Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Have you costed that option? Especially since most are not even UK residents...

No, I don't even know what costing the option is. If nationality is important, then the top eight UK citizens can pay it all.

I doubt it. Corporations seem to be getting off lightly in your proposal though.

But either way even if they did have enough, it wouldn't work. Here's a non technical explanation as to why:
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/

It's a bit of a simplification but if faced with your proposals, that's what would happen...

bobmcstuff

There's also the question of why they would decide to do that.

Even if they are minimising their tax liability they're still probably paying more than most of the rest of us put together already.

bompington

meursault wrote:

No, I don't even know what costing the option is.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

No, I don't even know what costing the option is.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Don't worry, it's other peoples' money.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Have you costed that option? Especially since most are not even UK residents...

No, I don't even know what costing the option is. If nationality is important, then the top eight UK citizens can pay it all.

I doubt it. Corporations seem to be getting off lightly in your proposal though.

But either way even if they did have enough, it wouldn't work. Here's a non technical explanation as to why:
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/

It's a bit of a simplification but if faced with your proposals, that's what would happen...

pls Steve put another record on......

it doesnt have to be that option does it?
clearly when you ve a guy like Bill gates (who i happen to respect) can try to give his fortune away, can still see his fortune increase by 25billion in 11years, then the balance (remember that word) needs a shift the other way.

for balance, when the UK had higher tax rates of 83% that was ineffective and too far the other way, as i ve said before we need to look at a more progressive tax system, including council tax.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

No, I don't even know what costing the option is.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Don't worry, it's other peoples' money.

Well if you're a fully fledged socialist, then it's not other people's money, but 'our' money. It's always other people's money, we're just arguing about who puts in what.

As someone pointed out a few pages back, personal income tax has always been progressive to a greater or lesser extent. It's all the other forms of taxation where I think there is more scope for debate.

rjsterry

Some interesting graphs and tables here showing what proportion of receipts is made up by each tax.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539194/Jun16_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf

Although this doesn't include council tax or presumably business rates.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Have you costed that option? Especially since most are not even UK residents...

No, I don't even know what costing the option is. If nationality is important, then the top eight UK citizens can pay it all.

I doubt it. Corporations seem to be getting off lightly in your proposal though.

But either way even if they did have enough, it wouldn't work. Here's a non technical explanation as to why:
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/

It's a bit of a simplification but if faced with your proposals, that's what would happen...

pls Steve put another record on......

it doesnt have to be that option does it?
clearly when you ve a guy like Bill gates (who i happen to respect) can try to give his fortune away, can still see his fortune increase by 25billion in 11years, then the balance (remember that word) needs a shift the other way.

for balance, when the UK had higher tax rates of 83% that was ineffective and too far the other way, as i ve said before we need to look at a more progressive tax system, including council tax.

You miss the point for a change - as does RJS in this case

I explained it a few pages back - it is about more than just rates but the parable as mentioned is a simplification. Point being that if Mersualt think he can extract all of the revenue the UK needs from the top few individuals (or whatever) by whatever means, they will simply leave the UK tax net. They would have both the reason and the means to do so. So his strategy would fail.

Bill gates net wealth is also not the same as his income (both are admittedly massive but there is a very significant difference here, not just in amounts) - I can explain if you want...

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned above its an over simplification to illustrate a general principle that if a country is too unfriendly towards larger tax payers who are reasonably mobile (whether individual or corporate) they can and sometimes will go elsewhere. Or grow less because they have less funds left. Or not invest more etc. It is not just down to rates, but also attitude of tax authorities, breadth of tax base, complexity and cost of compliance etc.

The general principle it illustrates is in line with what I see professionally.

As mentioned just a page or so back...

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Have you costed that option? Especially since most are not even UK residents...

No, I don't even know what costing the option is. If nationality is important, then the top eight UK citizens can pay it all.

I doubt it. Corporations seem to be getting off lightly in your proposal though.

But either way even if they did have enough, it wouldn't work. Here's a non technical explanation as to why:
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/

It's a bit of a simplification but if faced with your proposals, that's what would happen...

pls Steve put another record on......

it doesnt have to be that option does it?
clearly when you ve a guy like Bill gates (who i happen to respect) can try to give his fortune away, can still see his fortune increase by 25billion in 11years, then the balance (remember that word) needs a shift the other way.

for balance, when the UK had higher tax rates of 83% that was ineffective and too far the other way, as i ve said before we need to look at a more progressive tax system, including council tax.

