Cutting Government Spending
Currently the UK government has to borrow around £1 for every £5 it spends. The government thus has a budget deficit of income versus spending of £127 billion for this year with the national debt set to hit £1.5 trillion within the next few years.
What are your ideas for cutting government spending?
These are my initial thoughts:
1) The better off should no longer be entitled to state pensions or free NHS treatment.
2) People who get illnesses associated with life style (eg alchohol, drugs, smoking and eating disorders) should only get basic NHS care and not expensive drug treatments.
3) People that refuse a job should have their benefits reduced or be given food stamps instead of cash.
4) Civil servants found responsible for wasting government money should be sacked.
1. So I work all my life pay NI and income tax and decide to save a bit for my old age and I don't get a state pension? OK. I won't do the savings (Some of which the banks invest in government bonds i.e. lend to the government.) and I'll be a drain on the state instead.Originally Posted by CB100
2. So I work all my life pay NI and income tax.I like a drink and a smoke and am paying tax on those (I believe I read somewhere that for every £1 smokers cost the NHS they pay in £3.) Then I die earlier and don't get a pension.Oh,and if get run over because I am always careless crossing the road the state can bring up my 3 children.
3. Food stamps possibly. Reducing benefits to an individual is virtually impossible. Provided that the employment is suitable to that person and their qualifications within reason they should accept it. However, I don't see why a physicist after paying for his own education should be forced to be a road sweeper when he could be benefitting the country. And you could finish with no one wanting to go to university.
4.Civil servants found responsible for wasting government money through carelessness and inefficiency should be sacked.
I bet you're a wow at party.
Last edited by Francis Overdere; 11-01-2012 at 02:32 PM.
This is England and .....
An easy way of reducing government spending is to simply itemise everything, similar to mobile phone bills. If people could see what their money was being spent on they might vote a bit more sensibly.
What should happen is everyone that has a NI number should be able to go online and see an itemised bill of their taxes and future repayments. If people had a tax bill then they wouldnt be so happy when politicians spend a fortune on junk.
If you could look at your tax bill and it said:
£100 resucing banks
- £50 RBS
- £50 Northern Rock
£56 NHS
- £10 hospitals
- £46 Drink related costs
.... then perhaps you'd be a bit more interested in where the money is spent
Yes I know what you mean but of course the real thing is what choice do you have? It's one thing having expenditure itemised but that is only of any real value if you can actually do something about it. But definitely it would be interesting to see just how much money is wasted by politicians and civil servants.
On my previous suggestions, I think public expenditure should be focussed purely on essentials.
I would willingly give up my state pension in the future. My mother already donates hers to a local charity. I would also pay to see my GP. I have private medical care insurance as i've had for most of my life so never use the wider NHS service. I'm sure there are many people that take a state pension or use the NHS on occasions (eg trips to GPs) etc but actually have enough money not to be a burden on the tax payer.
Same for benefits, if you are offered work you should do it, not expect to pick and choose what you do whilst living off the tax payer.
I think we have got the whole system upside down and it needs a radical re-think.
Refuse what job? When a new supermaket opened in the town nearest to me there were 350 applicants for each vacancy.
I am simply saying if offered a job people should do it not look to rely on the tax payer. I fully accept the economy is going through a rough patch but even in these times, job opportunities do come up.
It has been a benefit rule for a very long time that if you have been on JSA for 6 months and refuse a job offer you will get sanctioned. Most of what the far right of the tory party keeps ranting on about needs to be in place has been in place for years.
The irresponsible life of a jaywalker should not get an ambuluance either. Just think of the money we could save by not treating car drivers in accident and injured sports players. Less irresponsible taxpayers would catch a bus and play chess instead.
I think the real question is what you mean by "sanctioned". For me I think we need a serious change in attitude and the sanctions need to be much tougher.
Perhaps we need to start thinking about the welfare system being focussed much more towards the "deserving poor" by which I mean people who are prepared to make an effort to help themselves. I really don't see why the tax payer should support people that won't make an effort to help themselves. I think food stamps are the answer for this group.
The point I am making is that if people want welfare support, they should make an effort to help themselves. So people who eat too much and suffer from type 2 diabetes should be required to undergo a serious diet as part of their treatment if they wish to receive the expensive drug treatments. Similarly people with smoking related illnesses should be required to quit smoking. Same with alchohol etc. Otherwise they get basic treatment. It's their choice.
If people require benefits from the taxpayer they should make an effort to reduce the ongoing cost of their treatment not think they can do what they like and expect the tax payer to keep paying out.
The irresponsible life of a jaywalker should not get an ambuluance either. Just think of the money we could save by not treating car drivers in accident and injured sports players. Less irresponsible taxpayers would catch a bus and play chess instead.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks