotten Yep, we're in a dreadful state!

Outraged "I think they should means test things like bus passes, heating allowance, free TV licence, free prescriptions etc. They should also raise the age to be in line with retirement age"

There are very good reasons why means-testing has been resisted in the past, not least becasue it is questionable how much, if any actual savings are ever made.

also, from the National Audit Office

"Departments do not systematically consider or measure all of the impacts of means testing: for example, the burden on claimants, such as difficulty with completing forms and the cost of requesting advice. Issues associated with means testing, such as incorrect declarations of earnings and errors by officials in calculating entitlements, accounted for over half of all fraud and error in benefits and tax credits."

www.nao.org.uk/report/means-testing/

I would still like to know how much extra tax "the rich" should pay and from what level from those that think the answer is to tax the wealthy more.

The biggest myths were that things were critical when this government got in and that cuts in the areas which will cause the most long term danage to both our economy & our social infrastructure were neccessary at all, we've gone from in 2009 having in fact the lowest level of debt of any of the leading industrialised nations (Its 68.7% of GDP compares favourably with the US (84.8%), Italy (115.8%) and Japan (218.6%) in particular.) to 2013 and falling further & faster than competitors who haven't cut spending of further education, welfare etc or given tax-breaks to the wealthy.

They means test loads of other things though. It seems odd they can't manage it once you get to 60. Prescriptions, for example, are means tested all through adulthood, what happens at 60 that they can no longer administrate it?! Maybe they should just put the age up to 70 or something then.

rotten - personally just as we seem quite happy to live with the idea that government can sanction people on benefits - effectively withdrawing their means of support then it should be just as easy to live with the idea that the 1000 people in Britain who made gains of £155 billion over a three year period should have that sanctioned (they'd still have the billions they made over the previous three years. Just as a one off tax to show how we're all in it together and really shouldn't be profiting from the misery inflicted on the rest of us by the bankers' profligacy.

outraged, in England we have (not all of the UK) - and higher costs for dental treatment, sight tests etc. Which in the short term have saved how much do you reckon? and what do you estimate the costs to the NHS long term as a result of people going to the dentist less regularly or having their eyes tested might be?

www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/ros-altmann-means-testing-s-taking-us-off-a-path-to-opportunity-1-2704741

If people are going to the dentist/opticians all through their adult life, why would they stop going when it's no longer free at age 60?

If it's been free, due to low income, it will continue to be.

If they've been paying, due to higher income, they will continue to do so for another 10 years.

I don't understand why chaning from 60 to 70 is going to make a massive difference in whether people go to the dentist or not? Surely it's just refelcting that people live longer and 60 is no longer 'old' like it used to be?

Barsteward

I was actually talking about people not currently retired. People would surely have the right to stop paying into a government pension if they knew that they would never receive it. And as today's workers are paying for their parents and grand parents pensions it would likely leave the country in a worse state.

So what does anyone think would be an appropriate tax percentage for the Rich then? And from what level? I am genuinely interested as a couple of people have suggested increasing taxation for the rich.

Benefits were supposed to be the bare minumum

Umm hello. THEY ARE! Why do people who have no idea what it's actually like on benefits feel the need to tell those who are on them how easy there lives are? Genuine question?

*their

All this prejudice is making my typing rubbish

I would still like to know how much extra tax "the rich" should pay and from what level from those that think the answer is to tax the wealthy more.

This is where I have a big issue.

Someone I know well has their own business and do very well out of it. But they still pay less taxes than me and DH do. Because they only pay themselves minimum wages and then get 'dividends' which are never taxed at 40%. All completely legal by the way.
So less taxes for the government.

Then you have all the companies that don't pay the taxes they should etc... Sometimes by using very legal ways and sometimes not so legal ways.

The fact that richer people in the country are getting richer and poorer people are getting poorer and that there is now a clear divide that didn't exist 10 years ago is telling me there is certainly something to do about taxing adequately the right people (as persons and companies).

luckybarsteward

This is the thing. A lot of the cuts put in place have been rejected by economists as they all think it will make things worse.

A quick way to look at it is that: People on low income are the people who have no other things to do than spend to ensure a certain level of living. They need to pay for food, housing etc... They usually have little savings for that reason (and if they do, it is usually a reserve to some spending such as holidays, breakdown of the car etc...).
People on high income proportionally spend less, have high levels of savings (that might or not do directly in the economy by spending).

If you reduce the income of the poorer people, then you reduce the amount of money spent so less money put in the economy (ie less money spent in shops, therefore more shops which are closing. And also factories etc.. that are also closing as the demands is lower al together). Can you see the snowball effect?

Then by reducing spending on education, you end up with a population that is less well educated which, in the long term, will also be detrimental to the economy (less people with the right education to make all the companies/services work).
Same with health (A healthy population will clearly be better able to 'produce' and have a valuable contribution to the economy).

I would say that these measures have more to do with ideological decisions than economical decisions tbh.

TheYoni perhaps there isn't a need to tax 'rich people' more but a need to ensure that 'rich' people pay as much tax than 'poor' people iyswim.

Changes to the tax and benefit systems to make things work better ....

Taxes
Abolish Class 2 NI.
Merge Class 1 and Class 4 NI into income tax - in the process aligning NI and tax rates.
Abolish non domicile and overseas resident status : if you want to live in the UK for more than half the year you will pay tax here.
Harmonise rates between capital and income taxes to get rid of the carried interest loopholes.
Revert the rules on overseas subsidiaries to how they were before Broon cocked them up.
Make the NMW higher for listed companies - so that they cannot use the tax credits system to subsidise low pay.

Pensions
Get rid of pensioner tax credits - those who most need it are too ashamed to claim.
Increase the basic state pension
BUT
abolish all universal pensioner benefits so that those who pay tax do not get them (esp higher rate pensioners who spend their winter fuel money at Majectic)

benefits
Abolish single parent benefits : make it economic for parents to live together - or people to share houses (as the reality of couples forced to live apart is daft)
Make short term unemployment benefit (for 6 months) generous
but after that make it essential to take on some sort of work