Debate 2 - What would you cut?

[JoeyB]

The amount of people coming into the country.

Them i would get rid of all novelties in prison.

Mp's dont need to be paid as much as they do so there expenses can go.

pull troops out of afgan etc

[Nationwider]

Repealing the Dangerous Dogs act would mean infant mortality rates would soar - the obvious benefits being massive savings in child benefit and family-related tax credits. It's nature's way.

A way to deal with the long-tern unemployed would be to eat them. Eating human flesh is still fairly taboo outside of the south sea atolls and Wisconsin but its time to revisit the practice. Benefits slashed and a real alternative to pork for the shopper with a conscience, but who doesn't fancy vegetarianism.

[Thracian]

I can't agree with you there Thrac. Not only are means tested benefits demoralising and a disincentive to work they are also expensive to administer.

And without wanting to come the 'poor me' they meant the difference between eating and not eating when I was a kid.

I'm not unsympathetic and knew exactly how bad things could be when my wife had her brain tumour. But we didn't need child benefit when my kids were growing up and neither do lots of others. Surely those who do need it could have a little more and those who don't could do without.

How it should be administrated fairly and cheaply is definitely not my scene. But I wouldn't have thought it beyond the wit of man. I get the impression that so many things could be simpler. The law, the benefits system, paying for a car park ticket, completing a 90-minute football match.

Somehow, whether there's an authority you will find people wanting to make things complex or awkward.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Repealing the Dangerous Dogs act would mean infant mortality rates would soar - the obvious benefits being massive savings in child benefit and family-related tax credits. It's nature's way.

A way to deal with the long-tern unemployed would be to eat them. Eating human flesh is still fairly taboo outside of the south sea atolls and Wisconsin but its time to revisit the practice. Benefits slashed and a real alternative to pork for the shopper with a conscience, but who doesn't fancy vegetarianism.

This is the sickest idea that I've ever heard. Dealing with the long-term unemployed surely means getting them back to work, and if being turned to glue or fertilizer like a broken horse is the only way they can make a useful economic contribution to society, then so be it

[breadandcheese]

What are you on about? Of course the government recieve the money! Who do you think gets it?

Camelot does not own the lottery they just run it.

I give up

I think I've missed a joke, because the last time I looked, interest rates were used as a tool to target the money supply.

[Jon the Hat]

I can't agree with you there Thrac. Not only are means tested benefits demoralising and a disincentive to work they are also expensive to administer.

And without wanting to come the 'poor me' they meant the difference between eating and not eating when I was a kid.

Am not conviced on the first point - the idea that taking away child benefit from people earning over £50k a year would mean starving kids is nonsense. Also bear in mind the implications of a guaranteed allowance that increases the more kids you have. There need to be limits.

The second point is valid though. If we are going to have a suite of means tested benefits, then there needs to be a central database of income and eligibilty. It almosts exists anyway through the HMRC (tax) office - just align adresses so you can view the total income of a household and jobs a goodun. Thracian idea of spending £5Bn to means test Child benefit is a waste to me - too high admin overhead. I would rather it relied as it doesn now on the majority of people who do not need it not claiming - either becuase it is not worth it, or becuase they feel morally they shoudl not accept handouts.

[Jon the Hat]

In 2005, Tony Blair had the masochism strategy – inviting voters to pour ordure over the Prime Minister.

In 2009, it appears that George Osborne is adopting the Sadism strategy. Going out of their way to stress that frontline public sector workers like the police, nurses and firefighters, those looking forward to retirement, and those about to start a familiy will all suffer under the Tories, while those inheriting multi-million pound estates will benefit.

They’re clearly hoping for credit for honesty. “This is going to hurt you a lot more than me…” Well, I think we can stop accusing them of having no policies now.

If you actually listened you would find they had pushed out any increase in the inheritance tax threshold to at least their second parliament, that the 50% tax rate stays, and that they excluded people earning under £18k a year from the proposals. You may not like this fact, but the country is in a serious mess, and everyone is going to feel some pain.

