To ask what one or two policies you think could make the biggest difference to the U.K.?

[whatkatydid2013]

To me the big one is social housing. I feel like if we could build up a large supply of social housing at reasonable rates all over the country the benefits would be massive. It would make life affordable for many more people and lead to them being less likely to need in work benefits. The affordable rents would cover maintenance and could keep large numbers of people in stable employment doing said maintenance (as well as creating administrative roles). It would make it less challenging to staff key worker roles in more expensive areas. In the short term I appreciate it would be a massive expense but it seems like in the long term it would cost less than our current system on a going basis and it would make many people a lot more financially secure. I find it disappointing that all main parties seem so focused on home ownership in their policy statements. I know there are many important policy areas but this just always feels like one that’s very central and totally glossed over by all parties. Maybe because there isn’t a quick, easy fix?

@EasternStandard
@Princessandthepea
@Wsmi

I also agree, it reminded me of this quote from Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee in 1799

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy."

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee 1799

@EasternStandard
@Princessandthepea
@Wsmi

It's not just taxation either it's debt and lack of productivity and economic inactivity

www.spectator.co.uk/article/rishinomics-isnt-working/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591.amp

This is gearing up to be unsustainable and reaching a crunch point.

Well exactly - however this is lost on the majority because they are benefiting. I think we are coming to the end of this democratic cycle. More and more people, official bodies are raising the alarm about state spending. This is why economics should be taught before people can vote.

Facts are:
ONS states highest state dependency ever.
36 million adults take out more than they put in that is 54.2% of adults - the majority.

That is an economy at breaking point. In comparison to other western countries - basic rate tax payers pay low rates of tax. Higher rate tax payers pay some of the highest rates in the world. Hence the big issue. It’s only the highest of the high paying their way and for everyone else. Nothing nasty about it - it is fiscal fact. The reason other models are more successful is it’s a more ‘in it together’ approach. Everyone is expected to pay higher tax and contribute and services are universal. Not taken away from those doing the heavy lifting funding wise.

Issue is, there are not enough people paying in. There really is no where to go with higher earners on PAYE. Currently 70% on tax because of higher rate and loss of personal allowance. Bollocks to that to be frank. It goes in a pension. If I had younger children, I’d be worse off with a marginal tax rate of over 100% as I’d lose childcare hours. There really is no where left to tax the people already paying 86% of all income tax.

Painful truth is the majority now cost the state and we are crippling ourselves in debt to pay for it. Those who are doing the funding are actively choosing not to be as productive as they could because of the heavy tax burden.

Can’t escape the fact that now enough people are contributing and there are a decreasing amount of people to fleece to pay for it all. Rough times ahead.

very high taxes on second homes/rental properties and to not allow properties to be sold to foreign investors for far to long it has been a sure and safe way to invest money and get an an excellent return with little to pay in taxes

How much do you think it would cost to monitor that?

The benefit system now has to exist because companies are allowed to exploit workers, and the government do nothing to level the playing field because they benefit from it. We could cap the profits of supermarkets who recorded record profits at a time the cost of goods has surged plunging people into a worse way of life. We could cap rental profits to ensure people are able to access safe and affordable housing. We could ban zero hour contracts. We could make sure childcare was funded to allow people to work full time.

But instead we seem to punch down, always.

THIS. In a way its wild that they DONT want us back into work quicker?

1. Banning private education of all forms (thereby forcing our government to properly and fairly fund schools and provide decently resourced extra curricula activities and tackling social mobility in one fell swoop). 2)An overhaul of the justice system, with a particular emphasis on provision of legal aid and greater powers for the courts to hold the government to account.

Clearly something needs to be done about healthcare too. I have no idea what a reformed healthcare system could or should look like but ideally it would be a system that recognises that Healthcare isn’t an individual concern - we need a healthy population just to be able to function as a society.

Mine would be meta policies. Firstly a long term strategy for all key areas (rather than reactive policy on the good that responds to the latest news cycle) and a focus on long term investment in those key areas (health, education, industrial strategy and infrastructure)

Yes. Exactly!

So long as Jacob Rees-Moggs family companies do not get the contracts.

Streets and streets of prime central London are money-laundering deposit boxes for west African and Asian based 'organisations'.

Oil, gas and natural resources profits diverted from some states by corrupt politicians who are fearful they may lose it come the revolution. Safe as houses.

If it doesn't work for the Russians why should it be allowed to work for anyone else at the expense of our younger generations.

There are plenty of good arguments for restructuring tax. A lot of the issues you are talking about hit a very specific band of income and could be eliminated by not removing the personal allowance for high earners. It impacts a fairly small proportion of the population and it’s worth somewhere in the region of £5 billion a year. If you reduced the personal allowance to £12k that would balance it out. I agree it’s pretty short sighted as were things like limiting access to child benefit or tax free childcare. They are things that don’t gain a huge amount in revenue but drive a lot of resentment among higher earners & are really just there for the sake of political point scoring.

