Public expenditure savings suggestions

[l444ry]

The coalition has gone from one problem to another, one disaster to another, one PR balls up to another and we are staring down the barrel of a double dip recession. However people who have tunneled so far up the Cameroonian arse the only light they see is blue.

They wouldn't recognise reality if it came over to them and knocked over their plate of caviar. It must be a crowded inner rectum in Cameron Land, with so many editors and reporters (and some on here)all trying their damnedest to be the Blue Lips-in-General. Whilst they are typing and kissing arse like their lives depended on it, while the rest of us have to live in the reality of the most politically inept start to a parliament in living memory, with the only thing many people have to look forward to in the next five years is unemployment.

[Guest]

The coalition has gone from one problem to another, one disaster to another, one PR balls up to another

Hmmm, sounds not too dissimilar to the Brown years

[Flynny]

People create work. It is a simple fact. You could take 25% of the people out and you would only cut the work capacity by maybe 15%, becuase 10% of the work is created by the existence of the jobs themselves. Everyone has to have a line manager, appraisals, training, computer, telephone, office space, expenses, all of which have to be procured, managed, maintained, administered paid for etc. Activity creates cost, none of which in itself adds any value to the output.

I also look at these cuts and the increase in private sector jobs, and I think all these government offices which are full of people answering phones or calculating tax credits etc, they will be outsourced to the private sector at reduced cost.

I look at 43 police forces around the UK, each with their own HR, payroll, procurement functions and I think consolidate! The same for the NHS, for local councils. Local councils have treasury functions. Treasury!! They make investment decisions like invest in Icesave... Crazy. All government agencies should have to borrow only from the Government, who can manage treasury for the whole country. Simple.

There are so many examples of things being done that don;t need to be done. Don't believe the hype about nurses and policemen, it is nonsense peddled by the Unions and Labour to scare people. They spent 13 years creating a bloated publis sector full of waste, inefficiency and pointless effort, and it is time to clear it out.

Oh sure I'm right with you there, we could conceivably, though it's subjective and difficult to measure, end up with only a 10% reduction in services if we're clever and get maximum bang for our buck - I'm just saying that this takes time we don't really have. If the boom had carried on a few more years a Tory government wouldn't have bothered me too much at all. After a huge growth in public expenditure, people in charge whose instincts are to cut will ensure that the money is well spent. I'm just uncomfortable with the Tories having the perfect cover to cut whatever they like. Corporation tax was a genuine question, I've no idea of the rates in other countries, but I would like to know why it's being reported that Osbourne has cut 'more than even the markets demanded' and stuff like that.

[Phube]

What pees me off if the Lefty's (Labour/Unions) saying how if we let go Public workers then they'll have to go on the dole and not pay all their tax...

But they never mention that the tax they pay is given to then by the government...

So if you're on £20,000 a year (paid for by the gov.) and they let you go.. they lose about £4,000 in tax (which they paid anyway. But save £16,000. And then pay that person ~£90 a fortnight. £1,200 a year.

Net expenditure letting a £20,000 a year person go = -£14,800.

No brainer!

[l444ry]

What pees me off if the Lefty's (Labour/Unions) saying how if we let go Public workers then they'll have to go on the dole and not pay all their tax...

But they never mention that the tax they pay is given to then by the government...

So if you're on £20,000 a year (paid for by the gov.) and they let you go.. they lose about £4,000 in tax (which they paid anyway. But save £16,000. And then pay that person ~£90 a fortnight. £1,200 a year.

Net expenditure letting a £20,000 a year person go = -£14,800.

No brainer!

What a ridiculous analysis. No wonder the Tories didn't go out with the dinosaurs if enough people think so simplisticly! High levels of unemployment are costly not only to the individuals and families directly affected, but also to local and regional economies and the economy as a whole, as well as the social costs that often result.

Unemployment causes a waste of scarce economic resources and reduces the long run growth potential of the economy. The hours that the unemployed do not work can never be recovered. But if unemployment can be reduced, total national output can rise leading to an improvement in economic welfare.