[Zingari]

This is the sickest idea that I've ever heard. Dealing with the long-term unemployed surely means getting them back to work, and if being turned to glue or fertilizer like a broken horse is the only way they can make a useful economic contribution to society, then so be it

you haven't thought this through , have you ?

the extra glue and fertilizer will be used by sniffers and bomb makers .

my idea of starving out the grannies has much fewer pitfalls

[Bellend Sebastian]

you haven't thought this through , have you ?

the extra glue and fertilizer will be used by sniffers and bomb makers .

my idea of starving out the grannies has much fewer pitfalls

You're just not thinking of people's self esteem. Imagine the sense of pride and self worth imbued in people once they realise that they may become part of some wonderful craft project like a child sticking glitter on a crap picture that they've drawn, or help to grow some lovely chrysanthemums.

These are HUMAN BEINGS we're talking about

[Zingari]

You're just not thinking of people's self esteem. Imagine the sense of pride and self worth imbued in people once they realise that they may become part of some wonderful craft project like a child sticking glitter on a crap picture that they've drawn, or help to grow some lovely chrysanthemums.

These are HUMAN BEINGS we're talking about

If there is such a thing as a "road to Damascus " conversion , then I've just had one , I can now see the world and nature in it's "oneness".

I fall to my knees and thank you

Praise be to the Bellend

[MPH]

The more jobs a company creates the more people pay taxes. It also generates optimistic spending. People buy more when they have more. That is how it works and has, apparently, worked every time it has been done.

also it means thousands more people are not collecting jobseekers allowance and housing benefit saving the government even more money

[MPH]

Am not conviced on the first point - the idea that taking away child benefit from people earning over £50k a year would mean starving kids is nonsense. Also bear in mind the implications of a guaranteed allowance that increases the more kids you have. There need to be limits.

The second point is valid though. If we are going to have a suite of means tested benefits, then there needs to be a central database of income and eligibilty. It almosts exists anyway through the HMRC (tax) office - just align adresses so you can view the total income of a household and jobs a goodun. Thracian idea of spending £5Bn to means test Child benefit is a waste to me - too high admin overhead. I would rather it relied as it doesn now on the majority of people who do not need it not claiming - either becuase it is not worth it, or becuase they feel morally they shoudl not accept handouts.

totally agree

Just means there will be 10 bottles of wine in the cellar instead of 11

[MPH]

Enforced sterilisation of Chavs. Probably means half the people on this board but thems the breaks....

[Bellend Sebastian]

If there is such a thing as a "road to Damascus " conversion , then I've just had one , I can now see the world and nature in it's "oneness".

I fall to my knees and thank you

Praise be to the Bellend

The pleasure is all mine

[MPH]

Every person on their 70th birthday should get a letter from their government will a cyanide pill

letter could read something like:

:Thanks very much for all your lovely help. Please take this pill and pop yourself on the doorstep we'll be round in the morning, cheers love."

Now it may seem barbaric to some but after a while it will all seem quite natural... and will jsut be an every day event..

[Jon the Hat]

Enforced sterilisation of Chavs. Probably means half the people on this board but thems the breaks....

Not necessary. Just take away the financial incentives. If they have to live with their Mum while raising kids, do you think their mums might start to take a tiny bit more interest in what they are up to?

[Webbo]

I give up

Sorry if I've offended you HH. I was under the mistaken impression that banks made their money by lending it to people and charging interest. I didn't realise that it was handed straight over to the govt.

How do banks make their money then?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Sorry if I've offended you HH. I was under the mistaken impression that banks made their money by lending it to people and charging interest. I didn't realise that it was handed straight over to the govt.

How do banks make their money then?

I'm excited to hear the answer to this one as well. Either I'm missing something here or there a fairly hefty misunderstanding somewhere in the mix

[l444ry]

If you actually listened you would find they had pushed out any increase in the inheritance tax threshold to at least their second parliament, that the 50% tax rate stays, and that they excluded people earning under £18k a year from the proposals. You may not like this fact, but the country is in a serious mess, and everyone is going to feel some pain.

