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

The chris481 lazy dictatorship tax and benefits system:-

Every individual gets paid a poverty level income (60% of median non-benefit income?) and everyone is taxed at whatever single flat rate an independent agency deems is necessary to balance the books in the long term.

Other than basic income, there are no other cash benefits. No housing benefit. Nothing extra for having children. You don't lose any money when sharing a house with other adults. There would be an incentive to share housing, the opposite of now where "couples" on benefits get more money by living apart.

If lots of people initially chose to live on the basic income rather than work, the median income hence the basic income would drop until enough people were forced back into work and a balance was struck

chris
or you would get civil breakdown and a HUGE increase in crime and burglary and a massive increase in the £400 a week prison population.

If there are no jobs, then the jobless will starve or steal - as will their children.
Gangs of street children roaming Reading as is the case in Delhi?

The point of a decent welfare system is that it is Opium for the masses so reduces crime and civil unrest : both of which are expensive to deal with and make the rich take their money and flee.

Tax rate back up to 50% for big earners, another three or four bands on top of the council tax so those in huge homes pay their fair whack.

Stop paying supplementary benefits to wealthy pensioners.

Won't happen as the rich and the old are those most likely to vote Tory.

TalkingPeace, there are so many inaccuracies in that post I don't even know where to start.

Suffice to say - anyone thinking about pensions please do research and don't take that as gospel.

or you would get civil breakdown and a HUGE increase in crime and burglary and a massive increase in the £400 a week prison population.

I think you are assuming that what I'm proposing is tighter than what we have, actually after lifestyle adjustments (mainly house-sharing) I'm assuming the vast majority of people would be far better off.

Haven't done the calculations thought, it's just an outline idea.

statistically
I am genuinely interested as to why you think what I say about pensions is wrong.

The hidden and front loaded fees within UK personal pensions have been so disastrous that even Moneybox on Radio 4 this week described them as a bad thing.

As an employer and an employee I have been reading up on pensions : DC and DB and NEST and others : and the more I read the less I am convinced that a "pension pot" with the up front 'tax benefit' is now, ever was and ever will be a good idea for the vast majority of people.

Only those with a really sound understanding of annuity rates and the assumptions behind them will genuinely make money out of DC pensions

DB pensions were crippled by the pension holidays of the 1980's and Broon's ACT raid of the early 2000's compounded by overoptimistic mortality and return rate figures.

Pensions were invented at the start of the 20th Century. They were not a long term product. Time to let them die.

I think I'm saying you get 10K a year benefit income even if living with a in-work/wealthy relative, for example.

chris
would you let strangers move into your house?
or is house sharing only for others?

So if the tax rate were 50% and you earned 10K a year from working, you'd be on 15K a year net income. And if you did choose to live with another relatively poor person with similar income, that would be 30K a year household net income. 45K for three, etc.

Before using the national debt as a screensaver perhaps a dictionary definition to explain the difference between "debt" and "deficit" would be in order, seeing as most people don't appear to know the difference (it doesn't help that Ed Balls et al deliberately confuse the issue to get gullible voters in-side).

chris
you UTTERLY misunderstand tax rates.
How can a tax rate increase your net income?

and how ON EARTH can you economically sustain paying people more money to not work while living in an overcrowded way
methinks you need to read your DHs tax bill

On-side*

I do share my house, with my wife. (Though I'd rather not, as she's very messy!)

House share is not compulsory, but I think it would be extremely attractive to the less well off, am guessing it would greatly increase disposable income compared to current benefits system.

mateinthree

Debt : mortgage - to buy the things like houses that need buying
Deficit : monthly overdraft because you bought too many takeaways mid month

Deficit can only be removed by
a) being careful next month
b) adding to debt (consolidation loan)

but sooner or later lender of debt will say - NO MORE
and the spending has to drop to not only less than income, but enough less to pay off the bits of debt that have to be repaid.

chris
I think it would be extremely attractive to the less well off
which just shows how out of touch you are

which room would you put the sharers in? : as the parents are in one room, kids are in bunk beds in another, nan spends most days in the lounge and the kitchen is tiny : there are no other rooms in a 2 bed ex council house : other than the bath of course.

talkin peace - sorry, but 'you need to read the business pages of the broadsheets more' - patronising, much?
Of course the wealth gap is less than in the developing world. But it's still unacceptable imo.