High unemployment has an impact on government expenditure, taxation and the level of government borrowing each year. An increase in unemployment results in higher benefit payments and lower tax revenues. When individuals are unemployed, not only do they receive benefits but also pay no income tax. A double-whammy. As the unemployed are spending less they also contribute less to the government in indirect taxes like VAT. The rise in government spending along with the fall in tax revenues will result in a higher government borrowing requirement.

Unemployment wastes some of the scarce resources used in training workers. If workers are unemployed for long periods they become de-skilled as their skills become increasingly dated in a rapidly changing job market. This reduces their chances of getting employment in the future, which in turn increases the economic burden on government and society (a la Thatcher).

Rising unemployment is linked to social and economic deprivation - there is a relationship between rising unemployment and rising crime and worsening social dislocation (increased divorce, worsening health and lower life expectancy). More benefits and NHS costs here then...

Areas of high unemployment will also see a decline in real income and spending together with a rising scale of relative poverty and income inequality. As younger workers are more geographically mobile than older employees, there is a risk that areas with high unemployment will suffer from an ageing potential workforce - making them less attractive as investment locations for new businesses.

Under no circumstances can unemployment be a good thing, and certainly not something to glibly pass off as a price worth paying. Still, bike sales might increase..........

[Jon the Hat]

The coalition has gone from one problem to another, one disaster to another, one PR balls up to another and we are staring down the barrel of a double dip recession. However people who have tunneled so far up the Cameroonian arse the only light they see is blue.

They wouldn't recognise reality if it came over to them and knocked over their plate of caviar. It must be a crowded inner rectum in Cameron Land, with so many editors and reporters (and some on here)all trying their damnedest to be the Blue Lips-in-General. Whilst they are typing and kissing arse like their lives depended on it, while the rest of us have to live in the reality of the most politically inept start to a parliament in living memory, with the only thing many people have to look forward to in the next five years is unemployment.

What?

[l444ry]

What?

Another highly articulate contribution from Jon the Hat..........

[Jon the Hat]

One sided simplistic nonsense...

All of the knock on effects you mention are also the best reason for reducing the public sector. Every pound you take out of my pocket in tax is a pound I cannot spend. That means business of all kinds in the private sector lose out on vast amounts of spending. The public sector is taking circa 10% more cash that it should be, and the borrowed cash which has been funding it has run out. The only two options left are tax more or spend less, and this really is a no brainer. If you think Tax more is the answer then you really are an idiot.

[l444ry]

All of the knock on effects you mention are also the best reason for reducing the public sector. Every pound you take out of my pocket in tax is a pound I cannot spend. That means business of all kinds in the private sector lose out on vast amounts of spending. The public sector is taking circa 10% more cash that it should be, and the borrowed cash which has been funding it has run out. The only two options left are tax more or spend less, and this really is a no brainer. If you think Tax more is the answer then you really are an idiot.

You can carry on putting up straw men to knock down, Jon. You can even deliberately take things out of context if that floats your boat. It's what I've come to expect from ya.

[Jon the Hat]

You can carry on putting up straw men to knock down, Jon. You can even deliberately take things out of context if that floats your boat. It's what I've come to expect from ya.

I am just waiting to see you come up with some details of these coalition disasters.

13 years destroying the country and you lot still don't know when to shut up.

[l444ry]

I am just waiting to see you come up with some details of these coalition disasters.

13 years destroying the country and you lot still don't know when to shut up.

Just so you don't get away with your usual stunt of taking things out of context, my original post referred to the disasters this coalition has faced and will face, all without any serious reporting by Cameron's media whores. They're more interested in reporting things like Brown's little tiff with an old biddy.......

Does losing a Cabinet Minister within days of forming a coalition and who is now on the end of a fraud investigation mean things are stable?

Does the fact that one half of the coalition are losing 3% a month in the opinion polls to the main opposition party class as stable?

