Dave's cuts are going be deep and they will hurt

[FellatioNelson]

I've been hearing this all day on the radio. I can't take the suspense any longer. They are going to affect the lives of 'every one of us'

I feel like a person wincing and clenching my teeth in anticipation of the big fuck-off needle the school nurse is wielding, and I'm next in the queue....

Come on then, what's it going to be?

Pocket I am not well off by any means. I can't afford to buy a house, we can't afford a second child, most of our clothes are second hand and we can't afford for dp to have any pension.

But we have food on the table and a roof over our heads. Having really been poor I know I am lucky to have what I do and therefore am willing to mae further cuts at home if it means the most vulnerable in society don't have to face huge cuts.

What's with the message withdrawn Cappster?

a lot of what ElenorRigby said plus I would renegotiate PFI contracts

just tell 'em it's 0.5% interest from now on folks.......

pocketmonster - state employed workers will have their salaries cut/lose their jobs, because it is the state that has run out of money, and that will save the state money. There is no fairness or unfairness just no money.

You are not scapegoats you are just one of the things the state spends money on.

"What about cutting everybodies pay by 5% and employers paying that 5% straight over to the Treasury. Sounds fairer to me."

Yes it is, it's called tax. Would the public wear a 5% increase in tax? Well, probably the effective rate will go that much - 5p directly on income tax might not be such an easy sell.

Just thinking aloud here, but surely if VAT was added to school fees and resulted in public schools losing pupils, then the schools would have to tighten their belts and reduce the fees to compensate?

I just can't see the public schools closing their doors and shutting up shop. If they can't attract customers at then they've got to offer value for money.

Surely they can make effeciency savings too? The rest of the education system is going to have to.

5p on oncome tax would suit me fine, just as long as NI is either cut completly - or 10% on all wages over £5200 per year - as it is is stops at what? 40k or 50k

ruckyrunt - that's not a 5p tax rise then is it? It's 5p minus NI.

ruckyrunt It was certainly around '94 that I was referred to a specialist and had to wait 3 months to see one.

I can't say how speedily after that treatment might have been given, because I was luckily given the all clear within 2 weeks by using my employer's private medical insurance.

It's the initial referral and diagnosis that I was commenting on, 3 months to see a cancer specialist is just not acceptable.

no its a dam sight blardy more than a 5p tax rise - isn't it

its a bit like the elephant in the room NI just ignored as it isn't supposed to be a tax - but it is a tax and only the lower part of wages if you earn more than 40-50k

Just think how much revenue would be generated by taking NI on all wages earned and not partial...

ruckyrunt - Are you proposing abolsihing extending NI or abolishing it? I take cut completly to mean abolishing it. Of course it's a tax.

I've just come up with a radical idea to help save the economy.

Legalise drugs and tax 'em.

Raises revenue straight off.

Cuts the cost of policing, prison, drug rehab etc.

Get the druggies to dob in their dealers as part of their treatment plan.

Confiscate their assets and sell 'em all on ebay.

Admittedly, I've haven't costed this....

Do the sums on VAT on Public School fees add up? Plucking numbers from the air here, but if average school fees are 1.5 times what the state spends per pupil per year and VAT goes up to 20% then the revenue raised from the tax would be 71.50.2=2.1% of all education expenditure or 1.95% of the state education budget.

So to take 2% off the education budget you have to increase school fees, which are probably for many people who chose to pay it, their largest expenditure, by 20%.

They are bound to feel aggreived at that.

wubblybubbly - it's a very sensible idea.

Wubbly - I really wish they would at least debate the legalisation of drugs (although it would probably put dh out of a job ).

I was discussing this with dh the other day and we came up with the idea of a referendum as there is no way any politician is ever going to risk doing this. So make sure all the information, all the pro's and con's are out there - and let the public decide!

Interesting that the discussion has so far been confined mainly to domestic expenditure.

What about foreign expenditure? - the UK's contributions to (eg) the UN and world bank, overseas development fund, other aid etc.

Should the UK restrict it's commitments overseas in order to prevent pain at home?

Thebride - I commented on this below. Personally I think an isolationist strategy would be a huge mistake. Look where it's got the US....

Agree that isolationism (is that a word??) is a stupid strategy BUT just thinking aloud at how increasingly, the UK government (and other governments) spend indirectly (30% of UK overseas spending goes through other agencies) and how this must lead to inefficiencies/ lack of accountability.

We just have all these layers of publicly funded administration/ bureaucracy and everyone's taking a cut on the way. The EU, for example, is a huge gravy train. The impact of the UN on anything vs. what it costs is laughable. Many NGO's are basically GO's if you look at their funding streams.

It just seems a shame to be cutting to the bone at home whilst still pouring it away overseas with (often) little say about what actually happens to it.

FellatioNelson
I find your elitism shocking. YOur DH, by your own admission, earns way above average.

I take it for granted that he is from MOss-side, borne to a single mother, went to sink school, neither parent educated past 16. Am I right? Do we really live in a meritocracy???

Fellatio, it works like this: the more vulnerable a group of people are, the more it's our duty as a society to help them. They are not poor or on benefits because they're lazy. That's elitism. They're there because they're stuck. IF you were born in Moss-side, you'd be stuck too. THe most vulnerable people in society are single mothers, because they have to support and care for a child alone, or people who don't have access to decent education, or people who don't really know how society even works because their parents don't know and they haven't been taught basic stuff like how to sit an interview properly. You can't demonize a group of people and say they're poor because of their own doing. Britain has a huge rich/poor divide. That is the fault of the economic and political structure, not the poor....

Am I living in a parallel universe? Is this really not obvious to everyone?

Sakura is making important points

Ah Sakura, that is actually deeply patronising and the very antithesis of what is needed to lift people.
Treat individuals like pathetic pariahs and tey will act like them.
It'#s a no nrainer.

What Sakura is ignoring is that the City of London has been one of the biggest meritocratic symbols of modern Britain and it was the de regulation of the city by Mrs Thatcher that allowed a vast number of people to work in financial institutions without being part of the old boy/school tie network.

I was not not well or highly educated but I ended up working in an environment which was fast moving, demanding and rewarding. I met dh working there he wasn't highly educated but he is extremely talented in his chosen field. It really was a place where you could come from nothing and work your way up. Remember the "barrow boys"? I worked with a legendary trader who started life as a carpet fitter in South East London. These people didn't come from wealth or privilege but had motivation and determination in spades.

Sadly under the previous Labour Govt the elitism crept in because they don't want ordinary people to do well, they want people to know their place and stay there.

A conservative Government will always enable social mobility while the socialists are happy to keep people poor, generally by paying them to be.