You miss the point for a change - as does RJS in this case

I explained it a few pages back - it is about more than just rates but the parable as mentioned is a simplification. Point being that if Mersualt think he can extract all of the revenue the UK needs from the top few individuals (or whatever) by whatever means, they will simply leave the UK tax net. They would have both the reason and the means to do so. So his strategy would fail.

Bill gates net wealth is also not the same as his income (both are admittedly massive but there is a very significant difference here, not just in amounts) - I can explain if you want...

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

How's this for a starting point.

Figure 1 in the HMRC document I posted suggests that as a proportion of GDP, tax receipts are around the norm at about 28% (it's been as high as 30.5% and as low as 25.5% in the early 90s recession). Tax receipts have been steadily climbing since the 80s with the exception of the wobble around 2008. This would suggest it is the spending that is accelerating, but maybe half a percent of GDP extra tax receipt would make all the difference.

Figure 2 in that link is quite interesting. The split is roughly 30% Consumption and Environmental (VAT, Fuel Duty, etc.), 50-55% Personal Income (including NIC), 10-15% Business Income and Wealth (Corp tax, etc.) and 5-10% Capital and other receipts (CGT, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty, etc.). I'd have assumed that it would have been a more even split.

kingstongraham

meursault wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

meursault wrote:

These eight people can pay it all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN150009

You need to listen to Radio 4 More or Less.

I have already implemented this, more or less.

Then you know with how much contempt to treat that press release.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

How's this for a starting point.

Figure 1 in the HMRC document I posted suggests that as a proportion of GDP, tax receipts are around the norm at about 28% (it's been as high as 30.5% and as low as 25.5% in the early 90s recession). Tax receipts have been steadily climbing since the 80s with the exception of the wobble around 2008. This would suggest it is the spending that is accelerating, but maybe half a percent of GDP extra tax receipt would make all the difference.

Figure 2 in that link is quite interesting. The split is roughly 30% Consumption and Environmental (VAT, Fuel Duty, etc.), 50-55% Personal Income (including NIC), 10-15% Business Income and Wealth (Corp tax, etc.) and 5-10% Capital and other receipts (CGT, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty, etc.). I'd have assumed that it would have been a more even split.

Nope, income tax, NI and VAT have always been the biggest by some way - and growing over time.

The ideal IMO is a low rate tax system based on a broad economic base. I.e. attract the business and economic activity, encourage it to grow and the revenues will flow from that. Clearly easier said than done.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

So where would you reduce spending specifically?

mamba80

10 % off what?

no one noticed cutting nursing places in 2010 until we get a report saying nhs trusts spending billions on agency staff, no one noticed cuts in social care until your local hospital has no beds, no one noticed failure to invest in GP services until we all turn up at AE and someone dies on a trolley waiting to be be seen.

we ve 15% of school leavers classed as functionally illiterate, these kids, if they get work, wont pay tax, will have kids that have poor outcomes etc etc...

we cut back on social housing... too expensive... and now give billions to private landlords, cut backs in adult social care, thats worked out well hasnt it?

and my mate last w/e end didnt notice the pot hole until he went over the bars and is still in hospital.

I used to work with a european technician, he said the prob with the UK is that everything is old, you dont invest for the long term, cut back on everything and then wonder why you end up spending far more than other countries.

We need targeted spending cuts in some areas and far more spending in others but it wont happen.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

So where would you reduce spending specifically?

I would stop wanting to "punch above my weight" and not buy two aircraft carriers whilst ending 3 services and have an integrated force like USMC. scrap Hinckley Point, scrap HS2. recruitment freeze, pay freeze,end the triple lock, close pension schemes to new entrants and change existing members to career average whilst increasing their contributions and worsening benefits. Halve the Housing benefit bill over the next 5 years. regional pay rates.

Let me know if you want any more

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

10 % off what?

no one noticed cutting nursing places in 2010 until we get a report saying nhs trusts spending billions on agency staff, no one noticed cuts in social care until your local hospital has no beds, no one noticed failure to invest in GP services until we all turn up at AE and someone dies on a trolley waiting to be be seen.

we ve 15% of school leavers classed as functionally illiterate, these kids, if they get work, wont pay tax, will have kids that have poor outcomes etc etc...

we cut back on social housing... too expensive... and now give billions to private landlords, cut backs in adult social care, thats worked out well hasnt it?

and my mate last w/e end didnt notice the pot hole until he went over the bars and is still in hospital.