Does the fact that the Defence Secretary and the PM have differing views on the war in Afghanistan mean stability?

Does the fact the Minister of the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is having a very public slanging match with the country's Chief Counter Terrorism Officer mean everything is stable?

The fact that we have just had the budget with the biggest post war cuts, with ministers now saying there may be 40% cuts needed not 25%, and a parliament that will be rife with strikes and mass unemployment mean it is stable?

Does the fact that Cameron had a stand off with the 1922 committee of his own party and then had to do a very public step down mean the coalition is stable?

Is the fact that economists are now saying that a double dip recession is more or less a given and talking of a depression and up to 4 million unemployed mean everything is stable?

The fact that the new Secretary of State for justice is being publically criticised by an ex-leader of the Conservative Party and an ex-Shadow Home Secretary mean everything is stable?

The fact that the FTSE has lost 13% since the coalition came to power, despite the fact that people like you were saying it was Labour driving down the share prices, means everything is stable?

The fact that Nick Clegg had to publically slap down his brand new Deputy Leader for saying he wanted to change the coalition budget mean everything is stable?

The fact that Lord Ashcroft in the next few months will be writing a book that will personally attack all of the Cameroonian inner circle mean everything is stable?

Most importantly, in the next 12 months we will see a campaign for political reform through AV which will pit one party of the coalition directly against the other party of the coalition, which will leave lasting scars whatever the result, will this keep everything stable?

I could go on.......

[breadandcheese]

You can carry on putting up straw men to knock down, Jon. You can even deliberately take things out of context if that floats your boat. It's what I've come to expect from ya.

The public sector is too big and needs to be trimmed down.

In the boom years, we were running a deficit. Therefore, even in the good times, we could not afford the size of public sector that we have. We subsequently know the boom (and therefore booming tax receipts) from 2003-2007 to be unstable fuelled by a property/financial boom. Rather than treating these as an excetional item on the balance sheet, so that the money could be squirreled away for a recession (as Keynesianism says), the government spent these exceptional tax receipts.

I liken this to a football club making a loss of £5m every year, but who then sell a player for £10m. They may show a profit, but strip out the player sale and they're making a loss. At some point, there are no more good players to sell and they cannot hide the underlying fact they're running at a loss.

[Phube]

What a ridiculous analysis. No wonder the Tories didn't go out with the dinosaurs if enough people think so simplisticly! High levels of unemployment are costly not only to the individuals and families directly affected, but also to local and regional economies and the economy as a whole, as well as the social costs that often result.

Unemployment causes a waste of scarce economic resources and reduces the long run growth potential of the economy. The hours that the unemployed do not work can never be recovered. But if unemployment can be reduced, total national output can rise leading to an improvement in economic welfare.

High unemployment has an impact on government expenditure, taxation and the level of government borrowing each year. An increase in unemployment results in higher benefit payments and lower tax revenues. When individuals are unemployed, not only do they receive benefits but also pay no income tax. A double-whammy. As the unemployed are spending less they also contribute less to the government in indirect taxes like VAT. The rise in government spending along with the fall in tax revenues will result in a higher government borrowing requirement.

Unemployment wastes some of the scarce resources used in training workers. If workers are unemployed for long periods they become de-skilled as their skills become increasingly dated in a rapidly changing job market. This reduces their chances of getting employment in the future, which in turn increases the economic burden on government and society (a la Thatcher).

Rising unemployment is linked to social and economic deprivation - there is a relationship between rising unemployment and rising crime and worsening social dislocation (increased divorce, worsening health and lower life expectancy). More benefits and NHS costs here then...

Areas of high unemployment will also see a decline in real income and spending together with a rising scale of relative poverty and income inequality. As younger workers are more geographically mobile than older employees, there is a risk that areas with high unemployment will suffer from an ageing potential workforce - making them less attractive as investment locations for new businesses.

Under no circumstances can unemployment be a good thing, and certainly not something to glibly pass off as a price worth paying. Still, bike sales might increase..........

