Politics

[ewerk 26269]

Govt figures put it at £1.1bn apparently, though this website estimates £3.5bn http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/total-benef...raud/index.html

Edited June 8, 2010 by ewerk

[Happy Face 29]

Govt figures put it at £1.1bn apparently, though this website estimates £3.5bn http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/total-benef...raud/index.html

 

Good work Ewerk, i was struggling to see how that could be right...I missed the NI on the link.

 

The point still stands like.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

The biggest shame is that no parties seem to want to get to grip with some of the real wastage.

 

Child benefit should be scrapped for everybody bar the sub 15,000 families.

Same with Tax credits.

 

And if someone got to grips with the disgusting abuse of the benefit system we would save billions.

 

Benefits aren't waste. The job of a government is to tax the wealthy members of society and distribute it to the poor so that no-one is left in poverty.

 

The biggest shame is they've not been taking enough from the wealthy....and the Tories plan to take less.

 

I find it incredible that any working man would be flag waving for increased crippling cuts.

 

Spain aren't having it...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10261567.stm

 

I didnt say they were

 

But you did say they should be cut.

 

 

We are overspending and need to save money, surely Stopping child benefit payments to Mike Ashley and Richard Branson would be a good start?

 

But you said to £15k+ households.

 

 

Well you tell me where you think it should be cut off.

 

Regardless what figure you come up with the points still the same, I would rather see the partys tackle these issues than get rid of people like peaspud who sounds like he is actually saving us money.

 

BP's profit in the last quarter were £3.6Bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oil-prices-rise

 

I don't know what their current tax bill is, but the most recent one I can find said it was 20%, so using that, they paid £720m in tax over those three months. If they paid what any person on a good salary pays, you could double that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/jan/11/oilandpetrol

 

It is estimated that in 2008, £12.6 million of public money was lost through benefit fraud. http://www.stopbenefitfraudni.gov.uk/cost.htm

 

£12.6m...in a YEAR!!! Compared to BP's favourable tax rate saving them £720m in just 3 months.

 

If you increased BP's rate of tax by 0.045% (less than one twentieth of a percent), you'd cover the cost of benefit fraud.

 

 

Interesting but you didn't answer the question

[ChezGiven 0]

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP:

 

Denmark 50.0

Sweden 49.7

Belgium 46.8

France 46.1

Norway 43.6

Austria 43.4

Italy 42.6

Germany 40.6

Netherlands 39.5

United Kingdom 39.0

 

Despite being amongst the lowest tax revenue generators (as a percentage of GDP) in Europe, our social programs must take deep cuts following the examples of....

 

Spain 37.3

Greece 33.5

 

Wouldn't you prefer tax increases so the people that can afford it (and that caused it) get us through this crisis?

 

I would most definitely but its not the Conservative way, most of whom probably still believe we are heavily taxed or living in 'rip off Britain'.

 

They've already plucked an arbritrary figure of 80% cuts and 20% tax increases, haven't they? There's no logic in that, just pure tory ideology.

 

 

Labours figures were going to be 70% cuts and 30% tax increases.

 

Not much difference really

 

Link?

 

We should neither be cutting spending or raising taxes, we should be stimulating the economy. This will reduce the deficit in a much more effective way.

 

By the way, i dont come from a 'theoretical position' on these issues CT, i come from an evidence-based perspective. Macro models are built on data from history, its not theoretical physics. They might not handle shocks very well (it wouldnt be a shock if you could see it coming) but they do predict things like the Japanese experience since 1996 for example.

[Happy Face 29]

The biggest shame is that no parties seem to want to get to grip with some of the real wastage.

 

Child benefit should be scrapped for everybody bar the sub 15,000 families.

Same with Tax credits.

 

And if someone got to grips with the disgusting abuse of the benefit system we would save billions.

 

Benefits aren't waste. The job of a government is to tax the wealthy members of society and distribute it to the poor so that no-one is left in poverty.

 

The biggest shame is they've not been taking enough from the wealthy....and the Tories plan to take less.

 

I find it incredible that any working man would be flag waving for increased crippling cuts.

 

Spain aren't having it...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10261567.stm

 

I didnt say they were

 

But you did say they should be cut.

