We all know that cuts are coming to services (after next election) but where ? On TV the other day it stated that the cost of paying benefits is more than the whole income from income tax ! Not only this but of course we have to try to pay back a trillion pounds borrowed to save the banks. SO WHERE DO WE START ?
is it right that people with incomes over £50,000 receive child benefit ? (tax credits) ?
is it right to stop this payment even though these people have been paying income tax and NI at a higher rate ?
why should people get more money for having more kids ? get it for two ,dont get it after two
why should people get maternity leave regardless of how many kids they have?
should unemployment benefits be cut to make lower paid jobs more attractive ?
should all imigration be stopped untill un-employment reaches 100,000 ?
can we afford the welfare state anymore ?
the above are questions which will receive some sort of answer within the next two/3 years. They have to.
Large scale savings ?
No ID card (Labour tokenism at its worst).
Trident -- why ?
You , your children and your grandchildren will be paying this off.
0
Comments
This govenment has wasted and continues to waste billions, I'd look at cutting out the wastage before I looked at cuts.
As Sir Michael Caine recently said " It's people like me who get up and go to work at 6.30 every morning so all these lazy sods can sit in front of the telly all day"
The whole system needs a complete overhaul but none of the current crop of MP's (both parties) has the brains or the bottle to do anything.
And the Royal Family are the worst offenders!
What's on telly today then............
Laugh, I thought I'd never start.
Stop the benefits of those who deem certain work as 'beneath them' and expect it to be done by foreigners instead.
Test the circumstances of those who claim to be unfit to work.
Make the receipt of welfare dependent upon doing some work for the state (want your jobseeker's allowance? Then work on public projects e.g one day a week, say)
Allow those who receive benefit to work and not lose all of it (there is no incentive to work under the current system)
Give substantial tax breaks to those who have come off benefit and taken paid work.
Do not pay people to have children (scrap family allowance).
Stop giving benefits to rich people who do not need it.
No more immigration (at least of unskilled labour)
Cut welfare entitlement to immigrants (we are a soft touch and far too much of an attractive proposition)
Cancel Trident.
Abandon the unworkable, ridiculous ID card scheme.
For starters.
*dons tin hat*
Trident -- why ?
.......
A good start...
Top remark !
Starting with the Royal Family.
cut benefits and see the crime rate soar - no idea how people live on them as they are anyway
cut maternity benefits (paid by employers mainly so not sure its relevant, it also provides short term work opportunities) see the birth rate drop, then try and pay for your ageing population.
perhaps we should ask for some money back from the banks who are still giving bonuses and making huge profits from low BoE interest rates, and all the other profiteering that comes from government subsidies or monopolies, like railways and energy companys
agree re efficiencies, this government poured money into education and nhs without first making sure it was spent well
we wouldn't need immigration if we had the skills or a lower cost of living for unskilled labourers
I do not believe there are 2.6m people who are too ill to work.
We should employ 100,000 people from the unemployment queues who genuinely looking for work, and set up a body whereby all cases are reviewed a minimum of twice a year - this would include interviewing them but more importantly also monitoring them for random periods to see if they go off to golf, or do the shopping without any hindrances etc.
2.6m people twice a year = 5.2m people
Divide by 100,000 investigators = 52 people each
Therefore the investigators can spend on average 1 week a year fully investigating the circumstances of each persons incapacity.
Anyone found to not be genuinely incapacitated gets taken off of employment support, and are refused other benefits too.
My point about family allowance is that the state is saying 'feel free. Fill your boots. Have as many kids as you like (regardless of whether you will care for them, love them, or can afford them) and we will pick up the tab'. As a result, those least able to bring forth productive members of society have the most children. And we pay for them to do that. Look at the numbers of children in care and the crime committed by those whose parents simply don't care where they are or what they do. It is not necessarily the kids' fault. The parents are responsible and we have discarded the idea of responsiblity for ones actions - and now we are surprised at the shyte we are in!
Getting the money of those fat cat w*nkers would be easier if our idiot politicians hadn't given them contracts to allow them to do what they like in a publicly owned company.
Plus more money into education and the NHS has simply meant more managers with 'initiatives' that don't work. And they don't work for peanuts!
As for the last point. Those on low incomes (e.g unskilled workers) should pay very low tax rates. Those who earn more should pay more. Simple as that.
I don't think the increase in education funding has been spent on more managers. A significant part has gone on teachers' pay, which is helping to attract better teachers, while nothwithstanding the way it has been funded the buildings and facilities of many schools had been neglected, were a disgrace and simply had to be renewed.
There are conflicting views about various initiatives, with a consensus that there have been too many of them, while I think the obsession with school organisation (faith schools, academies, etc) is misplaced, but it's in the nature of governments that they like to do things.
I have less first-hand experience or knowledge of the NHS, but some of the facilities I have used in the last few years have been fantastic and a sharp contrast with the likes of the Brook when I grew up. I can't see that improvement as waste.
And the Royal Family are the worst offenders![/quote]
Dont they cost us something like 68p person per year
Take a look at fucking immigration first
Howe much does each one cost the British taxpayer? how much do the border control cost us? how much do all these camps cost us?
A lot more that the Royals FFS
Family tax credit virtually disappears over a certain amount of income.
Individual child support, diminished hugely after the first child - agree this should be means tested, but means testing costs money - perhaps it should be on an apply only basis and based on an income ceiling, I guess blanket coverage ensures everyone gets it who needs it.
But hey if you are going to that on household income, why should I not get my wife's tax allowances and pay tax based on our joint income?
I think incapacity benefit is a biggy, but if there are really that many invisible unemployed are there enough jobs (pre this recession) for them to fill? Answer=no
Perhaps if there was a bounty offered freelance benefit investigators could catch people at it..
Stop the NHS from doing stuff on non-health issues. Childlessness, gender reassignment and cosmetic surgery (except in exteme circumstances) should not be supported.
Criminals put to work on forced labour that benefits all. I don't want to pay some council operative to sweep the streets when some lowlife maggot can do it as penance - whilst dressed in a womble suit.
Send them back to Germany and turn Buck House into a legalised brothel/drug den to raise money.
Get rid of Trident (launch them at Selhurst Park and cause a few £million of improvements)
Alot of the income from Royal estates should be going to the taxpayer
Making crims do hard work, satisfying as it is, actually costs more money than having them sitting doing nothing in supervision costs and would take jobs from non-crims
Rather than persecute decent people for not putting their rubbish in the right bin or bag people could put their rubbish where they like and criminals could sort it into the right category as a "communal service" to contribute to their keep whilst schools and people on low incomes use the excellent gymnasia, swimming pools and other facilities prevalent in many prisons.
That way no jobs would be lost as householders presently are being compelled to sort their rubbish under threat of draconian penalties, something they already pay council tax towards.
Tourists visiting Royal buildings contribute far more to the economy as a whole in revenue than the cost of maintaining the Royal family to the State.
That said I see no harm in some of the more remote "Princess Alexandra" type royals way down the succession list supporting themselves although i believe that already happens to a large extent.
And the Royal Family are the worst offenders![/quote]
Dont they cost us something like 68p person per year
Take a look at fucking immigration first
Right on mate. Immigration has got to stop and should have been stoped ages ago.
Royal family must stay as its part of our country/tradition/heritage.
Tridant must stay as it is protection and a deterrant for our country.