^you UTTERLY misunderstand tax rates.
How can a tax rate increase your net income?^

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying, obviously haven't made myself clear.

Every individual gets a cash benefit which I would guess ( have not worked it out or looked it up ) would be about 10K a year. This is everyone: unemployed, working, SAHMs, millionaires wives and adult children living with them, everyone.

Everyone pays same rate of tax (say 50%) on every pound they earn on top of that from working.

Note that anyone in the basic rate tax band Is currently paying 40% on income in that band once all NI is included, so 50% tax out and 10K benefits in would make low-earners better of than now. 10K is equivalent to having a personal allowance of 20K in the current system.

And in the interests of fairness I do agree with a lot of your posts on this thread.

Invest in building more low cost housing?

Talkingpeace, thanks although I suspect your analogy maybe be too cryptic for some, I would prefer:

Debt: how much you owe.
Deficit: annual overspend (resulting in increased debt).

a few people have claimed here that the cuts aren't working because the debt is still going up.. Well of course it is, the debt will go up until we have eliminated the deficit, which is currently down by approx 33% from what the conservatives inherited. The debt in itself isn't the major problem, the level of annual overspend is.

I honestly think that the overall level of redistribution I'm implying is no different than we actually have at the moment (and would be willing to adjust parameters so that this were true) but my system does remove all perverse incentive. One gains nothing extra from having children, living at a different address to partner. There's clearly no disadvantage to working.

TalkinPeace I will try to reply more fully later (in the middle of studying for a nasty yet relevant upcoming exam) but

In terms of the sort of DC pension schemes that most employers will provide under auto enrollment, the level of charges is no where near the 3% you quoted. I don't know what your employer is planning to use but mine is massively below that. I don't deny there have been (and still are) some incredibly expensive options out there for pensions but the average simple pension being used for these purposes does not have that level of expenses. A government survey done last year showed that average AMCs for large schemes (1000+) is less than half of a percent.

Once you factor in the required employer contributions which (once tax relief is factored in) effectively doubles the amount you are saving (rounding here and various tax rates to consider and and and and :) ) most people would be really hard pressed to "beat" the return they will get on one of these schemes elsewhere. And many decent employers are doing higher levels of contribution than the minimum (given your profession I'd be surprised if yours isn't - mine certainly is)

Annuities - if you don't want one, don't have one. For many people the certainty they give is the right choice but for others income drawdown type options are more appropriate.

there are no other rooms in a 2 bed ex council house

I agree more than 2 adults (4 if 2 couples and no children) would be the limit for that house. There are other sizes of houses in the country.

mateinthree
The reason I think that the current cuts are not working is that they are so incredibly badly thought out.
Because the people doing the "thinking" are isolated upper class fools who have never had to live with a decision.

Bedroom tax :
Great, so long as there are smaller houses available for people to move into cheaply and quickly without need for capex mobility adjustments.
Unfortunately none of those criteria are true

Disabled back to work :
great so long as there are the flexible, large organisation jobs for them to do
Which there are not

Limiting housing benefit:
great so long as the people who are priced out of the city centres can still commute back in for work economically
but they cant

I am a small business advisor. I think in a 5 year time frame.
Sadly the SPADs who tell Gideon and Cameroon how to think were still in short trousers five years ago.

Way, way up thread I listed ways to cut the deficit : but they will never be implemented.

Try not to get to wound up by my idea. I'm unlikely to become dictator of the UK, but if I do I promise to expend more than 30 seconds inventing a fair tax and benefits system.