If you were the PM what would you do to fix the mess we are in?

[HoppingKangaroo]

Just that really, if you were the prime minister what would you do to help fix the country and the cost of living crisis.

Who gets to define who are unproductive, draining members of society? Is it fault of the retired that successive governments have fail to plan and therefore effectively planned to fail for their retirement and health? The retired have paid into a system that promised to provide them with a pension on their retirement and health care when then needed it. Surely looking after prisoners is expensive and draining? How about the unemployed, the disabled, those living with terminal illnesses, degenerative diseases? Once you have murdered the elderly what effective to you think that will have on their families and the very fabric of society.

I'd make working more attractive. To do this, I'd make all genuine commuting to work expenses fully tax deductible at source or reclaimable, for all employees. There is a huge disparity between those who have to commute to city centres or other awkward to reach places to work and those who can work nearby their home or from home.

I'd also put inheritance tax up to near French levels, which is I believe 60% from zero. Its shocking that your prosperity in this country is far more dependant on chance of birth than hard work and parents leaving or gifting children massive deposits is one of the main drivers of high house prices.

I'd consider bringing in a flat rate of income tax. Also much cheaper to administer.

I'd crack down on quangos and the people who stay a couple of years in each one before moving onto the next, often creating a whole load of work to sort out the mess they'd make.

I'd make the NHS one of several competitive healthcare providers that people could choose, and the guaranteed provider of healthcare that people without an income would benefit from. These healthcare providers would be non profit making, as in The Netherlands.

I'd devise a modern constitution, so that we actually knew what our rights are, and so that they couldnt' be removed from us other than by special majority of 60% with referendums for matters raising certain constitutional questions, similar to Switzerland.

I'd get rid of the zoning system for new house building that promotes mass housebuilding and creates a relative monopoly situation, and require that 25% of all new builds be self build. I'd bring in tax incentives for small co-operative new developments and for redevelopment of ruined or damaged and city centre properties.

I'd reverse the tax rules on rental income so that the full mortgage interest costs can be deducted from income tax bills of individuals because this is just a driver of increased rental costs and encourages large corporations to take over high numbers of rental properties and put up rent prices with lowered standards.

I'd get rid of a number of the green initiatives brought in by Carrie Johnston, particularly the requirement of an EPC of C or more which favours new builds and isn't at all green because it makes living in older properties which have already long since paid back their own carbon footprints less desirable. Ditto with older but serviceable cars - manufacturing an entire new car to be compliant is far less environmentally friendly than continuing to drive an older but still relatively efficient car.

I'd bring in national standards for roads, including cycle paths on at least one side and on two sides for all new roads, and increase the number of pedestrian underpasses and bridges.

I'd also introduce a compulsory purchase / occupation order of houses which have been empty for 5 yrs +. These can be brought back to use as social housing stock.

I'd introduce a sliding scale of taxes to prevent multiple house ownership/ hoarding. There are houses which are empty for most of the year which could be occupied year round by people looking for permanent housing.

I'd also crackdown on dodgy landlords who don't maintain their housing stock. Maybe introduce landlord licences which have to be renewed every 3 to 5 yrs depending on how well maintained the properties are kept.

I'd introduce a bit more hard hitting sex education classes for teenagers. Compulsory viewing of videos of a birth, neonatal ward & baby ward for teenagers. You want sex, fine get yourself sorted contraception wise otherwise you’ll end up with one of these dangles a baby Abortion is there as a last resort but it costs money so the emphasis should be don't get yourself pregnant in the 1st place of your own free will. That would be my alternative suggestion to killing over 70s as suggested by another poster!

Abortion and teenage pregnancy, childcare, housing etc costs the state money. It also takes away economically productive members of society away from the job market. So a lot more should be done to educate teenagers of both sexes that parenthood isn't ideal at 15yrs old.

You're still viewing this as a punishment when it is in fact a very progressive policy and applies to everybody.

Housing prisoners and looking after the disabled is something we will be able to do much better with the freed up resources. People are against things like private school and inheritance, but why is it fair to live to 103 because of your genes. Your lifespan shouldn't be defined by your parents. It should be universal and fair to everyone.

It just isn't viable to work 45 years and then spend the next 35 being unproductive (productivity defined as creating value in an economy through work).

Think about it, most people's deaths are painful. A euthenisation programme would mean that most people's death will be pain free and planned for.

@absolutelyanythingwilldo a euthanasia programme... I've no idea where even to start with a response!!

One key flaw (aside from any moral, practical, political flaws!) is the statement that Your lifespan shouldn't be defined by your parents. It should be universal and fair to everyone. You're forgetting:

1. we're fundamentally animals (no matter how much you might like to think we're "special"), and our health and longevity is influenced by our genes thus our parents...
2. how do you make it universal and fair for all when it can't be?! How do you address those that die before birth, at birth, in childhood, as young adults, in middle age etc?! People die at different ages so just by "whacking of those above a certain age" you don't achieve a universal and fair lifespan for all

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling with your posts as they're completely illogical but if for whatever reason you genuinely believe them, please give yourself a good speaking to, take a deep breath, and start afresh with your thinking...

@absolutelyanythingwilldo well, it’s a strong answer I suppose 😂 I definitely think we need to rethink the cost (not financially, generally) at which we keep the very elderly alive, in a great deal of mental/physical distress. I don’t think a cut-off for otherwise healthy people is a good idea however.

Agree we need to consider how long we artificially keep people alive for when it's not in their best interests and we're just prolonging their suffering in service of our own desire to "have them around".

