To ask what you would cut if you were David Cameron?

[Seeingthebeautyineveryminute]

Can't for the life of me see how £12 billion savings are going to be made. I fear it will be cuts to already diminished support and services (as opposed to increased taxation). If you were David Cameron what would you do?

So what is the right threshold for something to be worth cutting? 0.01%, 0,1%? 1%?

How many people don't tick at least one box for 'vulnerable minority',

White straight not poor not disabled gender-conformist culturally Christian males?
Are they the backbone of the economy, does that make them too important to pinch without risk of damage to the economy, too?

If cuts are made, they should be spread out & borne a bit by everybody.

No NHS treatment for those who live abroad!

I know of families where there are no working members, they receive benefits, have a nearly new car, dogs, they smoke, have a huge TV. We don't have a new car or a dog because we can't afford it. We don't smoke because we gave up for our health and our pocket, we don't have ALL the latest gadgets AND we all work!
It's not right. cameron needs to clamp right down on this. Benefits should be a safety net , not a way of life!

"I know of families where there are no working members, they receive benefits, have a nearly new car, dogs, they smoke, have a huge TV."

Daily Mail bingo!
Do you know these families well enough to know exactly what their circumstances are though Captain? Things aren't always as they seem from the outside.

HS2 is a good one. It's such a posturing vanity project.

Where shall the people who are displaced live?

There is a difference between cuts and savings. They didn't say savings, they said cuts.

If you want something that is spread out, borne by everyone that is taxation.

Yes Livid I do know the the exact circumstances of the families I referred to AND I don't read The Daily Mail.

MPs' pay (well maybe not cut it but freeze it definitely).

Scrap the state pension for anybody with a decent private pension

Scrap tax credits/child tax credits and raise the minimum wage to a living wage

Scrap child benefit for anyone above the poverty line

Scrap non means tested free school meals

Charge for prescriptions for conditions unrelated to the reason for them being free (eg my mum has epilepsy but would get antibiotics for a throat infection free)

Means test all pensioner benefits

Charge those who can afford to pay for GP appointments (not the whole cost of their treatment or anything, just like you pay for the dentist)

Clamp down on tax evasion

Introduce a rent cap then cut housing benefit down

For all those saying scrap the arts funding I would just like to point out that on average every £1 spent on the arts brings back £4 www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/12032013-lga-report-culture-investment

It's not all underwater basket weaving and shadow dancing you know

No NHS treatment for those who live abroad I agree with. I know expats who benefit hugely from not paying tax but they come back every time they give birth or need an op. Also if foreigners who have treatment on the NHS have treatment and can afford to pay we should be much more aggressive about pursuing them for the money or making them pay up front.

I have family members who are obscenely wealthy who brought one of their mothers over specifically for very expensive specialist treatment on the NHS. None of them paid a penny towards it which makes me very angry.

Funding for the arts is extremely important. It's a great investment and has a very positive impact for families trying to encourage learning outside of the school.

I think the music industry is one of the biggest exports of the UK. Why there aren't more performing arts schools which are publicly funded is beyond me.

Which types of govt spending don't drive economic growth & bring back money into the economy?

Is there a league table that shows what types of govt. spending drive growth the most?

illjkk it's broader than that. The question is which government policies promote long term growth and innovation. And it's well established that policies that encourage "rent seeking" or "hoarding" have the opposite effect.

That's why countries that eg have large oil or mineral reserves tend to be backward in terms of widespread economic prosperity.

In the uk, government policy is to reward those who hoard land and also those who charge other people rent to occupy it. This does not promote growth because those people who paying a large proportion of their earnings in rent are unable to buy the other things they need.

It also doesn't promote growth because property owners don't invest their wealth in other more productive places.

It also means that children in private rental are less likely to enjoy a stable education in a continuous educational setting, and that inefficiently, advantage is offered to other young people for reasons unconnected to their ability.

It also means that politics becomes inextricably linked, for property owners (who are currently in a majority), to a very sticky fear of change, making it very difficult to escape and move forward as a country.

Only something very bad, sadly, is likely to change the status quo.

Welfare benefits are a distraction from this larger issue.

Not sure what all that means, Figment. This league table does not make home ownership look like a key to economic prosperity.

Tighter controls on what is ordered on prescription. My sister is a pharmacist and tells me that many customers on benefits claim plasters, calamine lotion, paracetamol etc on prescription because they get it free. What do they think will happen to the NHS if it's abused in this way. Of course there are some seriously poor people who need those items , but not the ones who stand outside puffing away waiting for their prescription for a 50p item whilst they fritter ££s on a packet of fags!!

figment that is true. But encouraging people to buy houses also soaks up a huge amount of income. Our attitude to property is all wrong.

I also think the what to cut question is a distraction. It should be why cut? how much will it save?

E.G. If we take £1500 out of the average families pocket but we only return £300 in reduced interest payments on the deficit is it worth it?

A lot of people will lose a lot in lost 'benefits', increased costs and in the reduction of their public services but may not gain very much at all from reducing the deficit.
In medium term the more you take out of people's pockets the less they spend the economy slows down, borrowing goes up and on it goes. So they need to balance the losses against any gain.

So a lot of these things that posters want to 'cut' would you still want to cut them if it either made no saving or incurred a small cost? is it ideological/a principle and would they abandon a cut if it could be shown it wouldn't make a saving?

Hmmm...
As already mentioned I think... Scrap ridiculous subsidy for MPs/House of Lords fine dining at Westminster... They can go to Pret like the rest of us
Not sure about scrapping pensions for those who have a private one as they will have been charged for it through national insurance contributions regardless
Scrap trident
Scrap free school meals for infant children... Most of it gets chucked away from what I see daily!!!
Stop sending aid to countries who have a healthy space exploration programme!
Put all non-London MPs up in a Travelodge type establishment during the week
Only give an allowance to the monarch and those in direct line to the throne
Sack half of NHS beaurocrats

2nd homes for MP's. Create a custom built hall of residence for when they are in London. Cap there expenses and nothing can be claimed for that isn't directly related to the job. Cut the fine dining and drinking subsidy so they finally get a taste of reality. No MP pay rise, after all unless my company makes a profit I get fuck all, their 'company' is in deficit!

Can I add another one to my list please?... Won't add up to too much but I recently read about how much the NHS was spending on tattoo removal...it seems that it can be done if patients felt "traumatised" by having say an ex partner's name etched on to their skin. Costs around £300k a year...should pay for a few much needed midwives!

I'd reduce the foreign aid budget, especially to countries like India and Pakistan which have expensive nuclear weapons programmes, a lot of billionaires and yet get sent aid, whilst people in this country struggle with food banks.

I'd also make the nhs only accessible to UK residents (or whatever status it is that shows you live here, not abroad), it's time to stop ex pats and overseas nationals coming to the UK for free health treatment only to head home afterwards..