 

 

We are overspending and need to save money, surely Stopping child benefit payments to Mike Ashley and Richard Branson would be a good start?

 

But you said to £15k+ households.

 

 

Well you tell me where you think it should be cut off.

 

Regardless what figure you come up with the points still the same, I would rather see the partys tackle these issues than get rid of people like peaspud who sounds like he is actually saving us money.

 

BP's profit in the last quarter were £3.6Bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oil-prices-rise

 

I don't know what their current tax bill is, but the most recent one I can find said it was 20%, so using that, they paid £720m in tax over those three months. If they paid what any person on a good salary pays, you could double that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/jan/11/oilandpetrol

 

It is estimated that in 2008, £12.6 million of public money was lost through benefit fraud. http://www.stopbenefitfraudni.gov.uk/cost.htm

 

£12.6m...in a YEAR!!! Compared to BP's favourable tax rate saving them £720m in just 3 months.

 

If you increased BP's rate of tax by 0.045% (less than one twentieth of a percent), you'd cover the cost of benefit fraud.

 

 

Interesting but you didn't answer the question

 

Sorry, I misread your post.

 

I wouldn't. It's a red herring policy which will save relatively little.

 

How do you determine a persons/households income? It needs people to be given jobs assessing claims...and systems to perform the complex calculation taking into account existing benefits, earnings, pensions, tax paid, shared care of the child etc. The system/people to do that calculation doesn't sound like a quicjk saving, it sounds expensive additional waste. Just make a standard rate available to all and generally the well off won't even want the stigma of applying.

[NJS 3976]

Means testing child benefit sounds like a good idea (and I would welcome the exposure of the Mail twats who call anyone on benefits scum but don't mind pocketing it) but I've read that the cost of means testing would be greater than the money saved.

[Renton 17743]

Means testing child benefit sounds like a good idea (and I would welcome the exposure of the Mail twats who call anyone on benefits scum but don't mind pocketing it) but I've read that the cost of means testing would be greater than the money saved.

 

I'd favour it only in the context of redistributing it to those who need it most. But that is unfeasible because of increased administration, as has been noted.

 

I've often wondered whether charging for prescriptions makes any revenue considering 85% of prescriptions are subject to means-tested exemptions. Difference is here I suppose there is a function to reduce 'moral hazard' and abuse of the system as well.

[NJS 3976]

I've often wondered whether charging for prescriptions makes any revenue considering 85% of prescriptions are subject to means-tested exemptions. Difference is here I suppose there is a function to reduce 'moral hazard' and abuse of the system as well.

 

I agree its a strange one considering most of us are only occasional buyers as opposed to the regulars who probably don't pay - you could argue if you only get one twice a year you may as well make it £20 or even £50 - maybe the Irish use the frequency argument to justify charging for GP appointments - something that wouldn't surprise me if the Tories considered it.

 

Another factor is the honesty of pharmacists (and indeed GPs themselves) - I've been given stuff in the past and been told its cheaper than the prescription cost so bought it that way.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP:

 

Denmark 50.0

Sweden 49.7

Belgium 46.8

France 46.1

Norway 43.6

Austria 43.4

Italy 42.6

Germany 40.6

Netherlands 39.5

United Kingdom 39.0

 

Despite being amongst the lowest tax revenue generators (as a percentage of GDP) in Europe, our social programs must take deep cuts following the examples of....

 

Spain 37.3

Greece 33.5

 

Wouldn't you prefer tax increases so the people that can afford it (and that caused it) get us through this crisis?

 

I would most definitely but its not the Conservative way, most of whom probably still believe we are heavily taxed or living in 'rip off Britain'.

 

They've already plucked an arbritrary figure of 80% cuts and 20% tax increases, haven't they? There's no logic in that, just pure tory ideology.

 

 

Labours figures were going to be 70% cuts and 30% tax increases.

 

Not much difference really

 

Link?

 

We should neither be cutting spending or raising taxes, we should be stimulating the economy. This will reduce the deficit in a much more effective way.

 

By the way, i dont come from a 'theoretical position' on these issues CT, i come from an evidence-based perspective. Macro models are built on data from history, its not theoretical physics. They might not handle shocks very well (it wouldnt be a shock if you could see it coming) but they do predict things like the Japanese experience since 1996 for example.