I don't expect to, but it would be good to hear something from the Tories this week admitting that Gordon Brown's fiscal stimulus was necessary to keep the economy going. They are more interested in highlighting the size of Britain's budget deficit. Honest Dave Cameron and Gideon Osbourne claim this is because honesty is needed about dealing with the deficit. It would be nice to hear a little more honesty from the Tories about cutting public services.

Osbourne didn't mention what he would do with increasing tax receipts as the economy begins to grow again. Alistair Darling says he intends to use these to reduce the budget deficit while protecting public services. The Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to make cuts to public spending. In both the 2001 and 2005 elections this was the predominant theme of their manifesto. Nothing's changed there then!!

What will Gideon and Dave do when the economy picks up? Osbourne yesterday left the door open for make cuts to inheritance tax for the rich and mentioned that he wouldn't scrap the 50% top tax rate at the moment, leaving open the possibility of scrapping that in future. Cameron's Tories have been light on detail - they are now, at last, telling the public what they intend to do with government. The banking crisis and recession will be used by the Tories to do what they always wanted to do. Cutting back the size of the state and then cutting taxes for the few.

[Head Honcho]

I'm excited to hear the answer to this one as well. Either I'm missing something here or there a fairly hefty misunderstanding somewhere in the mix

Yes the money does go to the bank but the banks have to pass on a good whack of this money back to the government whether it be through interest payments they have to make to The Bank of England or through tax on peoples savings.

Interest rates going up is good for savers but you pay tax on any interest you make.

Who do you think gets this extra money?

I'm unsure of how the system works now but in Thatchers day most of the banks borrowed from The Bank of England and when interest rates went up so did their interest payments to the B of E.

[Jon the Hat]

I don't expect to, but it would be good to hear something from the Tories this week admitting that Gordon Brown's fiscal stimulus was necessary to keep the economy going. They are more interested in highlighting the size of Britain's budget deficit. Honest Dave Cameron and Gideon Osbourne claim this is because honesty is needed about dealing with the deficit. It would be nice to hear a little more honesty from the Tories about cutting public services.

Osbourne didn't mention what he would do with increasing tax receipts as the economy begins to grow again. Alistair Darling says he intends to use these to reduce the budget deficit while protecting public services. The Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to make cuts to public spending. In both the 2001 and 2005 elections this was the predominant theme of their manifesto. Nothing's changed there then!!

What will Gideon and Dave do when the economy picks up? Osbourne yesterday left the door open for make cuts to inheritance tax for the rich and mentioned that he wouldn't scrap the 50% top tax rate at the moment, leaving open the possibility of scrapping that in future. Cameron's Tories have been light on detail - they are now, at last, telling the public what they intend to do with government. The banking crisis and recession will be used by the Tories to do what they always wanted to do. Cutting back the size of the state and then cutting taxes for the few.

And you problem with any of that is? The state is too big, too powerful and too expensive. When even labour are promising cuts - including Billions in effeciency savings - you still don't see the clear admission that they have screwed up. I also think you do not understand the scale of the mess we are in. Even it tax revenues are back to 2008 levels it will take years to pay down the debt. Interest alone is in the tens of billions. As many millions of us now realise, getting rid of debt is a hell of a lot harder than getting into it. The idea that the Tories will somehow have cash left over is crazy.

[breadandcheese]

Yes the money does go to the bank but the banks have to pass on a good whack of this money back to the government whether it be through interest payments they have to make to The Bank of England or through tax on peoples savings.

Interest rates going up is good for savers but you pay tax on any interest you make.

Who do you think gets this extra money?

I'm unsure of how the system works now but in Thatchers day most of the banks borrowed from The Bank of England and when interest rates went up so did their interest payments to the B of E.

You are plain wrong.

In Thatcher's day and before, retail banks used their deposit base to lend out. The difference between the interest from loans, and the interest they paid out to savers, was their profit. With liberalisation and globalisation, banks started to become far more reliant on the capital markets for their funding of loans, as their deposit base was too small for their ambitions. This money came from foreign banks that had more savers than loans (e.g. Asian banks where there is a high savings ratio), pension funds or mutual funds who would loan the money to the respective UK banks, charging them interest for doing so.