On the other hand I see state benefits propping up wages as an issue you only solve by either making employers pay people more or finding ways to reduce living costs. The truly wealthy are the ones I see as fleecing the tax payers as they underpay their workforce to maintain greater profits, avoid tax via various (perfectly legal) schemes and then merrily set low earners and high earners off to fight one another over which of them is responsible for the countries issues.

Don't be ridiculous. People will just move!

Scotland has the 40% kick in much lower than England. I was chatting with a friend last week, going for a job 10k less than current job, well its really only 6k less but a whole lot less stress, less hours, less travel.

People need to stop being so shorted sighted

This is probably going to be controversial and I have not sorted things fully in my head but...

At the moment we have a problem with people crossing the channel in small boats, they pay £10 - £12 K for this crossing.

Meanwhile young people from commonwealth countries can easily get a 'working holiday visa'.

So why not have an 'open visa' that costs £10K that allows you to enter the country with limits on things like where you can live, that you cannot have 'recourse to public funds' and you have a maximum stay of 2 years.

It would be ideal for economic migrants and with controls over where you can go people could be directed to places in need of work eg crop picking.

There would have to be a waiting list so we would not be swamped. And as I said I have not fully thought things out.

Zero tolerance on crime

What does that even mean?

Renationalise all public transport, run them for people not profit.

Reduced cost broadband for people on low incomes. I say this because I knew a woman who had two kids, worked, but couldn't afford to have BB put in so had to book a spot at the local library, but often all the slots are full because it's a service on demand. This was a disadvantage to her kids too, because they couldn't do their online homework.

But we live in the real world, so...

(My grandparents had social housing after the war. They maintained the buildings and enjoyed their gardens. Visiting them was bucolic compared to how I find myself, struggling to meet bills in a 2 bed flat.)

There is already reduced cost broadband for low incomes. It's like £15 a month. How much cheaper does it need to be?

@Vegetus
@idbegratedulforideas

"Zero tolerance on crime"

What does that even mean?

++++

It is an aspirational political slogan designed to mean whatever the listener wants it to mean.
The classic example of this being "Let's take back control"

Because such slogans are never actually defined but are more of a belief or a view they are incredibly successful at getting the masses to agree with them - for example Brexit.

In the case of zero tolerance on crime on one end of the spectrum does it mean that we don't agree or accept any level of crime to the other end of prosecuting and imposing punishment where found guilty on 100% of crimes? It is up to the individual to fit their own exact views on to an aspirational slogan and then convince themselves that this is exactly what the slogan means - it works really well with the less savvy voters.

I'd scrap Buy To Let mortgages. Too many people buy a house and rent it out at sky-high prices to cover the mortgage, don't maintain it properly and can't afford repairs.

I'd also invest significantly in public transport, and build new housing etc with public transport, walking and cycling rather than cars in mind.

Obviously there would be provisions for cars for those with mobility issues, and for people who need their car for work (eg a builder who has tools to carry, or a home help who travels between houses all day), but I'd aim to make public transport the default (which would, of course, free up the roads for the aforementioned exceptions).

There are no primary schools that are walkable from where I live. It’s over an hour (for an adult) by a field route which would be impossible for children in winter, or a slightly shorter route by road but in part it’s along a very busy, narrow A road with no pavement or verges.
The nearest secondary schools are over seven miles away.

My policy would be to have a ticker tape on the every television screen with every financial interest of a relevant politician when they are talking.

At least people would have a good idea of how self interested these politicians are

Another reason not to have stupidly high income tax rates, people reduce their hours, people including doctors and various other professionals decide that really its not worth the stress of work long hours for the government to take a huge cut.

The tax rules need to be simpler, what's the real point in separating NI & Income Tax?

My DGP built their retirement house just before their two DS left home - 2 bed but loads of space downstairs - really suited their later lifestyle as they spent bulk of most days at home - doing short trips out to allotments art classes and shops with few longer holidays in there as well. First thing people who bought it did was re-jig roof and get more bedrooms in.

There was a two bed bungalow here on way to work - they re-did the roof - 4 bed house now - 2 dormer rooms and two downstairs sold as 4 bed. The vast bulk of the bungalow here now have roof extensions in them.

Only one left as bungalows as three new one build on site of knocked down house - they are one bed ramp up - car space and small yard at back with kitchen and living room at back - they sold immediately

My IL live down a two/three bed old Victorian terrace street - IL is 3 bed with tiny box room with stud wall FIL put in - there are about only ones who haven't done a loft conversion for extra space.

I think a lot of one/two bed housing has been extended as we sell on bedrooms here and not square footage.

We sold our last house - family sized 3 bed to a couple near retirement they wanted the downstairs space as well as location near to parent in nearby care home - but weren't as bothered by bedrooms - they'd find a use for them but it was living space they wanted.