I work for the NHS ALL of my salary comes from the Government... ALL the tax I pay (and I pay quite a bit.. ) is me giving the government back their money... Us public sector individuals add nothing to national output... we just take... Only private sector jobs really count.

I forgot VAT in my calculation. -17.5%.

Still cost the country ~£10,000/year compared with £1,200.

[Jon the Hat]

Just so you don't get away with your usual stunt of taking things out of context, my original post referred to the disasters this coalition has faced and will face, all without any serious reporting by Cameron's media whores. They're more interested in reporting things like Brown's little tiff with an old biddy.......

Does losing a Cabinet Minister within days of forming a coalition and who is now on the end of a fraud investigation mean things are stable?

Does the fact that one half of the coalition are losing 3% a month in the opinion polls to the main opposition party class as stable?

Does the fact that the Defence Secretary and the PM have differing views on the war in Afghanistan mean stability?

Does the fact the Minister of the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is having a very public slanging match with the country's Chief Counter Terrorism Officer mean everything is stable?

The fact that we have just had the budget with the biggest post war cuts, with ministers now saying there may be 40% cuts needed not 25%, and a parliament that will be rife with strikes and mass unemployment mean it is stable?

Does the fact that Cameron had a stand off with the 1922 committee of his own party and then had to do a very public step down mean the coalition is stable?

Is the fact that economists are now saying that a double dip recession is more or less a given and talking of a depression and up to 4 million unemployed mean everything is stable?

The fact that the new Secretary of State for justice is being publicly criticised by an ex-leader of the Conservative Party and an ex-Shadow Home Secretary mean everything is stable?

The fact that the FTSE has lost 13% since the coalition came to power, despite the fact that people like you were saying it was Labour driving down the share prices, means everything is stable?

The fact that Nick Clegg had to publicly slap down his brand new Deputy Leader for saying he wanted to change the coalition budget mean everything is stable?

The fact that Lord Ashcroft in the next few months will be writing a book that will personally attack all of the Cameroonian inner circle mean everything is stable?

Most importantly, in the next 12 months we will see a campaign for political reform through AV which will pit one party of the coalition directly against the other party of the coalition, which will leave lasting scars whatever the result, will this keep everything stable?

I could go on.......

Disasters? Really? Looks like politics to me. You do realise that political parties are themselves coalitions? Groups of individuals who have views which crossover sufficiently to keep them together in the interests of achieving some of their shared objectives?

Personally I much prefer an environment where politicians can speak their mind even if compromise and party discipline mean their views do not eventually become or align with government policy, It sure beats bully boy Brown and his underhand tactics. Funny that Labourites who condemned the idea that a coalition would be a problem before the election are the ones who are gleefully trying to make every disagreement into an major issue, while the Tories and Lib Dems are getting on with it and trying to make it work and sort out the mess.

[Alexikokopops]

Tory and Labour in disagreement shocker!

[Jon the Hat]

Back on topic, Public Sector Pensions

They cost 40% of salary. Incredible.

Also, limiting redunancy payouts to a year is apparently outrageous.

On average, civil servants receive pay-offs worth three years' salary under its current redundancy scheme

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Just so you don't get away with your usual stunt of taking things out of context, my original post referred to the disasters this coalition has faced and will face, all without any serious reporting by Cameron's media whores. They're more interested in reporting things like Brown's little tiff with an old biddy.......

Does losing a Cabinet Minister within days of forming a coalition and who is now on the end of a fraud investigation mean things are stable?

Does the fact that one half of the coalition are losing 3% a month in the opinion polls to the main opposition party class as stable?

Does the fact that the Defence Secretary and the PM have differing views on the war in Afghanistan mean stability?

Does the fact the Minister of the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is having a very public slanging match with the country's Chief Counter Terrorism Officer mean everything is stable?

The fact that we have just had the budget with the biggest post war cuts, with ministers now saying there may be 40% cuts needed not 25%, and a parliament that will be rife with strikes and mass unemployment mean it is stable?