I think society needs to become re-accustomed with death sadly being part of the natural cycle of life and stop fighting it at all costs, particularly when it leads to suffering of our loved ones.

I personally don't support voluntary (and to be clear, given what's been written on this thread and even those I never thought I'd have to say it but I will...: forced!) euthanasia but I think there's a difference between euthanising someone and not artificially prolonging someone's life.

The 70 age limit is fair and applies to everyone.

That’s a shedload of tax you’re missing out on. I’m 70 next year and expect to be paying substantial amounts of tax until I die. My parents lived into their 90s so I could be productive in tax revenue terms for another 30 years. Why would you kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

No doubt some of these ideas will be controversial or even offensive to some/many, but looking at things objectively the current system is so broken and offensive itself that I don't think we could sink much lower no matter what we do.

I'd bring back hanging, not just for the most serious crimes but for low-level repeat offenders. This would save a fortune in the long run in terms of the cost of running prisons and the justice system. There would be no right of appeal, a straightforward process of execution shortly after conviction.

I'd freeze prices at their 2019 levels to end inflation. Whatever something cost in 2019, that's what it costs going forward.

I'd ban anyone worth more than 500K from holding political office or being in a senior position in a company or other organisation.

I'd change the tax system so that anything over 50K per year is taxed at 99%.

I'd do what I originally typed this paragraph but then deleted because objectively speaking it's probably too offensive to be posted here.

Over time, I'd reduce the cap no longer explained in the preceding paragraph by a million or so every year.

I'd legalise the personal ownership of firearms. This would raise a fortune in taxation because hardly anyone who wants one is allowed to have one at the moment. This could be a real growth industry because as more people bought them, others would feel the need to buy them for their own protection. At the beginning I'd limit ownership to those over 25, to see how things went.

I'd introduce a national community service scheme for young people. They'd be forced to work in community schemes for a few years and could not be released until they've performed satisfactorily for a set period of time.

Trade unions and strikes would be banned, to be replaced by a guaranteed minimum income of 20K per year, with a guaranteed 5% payrise every year. Company owners would not be allowed to make staff redundant, if they do they face imprisonment (if it's their first offence, or execution for repeat offenders).

I'd scrap the TV Licence.

@TakeTheOffPisteRoute

1. No, I don't think we're special - you do. Why is it ok to put dogs to sleep when they're frail, or horses when they've reached the end of their useful life, or badgers because they're a nuisance but not humans?
2. Yes, there will still be those who die below to national age limit (or the NAL), but with the burden of the elderly removed, the medical profession will be able to concentrate on better care for these people.

You may object to the morality of the idea, but it's not illogical at all.

You’re hilarious @absolutelyanythingwilldo. Shame I won’t be around to see your swift volte face as you move through your seventh decade.

In fact I've an idea @absolutelyanythingwilldo, why don't you go first and show us all how it's done and how great the idea is, we'll all be right behind you....

Paying tax is not productivity. In fact, spending money is not productivity. It is transfering value.

So how do you define productivity @absolutelyanythingwilldo?

I don't define it, there's a standard definition for it. Here's the first one from google: www.investopedia.com/terms/p/productivity.asp

None of that applies to the individual. Want to try again?

I'd legalise the personal ownership of firearms. This would raise a fortune in taxation because hardly anyone who wants one is allowed to have one at the moment. This could be a real growth industry because as more people bought them, others would feel the need to buy them for their own protection. At the beginning I'd limit ownership to those over 25, to see how things went.

Someone competing with the euthanasia lady for most batshit suggestion 😂

If you stop bonuses … staff will leave

if you stop dividends… investors will pull out and there will be no capital left (remember the bank bailouts of 2008?)

🤔🤔

TheSandwoman
i’m still waiting for you or other people to explain, how rejoining the EU would help us in this cost of living crisis at this moment in time.

@Unphased

The main benefit other than free trade (which would also help the economy) is freedom of movement. The NHS, hospitality, construction and other industries are short of staff. If we want a healthy economy we need workers!

As an isolated island with a diminishing working age population we are going to need all the help we can get. EU workers were a net benefit to the Treasury and the loss of income/productivity and spending are significant. We are not quite in the dire straits of Japan but we will still have a major problem if we close our doors to immigration.

I actually think this is way more batshit. Good luck in ever finding a surgeon or doctor who ever wants to work full time again. In fact good luck in finding anyone who ever wants to have a full time career again. Mind you, we could have an entirely new class where people in difficult careers work only 2 days a week and people in manual relatively unskilled jobs have to work full time to earn their 50k pa .

I'd change the tax system so that anything over 50K per year is taxed at 99%

no point in making suggestions, she's going to do bugger all

Plantstrees Increase Personal Tax allowance to ensure anyone on minimum wage doesn't pay tax

I actually think that disenfranchising millions of people from contributing to the tax system is a terrible idea. Even if they pay 2% or whatever, it gives them a stake in society and encourages them to want tax to spent responsibly. Sending them a message telling people that they are too poor or worthless to even contribute to society creates a dreadful and unnecessary divide.

Merging NI and income tax is a good idea, but the UK Government will never do it because they don't want to admit that many people in very average jobs effectively pay near 50% income tax on any pay rise.

Why increase income tax, a tax on workers? Why not change Council tax to 0.5% of the value of your property instead? Or up the tax on dividends? Or tax capital gains made on housing which are the biggest source of unearned income in this country?

Why not change Council tax to 0.5% of the value of your property instead?

Ours would stay exactly the same if they did that.