Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Spending Cuts To Send 'shockwave' Through Whitehall


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Now Wales aims to not implement any cuts on the Assembly in htis financial year - but do it next year instead!

Another year living in a fool's paradise, what's the problem ? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Fewer jobs in both private and public sector.

Less help for the long term unemployed.

No stimulus, just the reverse, for growth.

More unemployed means a higher social and financial cost.

Pushing us over into the double dip.

Didn't have the ***** to make a statement in Parliament.

Couldn't have done worse.

Hmm, I don't know - making a non-job paying 30K redundant and then paying them, I don't know, 5K a year unemployment IS a saving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

I agree, exactly the sort of income tax regime we need. And here you are again, doing your Gordon Brown impression. NHS consultants will work for whatever I pay them! I laugh in the face of labour markets! Or are you going to build a big wall round the place to stop people leaving?

There's nowhere for them to go, every other country needs to cut government spending too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

There's nowhere for them to go, every other country needs to cut government spending too.

I'm not finding that to be true, your mileage may vary. I think the point is there are different priorities about. The UK is attempting to reinflate the ponzi economy to aid bankers, City types, estate agents and other worthless tertiary sector workers. There are some countries that have the crazy idea that things like production, education and growth matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Hmm, I don't know - making a non-job paying 30K redundant and then paying them, I don't know, 5K a year unemployment IS a saving.

JSA is not the only cost. Add Housing Benefit, add higher Health costs, add lost tax revenue. A much closer calculation and unemployment does no good to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

I know of a 'public' sector worker (10 years) paid between 25K and 50K who has brought 10's millions in revenue INTO the country as a direct result of their IP, funding the employment of several people. Perhaps they should take one of the jobs abroad they are offered ?

For heaven's sake. Job is a job. I know a lot of of people who are paid less then £25K to lorry around goods worth millions of pounds. And they don't steal a penny. Should they get a yearly bonus?

Fair enough, anything over 25K halved plus 10% of any income generated. Seems reasonable??

Is there a problem?

How about Tesco putting prices 10% up and letting their cashiers keep 10% of the "income generated" (=turnover in case of government.)

Edited by refusnik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

JSA is not the only cost. Add Housing Benefit, add higher Health costs, add lost tax revenue. A much closer calculation and unemployment does no good to anyone.

Dude, you need to resit your GCSE Economics

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”

Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449

Do you see the Labour muppets are complaining even about these meagre cuts? What do they suggest ...... we keep running a

£170bn deficit and maybe increase it more? What sort of feckless idiots keep voting for these people, you are going to destroy

the country to the extent there is no food!

The Public Sector doesn't need cuts, it needs butchering!

They gave an £8m grant to refurbish Blackpool tower just before they were booted out.... LOL I can think of one use for the tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Rather than sacking staff, I would prefer the maximum salary in any public funded institution to be £50,000 per year. Those on £25,000or less not to be affected. To implement this:-

Excess over £75,000 to be reduced by 100%

Balance between £25,000 and £75,000 to be reduced by 50%

Band under £25,000 no reduction.

For public funded pensions, a similar process to achieve a max pension of £25,000 per year with those on £12,500 or less unaffected.

But how will they pay the mortgage on their £500k house? Surely that'll just lead to a house price crash :o:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412

So let me get this right:

Italy's government (which has a much lower budget deficit than the UK) is currently planning 24 billion Euros of spending cuts, while the UK gov is only planning 6 billion Pounds worth of cuts?

UK is f**cked...

6 billion Pounds is embarrasingly little!

Edited by wise_eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

So let me get this right:

Italy's government (which has a much lower budget deficit than the UK) is currently planning 24 billion Euros of spending cuts, while the UK gov is only planning 6 billion Pounds worth of cuts?

UK is f**cked...