The bank of england pays interest to banks, investment funds, through the issuing of bonds (or in english borrowing money to pay for government debts).

The tax you speak of is income tax, where the income from savings represented income back to the government. This is down, but is independent of the banking system, in so far as it is down to income tax policy.

[breadandcheese]

And you problem with any of that is? The state is too big, too powerful and too expensive. When even labour are promising cuts - including Billions in effeciency savings - you still don't see the clear admission that they have screwed up. I also think you do not understand the scale of the mess we are in. Even it tax revenues are back to 2008 levels it will take years to pay down the debt. Interest alone is in the tens of billions. As many millions of us now realise, getting rid of debt is a hell of a lot harder than getting into it. The idea that the Tories will somehow have cash left over is crazy.

Amen.

Although, even the tories are not being honest about the scale of cuts necessary to return our finances back to order. Yes, compared to Labour, they are honest, but the cuts they've mentioned do not go far enough to return our finances back to a decent shape.

There's a huge amount of spin going round from all parties. However, I particularly like the idea from Labour that they can make huge efficieny savings to help cut debt. I sit here in bewilderment thinking, why have they only just found these after 12 years. As a taxpayer, why have they been wasting this money year after year.

Certainly this belief that the Tories get a hard on at the thought of public spending cuts is rubbish. It's a mud-slinging by Labour. I imagine the Tories would love nothing better than to be able to boost public spending and cut taxes in some utopian world. Indeed, if you are a party with a modicum of ambition to get into power, you want to be able to boost public spending and cut taxes, offering exactly what the electorate want to hear. In this respect, all parties share the same desire, to be popular. Somehow, Labour are convinced that actually the Conservative party love nothing more than cutting spending and being unpopular, the very antithesis of a party with ambitions of winning a democratic election.

We need an honest debate on the public debts, sadly, we are not getting the full picture, with politicians not telling the whole truth, and indeed us the electorate having this belief that we need to reduce public finance debt levels but at no cost to ourselves.

[Bellend Sebastian]

You are plain wrong.

In Thatcher's day and before, retail banks used their deposit base to lend out. The difference between the interest from loans, and the interest they paid out to savers, was their profit. With liberalisation and globalisation, banks started to become far more reliant on the capital markets for their funding of loans, as their deposit base was too small for their ambitions. This money came from foreign banks that had more savers than loans (e.g. Asian banks where there is a high savings ratio), pension funds or mutual funds who would loan the money to the respective UK banks, charging them interest for doing so.

The bank of england pays interest to banks, investment funds, through the issuing of bonds (or in english borrowing money to pay for government debts).

The tax you speak of is income tax, where the income from savings represented income back to the government. This is down, but is independent of the banking system, in so far as it is down to income tax policy.

It's all true.

HH right in suggesting that you could supposedly increase the tax take from savings tax by increasing interest rates, but it's a pretty crap way of raising revenue. For starters, banks aren't obliged to pass on any changes in interest rates (savers will have noticed how quickly they cut rates, but don't rush around to put them up again when the BoE increases them). In addition, the BoE aren't going to be putting interest rates up when the economy is still fragile (oh look, they've kept them on hold again today). Interest rates get increased when they're trying to reign in the economy, not when they're trying to stimulate it

[Head Honcho]

It's all true.

HH right in suggesting that you could supposedly increase the tax take from savings tax by increasing interest rates, but it's a pretty crap way of raising revenue. For starters, banks aren't obliged to pass on any changes in interest rates (savers will have noticed how quickly they cut rates, but don't rush around to put them up again when the BoE increases them). In addition, the BoE aren't going to be putting interest rates up when the economy is still fragile (oh look, they've kept them on hold again today). Interest rates get increased when they're trying to reign in the economy, not when they're trying to stimulate it

It matters nothing when interest rates are low but when they are 17% it makes a hell of a difference.

I'm not arguing with anything you both have said but to say the Thatchers government didn't make money fron high interest rates is wrong.