I used to work with a european technician, he said the prob with the UK is that everything is old, you dont invest for the long term, cut back on everything and then wonder why you end up spending far more than other countries.

We need targeted spending cuts in some areas and far more spending in others but it wont happen.

We are spending 10% beyond our means - it generally recognised that we will not raise revenue by £70-80bn so need to stop spending it.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

10 % off what?

no one noticed cutting nursing places in 2010 until we get a report saying nhs trusts spending billions on agency staff, no one noticed cuts in social care until your local hospital has no beds, no one noticed failure to invest in GP services until we all turn up at AE and someone dies on a trolley waiting to be be seen.

we ve 15% of school leavers classed as functionally illiterate, these kids, if they get work, wont pay tax, will have kids that have poor outcomes etc etc...

we cut back on social housing... too expensive... and now give billions to private landlords, cut backs in adult social care, thats worked out well hasnt it?

and my mate last w/e end didnt notice the pot hole until he went over the bars and is still in hospital.

I used to work with a european technician, he said the prob with the UK is that everything is old, you dont invest for the long term, cut back on everything and then wonder why you end up spending far more than other countries.

We need targeted spending cuts in some areas and far more spending in others but it wont happen.

We are spending 10% beyond our means - it generally recognised that we will not raise revenue by £70-80bn so need to stop spending it.

SC, you will never get through to people like the above that there is no magic money tree... :roll:

They complain bitterly but expect everyone else to pay for it

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

10 % off what?

no one noticed cutting nursing places in 2010 until we get a report saying nhs trusts spending billions on agency staff, no one noticed cuts in social care until your local hospital has no beds, no one noticed failure to invest in GP services until we all turn up at AE and someone dies on a trolley waiting to be be seen.

we ve 15% of school leavers classed as functionally illiterate, these kids, if they get work, wont pay tax, will have kids that have poor outcomes etc etc...

we cut back on social housing... too expensive... and now give billions to private landlords, cut backs in adult social care, thats worked out well hasnt it?

and my mate last w/e end didnt notice the pot hole until he went over the bars and is still in hospital.

I used to work with a european technician, he said the prob with the UK is that everything is old, you dont invest for the long term, cut back on everything and then wonder why you end up spending far more than other countries.

We need targeted spending cuts in some areas and far more spending in others but it wont happen.

We are spending 10% beyond our means - it generally recognised that we will not raise revenue by £70-80bn so need to stop spending it.

SC, you will never get through to people like the above that there is no magic money tree... :roll:

They complain bitterly but expect everyone else to pay for it

Last summer, you voted for a magic money tree. Faith gone already?!

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

10 % off what?

no one noticed cutting nursing places in 2010 until we get a report saying nhs trusts spending billions on agency staff, no one noticed cuts in social care until your local hospital has no beds, no one noticed failure to invest in GP services until we all turn up at AE and someone dies on a trolley waiting to be be seen.

we ve 15% of school leavers classed as functionally illiterate, these kids, if they get work, wont pay tax, will have kids that have poor outcomes etc etc...

we cut back on social housing... too expensive... and now give billions to private landlords, cut backs in adult social care, thats worked out well hasnt it?

and my mate last w/e end didnt notice the pot hole until he went over the bars and is still in hospital.

I used to work with a european technician, he said the prob with the UK is that everything is old, you dont invest for the long term, cut back on everything and then wonder why you end up spending far more than other countries.

We need targeted spending cuts in some areas and far more spending in others but it wont happen.

We are spending 10% beyond our means - it generally recognised that we will not raise revenue by £70-80bn so need to stop spending it.

SC, you will never get through to people like the above that there is no magic money tree... :roll:

They complain bitterly but expect everyone else to pay for it

Are you one of the 15% ?
you need to examine how did we get to this state of affairs, Gov's are continually cutting this or that and yet we are no better off than before, perhaps a new approach is needed.

i ve given well documented examples of policies that have saved money for a year or two and then cost the tax payer far more in the medium term and yet you think thats a good use of public funds.......

here is another one, disbanding our maritime patrol aircraft to save 1billion, end up buying americian planes for far more and long delays...... yep in coopters world this is wise budgeting lol!

