So, this budget then, nobody care?

[tek-monkey]

Agreed. Disband the Lib Dems too, that'd save a shitload!

Good plan in one way, the Tories lose their majority again so have no direct power

 

[Gramaisc]

Withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, that'd save more than the welfare system costs at a stroke.

We have gone from Iraq, havent we? Withdrawal from Afghanistan wouldn't really save that much, unless we get rid of loads of squaddies as a result. It costs us a bit of extra fuel and equipment, but a lot of that would occur anyway, even if they were just running around the ranges in Germany...

I am not suggesting that there aren't savings to be made here, merely that the additional costs of the Afghan adventure may not be quite as great as they may seem.

I have no doubt that there are great savings to be made in the military sphere. We, apparently, have more admirals than the Navy has ships, for example....

 

[shoes]

The issue is reducing government spending as far as I can see. The rich do not rely on government handouts, the middling people have minimal benefits and the poor generally rely on the government. When reducing government spending on welfare it is obviously those who are most reliant on welfare who will get hit the hardest.

I'm not sure I see a way around this, which is fair. Have you any suggestions?

In the simplest terms increase my (earnings of the 'middling' ) income tax by two per cent - that will have a small effect on retail spending but will - if directed directly - prevent the weakest poorest the mentally ill from sinking into the pit of poverty. Why would I want to do this? Because a happy place to live is a place where the ill and the weak are cared for - even if it is a direct cost to me. And who knows when any of us may fall ill and not be able to earn any money

PS What happened to the rants? Are you OK? Hope you are not falling ill..

I'm all for a flat 25% rate of income tax for everyone, and I do mean everyone. Do away with the silly high tax for people earning over 40k, it really isn't that much money and you really have to work hard to earn it. I agree it would have a minimal impact on retail spending, however I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in any of this extra revenue reaching the people who actually need it most. Not that I ever will, I don't think.

 

[shoes]

The issue is reducing government spending as far as I can see. The rich do not rely on government handouts, the middling people have minimal benefits and the poor generally rely on the government. When reducing government spending on welfare it is obviously those who are most reliant on welfare who will get hit the hardest.

I'm not sure I see a way around this, which is fair. Have you any suggestions?

Drastic changes in criteria for claimants, I know it's an old chestnut but how is it right that people can still come into the country and take immediate advantage of a fund made up of our contributions and, in some cases, lead very comfortable lives yet when people who have paid in to the national INSURANCE scheme for years have to jump through hoops when they fall on hard times to get even the minimum benefits.

Yup, the one time in my working life I have signed on, I managed to get a job before they had even agreed to pay my benefit. Two points to be made here:

1) the system is incredibly inefficient and can really leave you in the lurch
2) all these people who spend months and months and months unemployed are lazy bastardos. the job I got whilst waiting for my benefit was a McJob. Now if this right wing extreme tory w**nker can swallow his pride and get a McJob then wayne slob from a scrotey council estate can do the same.

 

[shoes]

Agreed. Disband the Lib Dems too, that'd save a shitload!

Good plan in one way, the Tories lose their majority again so have no direct power

I don't think it really matters mate, we can either have a tory government who will forget the poor and bolster the rich (my preferred option), a lib dem government who are still trying to differentiate their arse from their elbow or a labour government.....well yeah.... the last 13 years says it all.

Personally I think we need a dictatorship. With me as the dictator. That would solve a lot of problems!

 

[tek-monkey]

A flat rate of 25% income tax will make it pointless for most people on minimum wage to work, can only happen if wages increase dramatically and employers will never allow that. The current minimum wage ****** off enough of them, raising it further will result in job losses.

I'd be much happier with no tax below £15k, then staging it as it currently is. Get more people wanting to work, not thinking its pointless as benefits pay more. Lets face it, earnings always take tax into account. Nobody really thinks going from £50k to £60k actually means your salary increases by £10k, and employers know this which is why pay increases are always a lot more at that level. If we had flat taxes I expect higher end wages to drop substantially to bring them back in line with what you would have earned at the old levels.

 

[damonhoppe]

The issue is reducing government spending as far as I can see. The rich do not rely on government handouts, the middling people have minimal benefits and the poor generally rely on the government. When reducing government spending on welfare it is obviously those who are most reliant on welfare who will get hit the hardest.

I'm not sure I see a way around this, which is fair. Have you any suggestions?

Hmm, I wonder where this person has been the last 3 years. Government finances were in surplus and had the lowest level of debt for a generation mainly due to a failure to make sufficient allocation of funds to public services despite rising affluence for the rich. The then Government borrowed £60bn to give to the irresponsible super-rich bankers and this new government is cutting support ($6bn this year more next) to the the victims of the banks to pay for it.

My suggestion is that given that these banks have just declared half year profits of £15bn and record bonuses they should repay the tax payer (which was the original plan) so we don't have to make any cuts at all. If in addition we stopped tax avoidance as the Lib Dems promised we could raise an additional £40bn a year which could be used to eliminate poverty and rebuild our economy! I am sure Philip Green, who pays no tax, can live without another gold plated Lear jet.

But as we live in a selfish 'winner takes all' society that will never happen.

 

[Withnail]

given that these banks have just declared half year profits of £15bn and record bonuses they should repay the tax payer (which was the original plan) so we don't have to make any cuts at all.

I fear that we may have had the option of extracting either money or apologies from the bankers.

St. Vince of Cable must have lost half of his tongue, biting it this long.

 

[CuteStaffsGuy]

All banks should be state owned, run sensibly and all profits used to support either the welfare system, for those who truly need it, or spent on other areas like the NHS. Obviously that would never happen because the government can't just nationalise private companies.

 

[Withnail]

Not sure about all.

Can't help thinking we missed a trick with Northern Rock to have one 'national' bank dedicated to small scale loans to small scale businesses to get money moving.

Of course the 'Big' banks would've cried foul, and we wouldn't want that.

Would we.

 

[John Marwood]

All banks should be state owned, run sensibly and all profits used to support either the welfare system, for those who truly need it, or spent on other areas like the NHS. Obviously that would never happen because the government can't just nationalise private companies.

If all banks were state owned we wouldnt have our glorious Coalition Government of 23 millionaires -

Would we?

 

[tek-monkey]

Not sure about all.

Can't help thinking we missed a trick with Northern Rock to have one 'national' bank dedicated to small scale loans to small scale businesses to get money moving.

Of course the 'Big' banks would've cried foul, and we wouldn't want that.

Would we.

With all due respect, **** 'em I say.

 

[Gramaisc]

The rich do not rely on government handouts,

Bank bail-outs?.

 

[John Marwood]

The rich do not rely on government handouts,

Bank bail-outs?.

Well said that man

 

[Gramaisc]

Iceland may be considering holding some of those responsible for their problems to account..

 

[basil]

Record public borrowing figures diclosed today, dunna really matter cos someone else can be blamed .......

 

[Withnail]

Financial Services Authority (aka Fundamentally Supine Authority) chairman Lord Turner said there was a need to "move beyond the demonisation of overpaid traders".

Does this man not understand what 'overpaid' means? Extraordinary that he should be so explicitly crass.

Perhaps if they were not overpaid they would cease to be demonised?

 

[John Marwood]

Record public borrowing figures diclosed today, dunna really matter cos someone else can be blamed .......

I noticed that on the FT website..

I am sure that the Daily Mail will be rounding on the Cameron Co-op to go before Christmas

Not

 

[tek-monkey]

Record public borrowing figures diclosed today, dunna really matter cos someone else can be blamed .......

For what period?

 

[John Marwood]

August