Does the fact that Cameron had a stand off with the 1922 committee of his own party and then had to do a very public step down mean the coalition is stable?

Is the fact that economists are now saying that a double dip recession is more or less a given and talking of a depression and up to 4 million unemployed mean everything is stable?

The fact that the new Secretary of State for justice is being publically criticised by an ex-leader of the Conservative Party and an ex-Shadow Home Secretary mean everything is stable?

The fact that the FTSE has lost 13% since the coalition came to power, despite the fact that people like you were saying it was Labour driving down the share prices, means everything is stable?

The fact that Nick Clegg had to publically slap down his brand new Deputy Leader for saying he wanted to change the coalition budget mean everything is stable?

The fact that Lord Ashcroft in the next few months will be writing a book that will personally attack all of the Cameroonian inner circle mean everything is stable?

Most importantly, in the next 12 months we will see a campaign for political reform through AV which will pit one party of the coalition directly against the other party of the coalition, which will leave lasting scars whatever the result, will this keep everything stable?

I could go on.......

Oh dear me,.Here we have an intellectual heap of nonsense. The complete post is a biased, fictitious load of bunkem! There are no sustainable facts, and every indication, of extreme pathos. Your 'Hocus Pocus' philosophy , and extreme left, unintelligible reasoning, only show you up to be, at best, a somewhat unsophisticated individual, whose apathetic views, are like a colander, attempting to hold water!

Please don't waste your time, on a serious subject, with such banal and politically illiterate posts.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The reply to the above was deliberately, and incorrectly done, in a format that could be understood, by the poster I was criticizing.

[l444ry]

The reply to the above was deliberately, and incorrectly done, in a format that could be understood, by the poster I was criticizing.

This is no battle of wits between you and me. I never pick on an unarmed man.

[Webbo]

Sterilise the poor

It is yet another brainchild of the new open Coalition: A website that allows the public to suggest where public spending cuts can be made.

But once again the idea has fallen victim to a string of outlandish suggestions – just like the scheme asking which bad laws should be scrapped.

The Spending Challenge website has been bombarded with possibilities for savings but some are offensive and others simply bizarre – such as the proposal to limit the amount civil servants drink to stop them going to the toilet.

Spending Challenge website

Bombarded: The public have put up some bizarre suggestions on the Government's 'Spending Challenge' website

The writer suggested tea cups over 150ml should be banned and ‘fluid monitors’ brought in to impose fines for transgressions, claiming it could save £11billion a year.

Other suggestions include forcing the poor to be sterilised, calling for a return of the workhouse and forcing benefits claimants to work in sweatshops.

One poster, infuriated about the prospect of swingeing cuts, claimed the Office for Budget Responsibility should be renamed the Waffen SS.

And another demanded the Government ‘stop spending our money on illegal wars and false accusations to justify stealing other countries’ resources’.

The website was opened to the public last week to engage voters in how to make savings.

It is aimed at involving people in the move to save billions in public spending to help reduce the vast deficit.

The website is similar to the Your Freedom site that asks for ideas about which laws introduced by Labour should be axed. It crashed after dozens of bizarre ideas were suggested, including lifting the ban on marrying a horse.

Shadow Treasury minister Angela Eagle yesterday branded the spending suggestions ‘racist and offensive’.

At Commons question time, she asked for the ‘drivel’ to be removed and the website to be moderated.

Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander replied: ‘Of course these aren’t ideas I would wish to promote.’

But he defended the consultation process and insisted Labour had yet to come up with a single idea to cut back on the burgeoning budget deficit.

Mr Alexander said although he would not promote such ideas, he was surprised she had ‘poured scorn’ on the consultation process.

He said the consultation with public sector workers had brought forward 66,000 ideas on savings that could be made in their services.

[FoxyPV]

This is not the way to save money

This smells suspiciously like back scratching to me

[Fox You Forest]

This is no battle of wits between you and me. I never pick on an unarmed man.

Love it.