Public Want Deeper Cuts

[thecrashingisles]

http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/494/iea-tax-and-spending-poll.htm

Opinion poll research conducted for the IEA by ComRes shows overwhelming public support for a much deeper programme of spending cuts.

By the time of the next election, the government is intending to spend around 40% of national income, but 55% of the public who expressed an opinion believe that public spending should be 35% or lower and only 16% want public spending to be measurably more than the coalition is intending to spend (45% of national income or more). 29% believe the coalition has got it about right, favouring the state spending between 35% and 45% of national income.

A much more radical reduction in state spending is particularly popular amongst the young (67% of under 25s and 69% of 25-34 year olds support government spending being reduced to below 35% of national income). There is a broadly equal level of support from voters irrespective of their party political affiliation.

Given a straight choice between the coalition’s plans of government spending of 40% of national income and the IEA’s more radical plan of reducing spending to about 30% of GDP and implementing average tax cuts of £7,500 per household, the overwhelming majority (70%) favour the IEA’s proposal and only 30% favour the coalition plan.

But on a more depressing note, 70% of people think that the government is cutting the national debt, rather than merely trying to reduce the deficit.

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/media-failing-public-many-ways

[LuckyOne]

http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/494/iea-tax-and-spending-poll.htm

But on a more depressing note, 70% of people think that the government is cutting the national debt, rather than merely trying to reduce the deficit.

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/media-failing-public-many-ways

I wonder what percentage of the population are net recipients of cash from taxpayers (benefits, JSA, pensions, HA etc)?

I would guess that if we controlled for the net recipients of cash from taxpayers, the proportion would be much higher.

We don't have that much wiggle room before the dream or nightmare (depending on one's view) of a client state is achieved.

[bricor mortis]

Yeh everyone wants spending cuts.....until it effects them.

As for the tax cut proposal mentioned above, I think these things usually only benefit the high earners, they usually calculate correctly that if they give the big tax cuts to big earners , and then give a paltry tax cut to the low earners, as long as Rupert prints a headline like "cor blimey our magnificant chancellor only gone and done a give away bonanza were all minted ", sufficient low earners will be entirely duped for their evil ruse to succeed.

And in my opinion giving the upper strata tax cuts results in bad things. See my post of yesterday on the South West regional forum as regards second home ownership hitting an all time high.

edited for spelling

Edited July 13, 2011 by bricor mortis

[matroskin]

http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/494/iea-tax-and-spending-poll.htm

A much more radical reduction in state spending is particularly popular amongst the young (67% of under 25s and 69% of 25-34 year olds support government spending being reduced to below 35% of national income).

And young should be for it as they are taxed in full but there is no tax credits for under-25s!

Even for over-25s without children the benefits are minuscule if exist at all

https://www.dwpe-services.direct.gov.uk/portal/page/portal/ba/lp says zero benefits for single over-25s without children and working less than 30h per week :angry:

Edited July 13, 2011 by matroskin

[exiges]

note the cuts to housing.....

That, I like.

[leicestersq]

I wonder if people realise what this means?

You have to have an army and a taxing authority, they are the basic two components of any state.

And you really need police, judges, border controls, a foreign office, professional politicians, passport issuance, teachers, transport authorities, fire brigade, town planning, to name but a few. And a lot of people seem to like an NHS.

That lot alone probably takes you up to 30 - 35%.

So if you are going to get down to that figure, and keep the NHS, wave pensions, unemployment benefits, child benefits and housing benefits goodbye.

[PopGun]

depends how the question is asked I suppose.

Or who's answering. I'm pretty certain if you did the same survey outside a council office and Canary Wharf, you'd get two different outcomes.

[profitofdoom]

Yeh everyone wants spending cuts.....until it effects them.

As for the tax cut proposal mentioned above, I think these things usually only benefit the high earners, they usually calculate correctly that if they give the big tax cuts to big earners , and then give a paltry tax cut to the low earners, as long as Rupert prints a headline like "cor blimey our magnificant chancellor only gone and done a give away bonanza were all minted ", sufficient low earners will be entirely duped for their evil ruse to succeed.

And in my opinion giving the upper strata tax cuts results in bad things. See my post of yesterday on the South West regional forum as regards second home ownership hitting an all time high.

edited for spelling

The vast majority of the ills in this country stem from the top and the bottom 10% stratas.The toffs buy up property and price everyone else out so they can make still more money from them.The bottom 10% do B***** all and live of the hard work of the 80%.

[The Spaniard]

I wonder if people realise what this means?

You have to have an army and a taxing authority, they are the basic two components of any state.

And you really need police, judges, border controls, a foreign office, professional politicians, passport issuance, teachers, transport authorities, fire brigade, town planning, to name but a few. And a lot of people seem to like an NHS.

That lot alone probably takes you up to 30 - 35%.

So if you are going to get down to that figure, and keep the NHS, wave pensions, unemployment benefits, child benefits and housing benefits goodbye.

We also need an adequate, state issued, debt free, persistently circulating money supply.

The present rent-a-currency money supply, lent to us by too-big-to-fail commercial banks, is not fit for purpose.