Lookyhere

what seems to happen with public sector pay freezes is that the more skilled leave to go into the private sector and those left end up claiming more in working tax credits etc.
same with pension cuts, poorer people end up claiming more, its a problem with a low wage low skilled economy, easy to see how much more is being paid out in tax credits and housing benefit that paying less, investing less ends up costing more.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

So where would you reduce spending specifically?

I would stop wanting to "punch above my weight" and not buy two aircraft carriers whilst ending 3 services and have an integrated force like USMC. scrap Hinckley Point, scrap HS2. recruitment freeze, pay freeze,end the triple lock, close pension schemes to new entrants and change existing members to career average whilst increasing their contributions and worsening benefits. Halve the Housing benefit bill over the next 5 years. regional pay rates.

Let me know if you want any more

It would be good to see actual numbers to demonstrate that those cuts add up to 10% of overall spending. Also, some explanation of where recruitment will be frozen, where pay will be frozen (that isn't already frozen). Changes to unaffordable pensions seems sensible but will have consequences - it is effectively a pay cut, so expect even more people leaving public services. Lastly how would you go about halving housing benefit? I realise this becomes a bit of a project in itself, but it's very easy to rattle off a list of names.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

So where would you reduce spending specifically?

I would stop wanting to "punch above my weight" and not buy two aircraft carriers whilst ending 3 services and have an integrated force like USMC. scrap Hinckley Point, scrap HS2. recruitment freeze, pay freeze,end the triple lock, close pension schemes to new entrants and change existing members to career average whilst increasing their contributions and worsening benefits. Halve the Housing benefit bill over the next 5 years. regional pay rates.

Let me know if you want any more

It would be good to see actual numbers to demonstrate that those cuts add up to 10% of overall spending. Also, some explanation of where recruitment will be frozen, where pay will be frozen (that isn't already frozen). Changes to unaffordable pensions seems sensible but will have consequences - it is effectively a pay cut, so expect even more people leaving public services. Lastly how would you go about halving housing benefit? I realise this becomes a bit of a project in itself, but it's very easy to rattle off a list of names.

It is a mixture of immediate cuts and longer term savings. Rather than putting together a costed plan I was trying to demonstrate the level to which we are living beyond our means and the kind of unpopular decisions that will need to be taken.

HB - I would announce is reducing by 10% so people can adjust.

I would freeze all recruitment and make people jump through hoops to get sign off. Even slowing down the process will save a couple of % off the wage bill.

Scrap the royal family and seize their assets to be sold off.

Move Parliament up North saving billions on the refurb plus billions selling Govt buildings in central London. Civil servants can go with them saving billions more on wages.

tangled_metal

Not sure of the real world benefits of HS2 but it strikes me that there's something wrong when London and the commuter belt down in the southeast gets millions spent on large-scale infrastructure but large-scale infrastructure that is supposedly aimed at growing business in the north of England is too expensive. Shame we didn't scrap Crossrail back in 2007 and save the budgeted £14.8bn before it was started. Of course we didn't and I reckon it'll cost much more by the end. Stifle development in se? Never! North? Not a problem.

surrey_commuter

Lookyhere wrote:

what seems to happen with public sector pay freezes is that the more skilled leave to go into the private sector and those left end up claiming more in working tax credits etc.
same with pension cuts, poorer people end up claiming more, its a problem with a low wage low skilled economy, easy to see how much more is being paid out in tax credits and housing benefit that paying less, investing less ends up costing more.

I should have mentioned I was scrapping working tax credits.

I would hack away at tax relief on pensions. Yes incentivise people to provide for their old age but £30k per annum is plenty.

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not sure of the real world benefits of HS2 but it strikes me that there's something wrong when London and the commuter belt down in the southeast gets millions spent on large-scale infrastructure but large-scale infrastructure that is supposedly aimed at growing business in the north of England is too expensive. Shame we didn't scrap Crossrail back in 2007 and save the budgeted £14.8bn before it was started. Of course we didn't and I reckon it'll cost much more by the end. Stifle development in se? Never! North? Not a problem.

Bizarrely cross rail seems to be on time on budget. I saw a costed argument that politicians love "large scale infrastructure" but that smaller schemes are more cost effective. It was looking at many small improvements to the northern rail network that would greatly enhance mobility of labour.