Does anyone elsee agree with the benefit cuts?

[mrsruffallo]

Because I do. They make sense to me. Reward the workers, esp. those in low paid employment, and make it harder to be better off unemployed than working. If ConDem also taxed the rich in an appropriate mnner, I would be very happy.

Do you have rose-tinted glasses near? Because I think it's a tiny bit more complex than that.

Yes, I agree that the cuts are necessary.

Well David Cameron does. Too bad he also lives on another planet from the rest of us who actually work for a living.

Which cuts are you agreeing with? Because you do realise IRS going to affect the DISABLED the most......don't you???

Of course it's more complex, just wanted to make my comments concise. Any refoems in the benefits system are going to be criticised, but the ploicies are unfair and open to corruption at the moment.

Would you acre to elaborate Chaos?

Open to corruption...... Can you expand on that?

How so ILoveTiffany?

And do you also agree with the sure start centre cuts, the libraries etc?

Oh, im going to enjoy this thread..... mrsruffalo you are going to stick around on your thread to answer everything aren't you? Because so many have started these threads and floundered... Then flounced and disappeared.

Why would I agree with library cuts? I am not a Tory, I am a lifelong Labour voter, although completely disillusioned with them amo. Where are the inspirational leaders???
Sure Start centres-fantastic idea but in my area anyway, the only mums who utilised the service were the mums who were in least need of support. I do support the ideology though of early intervention for children born into dysfunctuional families.

All I'm going to say is I find it disturbing that Rolls Royce are reporting their highest sales figures ever.

Yes to the benefits and HB cap, £26k is plenty. No to DLA cuts and any cuts to civic services.

Yes to £10k income tax threshold.

Tax evasion by big businesses and banker's bonuses concern me more than benefits claimants though.

I agree that an able-bodied household should not, as a general rule, be able to have a higher income by remaining at home than it would do if one or both adults went out to work. (I accept that there may be exceptional cases where a higher income may be appropriate, but as a eneral principle, I think it is right.)

As for disabled people - yes, of course they should be protected as far as possible where their condition prevents (or a family member) from being to able to work or where their condition incurrs additional living expenses.

Do you mean you support the benefits cap?
Because surely if you support all benefit cuts you support cutting DLA?
Which, you know, would be nonsense when it's going to cost the country more than it saves, drive some people to suicide and others into grinding poverty when they're seriously ill and completely unable to work even if they wanted to.
I'm sure you can't mean you support all the cuts? Unless, maybe, you're Rod Liddle?

No.
HTH

enough already. Gah

Note from Liam Byrne (Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to his successor: "I'm afraid to say, there is no money left". May 2010.

As far as I know, we are still waiting to discover the Magic Money Tree.

There is no money left.

I definitely agree with the benefits and HB cap. But the government needs to build more council houses. It's a disgrace that private landlords are getting fat off the taxpayer and benefit claimants are being housed in fancy, private houses that most taxpayers could never afford to live in.

I don't agree with the closing of libraries and other civic services and the firing of NHS front-line staff. It's well known that there aren't enough nurses, etc, and to get rid of them at this time of a growing/aging population is insanity.

Except bradbourne, all those billions in unpaid tax. Oh and those millions for that rail link, and the Olympics. Yup, no money left indeed.

There is plenty of money around. just not in the public purse we gave it all to the banks

"Note from Liam Byrne (Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to his successor: "I'm afraid to say, there is no money left". May 2010."

Ohh look, we've found enough for a new rail line that no-one really needs though and let me look at the figures...yep, yep, yes we CAN afford to let Vodafone off with not paying thier tax bill so we're alright Jack.

There's no money my ARSE. There is, they are just spending it on the wrong things as usual.

"All I'm going to say is I find it disturbing that Rolls Royce are reporting their highest sales figures ever."

Because, we don't really need that extra £49milllion in corporation tax receipts, do we? (And that's on top of the £180 million tax paid in the previous year). Oh, and doesn't include tax from VAT on UK sales and income tax from Rolls Royce employees....

And as for unpaid tax from corporations - first, if it was that easy for governments to close tax loopholes, don't you think they would do it? I believe the UK has the longest tax code in the world (but am prepared to be corrected on that one) and that complexity explains, at least in part, why there is so much tax avoidance and why it is hard to clamp down on it. (Also, no accountant worth his salt would fail to point out ways in which a company could - legally - minimise its tax liability. That's part of his/her job).

Second, I posted about this on another thread but, basically, the higher corporation tax, the more incentivised companies are to find ways to avoid it - perhaps through restructuring so many of the profits are diverted overseas to tax havens like Switzerland and the Channel Isles, perhaps by relocating physically, or perhaps by choosing to invest elewhere in the first place.

Third, the last government had 13 years to address tax avoidance issues. What did they do about it? Or is it just easier and more comfortable to blame to "evil Tories"?

The gov seem to find money when it suits them.

Why are we wasting a shed load of money on this stupid high speed rail train thing?

I may be looking at this in the wrong sense but in the home when finances are strained you start with the basics, you make sure your rent and bills are paid, then you buy food, then you put petrol in the car, then if there is anything left over you can get extra's like clothes or luxuries or use it to pay off debt.

Maybe the gov should look at the country like this? although I guess then that would be their discression to decide what is essential and what isnt.

All I know is that benefits seems to be the scape goat in all of this when in fact a hell of a lot of money is wasted, taxes are being evaded and bankers who brought the country close to collapse are now enjoying massive bonus's.....whats fair in all of that. I think people would have a lot more respect for the gov if they were seen to be addressing those issues as well as the benefit ones.

As for the Vodaphone tax bill - I don't know what their full tax liability was when they settled with HMRC - and neither does anyone else here, I would wager.

HS2 - infrastructure investment. Opinion polls suggest majority support for the concept.

Olympics - bid won under Labour government. I think it will cost a lot more than it brings in - but I think the country would lose out substantially more by backing out at this late stage or even just staging a "bargain basement" version. We;'re stuck with it and have to make the best of it to accrue as many benefits from it as possible (even if I expect it will be a net financial loss, we might as well try to minimise that loss).

molepom - I'm interested to know how you feel you have a better grasp of the state of the country's finances than the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Or might it just possibly be wishful thinking? ("I know there must be a Magic Money Tree around here somewhere.....")

tough but necessary