Slightly different isn't it, reforms of systems will have to wait for a budget, they aren't as such in the gift of the government to do but rather parliament (technicality in theory but it exists). There are things like wholesale reform of benefits etc. still to come and then to make other cuts you have to remove the legislation that created the function. Its no good sacking pen pushers if it means your GP never sees any patients because he now has all their reporting and admin load to do etc. They could also do something about the 100 billion + in tax they don't bother collecting every year. Its like New Labour and inventing new laws, if they just enforced what they already had there'd be no need. But politicians don't like that, they aren't seen to be doing anything.

Edited by Cogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416

JSA is not the only cost. Add Housing Benefit, add higher Health costs, add lost tax revenue. A much closer calculation and unemployment does no good to anyone.

There's effectively no tax revenue from the public sector. Government collects £30K tax from private sector, pays public sector £30K with it, and collects, say, £10K tax from same public worker. That doesn't equal a total £40K tax take, it equals a total £10K tax take. I agree housing benefit is another cost, assuming they don't have savings or are living with someone with a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

I'm not finding that to be true, your mileage may vary. I think the point is there are different priorities about. The UK is attempting to reinflate the ponzi economy to aid bankers, City types, estate agents and other worthless tertiary sector workers. There are some countries that have the crazy idea that things like production, education and growth matter.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure how much the NHS contributes to economic growth beyond the 20% or so of its budget that goes on the real basics like infectious diseases, A&E, and maternity care. I don't have the exact figure to hand, but something like 2/3rds to 3/4s of all NHS spending goes on people over the age of 60. Old people are great and should be looked after, but medical care for old people is consumption, not production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
18
HOLA4419
19
HOLA4420
Guest absolutezero

No meaningful cuts this year, interest rates to be kept low regardless of inflation taking hold, looks like stagnation in the housing market untill something changes then.

As I've said before.

They will chuck the kitchen sink at keeping IRs low.

The fallout from higher borrowing rates are too awful for them to think about and certainly too awful to allow.

They'll allow inflation to rise while keeping lending and savings rates low (yes they can - Governments can (and do_ manipulate "markets") and the massive debt gets a lot smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

These cuts are just the trailer for the movie that is about to follow. The public sector has become horribly over administered. If it was politically acceptable every area would be boiled back so that the front line services survive and it’s the admin that gets cut. NuLabour’s way of having everything micro-managed by people who have no idea of what they are doing has to end. Let those who know and understand their jobs get on with it and stop all this over reporting. I’ve already heard someone from the education department state that they’ll not reduce their internal paperwork, but expect the cuts to impact evenly across the department. Or words to that effect. :angry:

There has to be a public information campaign explaining what has happened and why we’ve got to get on with this. And after that’s done all state sponsored PR would be cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

As I've said before.

They will chuck the kitchen sink at keeping IRs low.

The fallout from higher borrowing rates are too awful for them to think about and certainly too awful to allow.

They'll allow inflation to rise while keeping lending and savings rates low (yes they can - Governments can (and do_ manipulate "markets") and the massive debt gets a lot smaller.

They have to chuck the kitchen sink at the problem and keep interest rates low, if they don't the banks will be proved to be insolvent as well as the govts.

Edited by interestrateripoff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
Guest absolutezero

They have to chuck the kitchen sink at the problem and keep interest rates low, if they don't the banks will be proved to be insolvent as well as the govts.

Exactly.

I'm half expecting all debts to be written off in "Co-ordinated World Government Action" (like when interest rates around the world were all cut massively simultaneously).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

No meaningful cuts this year, interest rates to be kept low regardless of inflation taking hold, looks like stagnation in the housing market untill something changes then.

No, we're getting 20% cuts in everything by the autumn. Whether its announced next month or they wait a bit and call it the Comprehensive Spending Review is just a question of timing (same difference), the same consultancy firms were offering the same advice and planning for all three main political parties before the election. Given this is what Labour were going to do so I can't see Coalition doing anything different, just moreso perhaps.

Edited by Cogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

I would say £6 Billion is a drop in ocean. They need to identify the biggest issues and go in a long term.. i feel the benefits should be slowly reduced for people below 65 years so that they would be working. deduct the money from their pension

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information