[thecrashingisles]

And you really need police, judges, border controls, a foreign office, professional politicians, passport issuance, teachers, transport authorities, fire brigade, town planning, to name but a few. And a lot of people seem to like an NHS.

That lot alone probably takes you up to 30 - 35%.

It all depends how wealthy the country is. The cost of delivering all that does not need to go up just because the private sector is growing. (Inflated property costs make this harder of course.)

[thecrashingisles]

Yes but thats becuase they are using the old method of using GDP. GDP is flawed and until Govts realise this then the same mistakes will be made over and over again.

I'd be interested in understanding the history behind how GDP came to be calculated in the way that it is.

I suspect it was the need to make a realistic comparison between the former communist block and the West which led to some dubious things being included in the figures.

[Executive Sadman]

I wonder if people realise what this means?

You have to have an army and a taxing authority, they are the basic two components of any state.

And you really need police, judges, border controls, a foreign office, professional politicians, passport issuance, teachers, transport authorities, fire brigade, town planning, to name but a few. And a lot of people seem to like an NHS.

That lot alone probably takes you up to 30 - 35%.

So if you are going to get down to that figure, and keep the NHS, wave pensions, unemployment benefits, child benefits and housing benefits goodbye.

We had all that in 1997. In fact in the 1970s we had all that and a lot more and govt around 35%.

What we didnt have was hundreds of thousands of paper pushers on 6 figure salaries.

[scrappycocco]

I wonder if people realise what this means?

You have to have an army and a taxing authority, they are the basic two components of any state.

And you really need police, judges, border controls, a foreign office, professional politicians, passport issuance, teachers, transport authorities, fire brigade, town planning, to name but a few. And a lot of people seem to like an NHS.

That lot alone probably takes you up to 30 - 35%.

So if you are going to get down to that figure, and keep the NHS, wave pensions, unemployment benefits, child benefits and housing benefits goodbye.

But we are adding to the debt to pay the bills, it doesn't make sense to go on this way and what happens when the interest is all we're paying. Surely the country should function more or less on tax receipts for the year and any borrowings should be used for sustainable future investment. I don't see why it should be acceptable for a government to steal from the future to enrich a chosen few.

[Chesnor]

We had all that in 1997. In fact in the 1970s we had all that and a lot more and govt around 35%.

Did we? I seem to remember we had massive nationalised industries, or do you not include this in government. I'd like to see some evidence of this supposedly small '70s state.

[sleepwello'nights]

But we are adding to the debt to pay the bills, it doesn't make sense to go on this way and what happens when the interest is all we're paying.

What is debt?

Surely just an artificial concept, the resources exist and can be used.

Why do we stop using them to support an artificial concept?

[scottbeard]

Yes but thats becuase they are using the old method of using GDP. GDP is flawed and until Govts realise this then the same mistakes will be made over and over again.

And a better measure would be...

[Jack's Creation]

I wonder what percentage of the population are net recipients of cash from taxpayers (benefits, JSA, pensions, HA etc)?

I would guess that if we controlled for the net recipients of cash from taxpayers, the proportion would be much higher.

We don't have that much wiggle room before the dream or nightmare (depending on one's view) of a client state is achieved.

Client States that aren't backed by Natural resources will always collapse, it's basic game theory.

[Timak]

All the countries in the world you'd actually want to live in spend around 40% of GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

The only 2 civilised places with ratios significantly less than this are tiny city states (Singapore and Hong Kong)

[thecrashingisles]

All the countries in the world you'd actually want to live in spend around 40% of GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

The only 2 civilised places with ratios significantly less than this are tiny city states (Singapore and Hong Kong)

UK 47.3%

Switzerland 32.0%

[Timak]

UK 47.3%

Switzerland 32.0%

Switzerland is a small, neutral country with an economy reliant on a specialised banking system.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing just that it isn't a model that could be replicated easily.

[leicestersq]

Switzerland is a small, neutral country with an economy reliant on a specialised banking system.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing just that it isn't a model that could be replicated easily.

Yes, getting a trusted reputation for looking after the stolen booty of others has taken hundreds of years to acquire. Occasionally British justice puts a crook or two in jail, so emulating Switzerland will take a lot of time and stoicism.

[thecrashingisles]

Switzerland is a small, neutral country with an economy reliant on a specialised banking system.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing just that it isn't a model that could be replicated easily.

And yet Switzerland has proportionately much larger armed forces:

Switzerland: Active personnel 134,886

UK: Active personnel 224,500

[thecrashingisles]

How about Australia at 34.3%. All things being equal, governing such a large land mass should be costlier than running a small island.

[Injin]

We also need an adequate, state issued, debt free, persistently circulating money supply.

The present rent-a-currency money supply, lent to us by too-big-to-fail commercial banks, is not fit for purpose.

Simply not true.

Both your proposal that you need a debt free issuing monetary authority (you don't, the state can just steal after the market decides what is valuable) and the idea that we have a rent a currency system.

We have a pretend to rent currency system.

[Djini]

This is broadly what I always say.

"My vote goes to the party who will govern this country for the least amount of cost to me"