 

 

Link = The Labour rep on Newsnight (not google).

 

While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts.

 

The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark.

 

This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Means testing child benefit sounds like a good idea (and I would welcome the exposure of the Mail twats who call anyone on benefits scum but don't mind pocketing it) but I've read that the cost of means testing would be greater than the money saved.

 

but we are already means testing them for child tax credit!

 

Just do away with child benefit all together and add it to the tax credit system.

[NJS 3976]

While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts.

 

The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark.

 

This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

 

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different.

 

Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember.

 

Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic.

[Renton 17743]

While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts.

 

The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark.

 

This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

 

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different.

 

Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember.

 

Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic.

 

As I said, economic growth is the norm, not the exception, at least it has been for over half a century.

 

The more I read about this the more scared I get. Not because of the enormity of our debt or deficit (quite the contrary, I feel fairly reassured by reading about it), but because of my fears we are being led by an incompetent government.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts.

 

The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark.

 

This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

 

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different.

 

Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember.

 

Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic.

 

I hope your right but I think I could be enrolling on team Parky.

 

If Chez was right then Labour and Torys would simply bide their time till it all came good.

 

The fact that none of them are following his suggestion, suggest to me that they can't see it coming good.

 

All of us would probably agree that the only real thing that's kept the country going over the last 13 years was the finance boom. That's gone.

 

I know it sounds defeatest but until someone can seriously offer a better outlook........

 

Team Parky

[Christmas Tree 3997]

While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts.

 

The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark.

 

This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

 

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different.

 

Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember.

 

Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic.

 

As I said, economic growth is the norm, not the exception, at least it has been for over half a century.

 

The more I read about this the more scared I get. Not because of the enormity of our debt or deficit (quite the contrary, I feel fairly reassured by reading about it), but because of my fears we are being led by an incompetent government.

 

Seriously, joking aside, which bit about all parties reccomending tax rises and cuts do you not get.

 

Even the g20 agree with the policy

 

Spain are doing it, Germany are doing it.......

 

Please ignore if your just on the wum.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Anyway, 15 minutes til Georgy porgy pudding and pie, reveals his cuts and makes us cry!

[Renton 17743]

Nobody is suggesting we shouldn't tackle the deficit at all though. It's not a question of absolutes - it's a question of timing, and the extent of cut backs and tax rises.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Renton

[NJS 3976]

As Renton said there is a good possibility that its a "simple" matter of Cameron et al being fuckwits.

 

On the other hand maybe they want to proceed with cutting government spending even knowing it will "come good" as you put it as that means more money in tax cuts later. As I've said before that's certainly what Major would have done if he'd won in 97.

[Renton 17743]

While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts.

 

The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark.

 

This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

 

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different.

 

Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember.

 

Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic.

 

As I said, economic growth is the norm, not the exception, at least it has been for over half a century.

 

The more I read about this the more scared I get. Not because of the enormity of our debt or deficit (quite the contrary, I feel fairly reassured by reading about it), but because of my fears we are being led by an incompetent government.

 

Seriously, joking aside, which bit about all parties reccomending tax rises and cuts do you not get.

 

Even the g20 agree with the policy

 

Spain are doing it, Germany are doing it.......

 

Please ignore if your just on the wum.

 

As has been made apparent in this thread there is a great deal of disagreement abouth the extent of the proposed cuts. But the main reason I have no faith in Cameron or Osbourne isn't even relating to this - it relates to their proposals in opposition during the crash itself. Find me one respectable commentator who, with hindsight, would support their policies at that time now.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Pound falls on Fitch warning on UK deficit 'challenge'

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10264721.stm

 

 

The pound has fallen after a credit rating agency warned that the UK faced a "formidable" challenge to bring down its budget deficit.

 

It fell 1% against the dollar to $1.437 after Fitch published its report.

 

The credit rating agency said the pace of deficit reduction needed to be quicker than that announced by the former Labour government in April.

 

The Treasury said the Fitch report "made the case" for its policy of speeding up spending cuts.

 

"Fitch's report makes the case clearly for an acceleration of deficit reduction, particularly in light of events in the euro-area sovereign debt market in recent months," a spokesperson said.

 

Fitch noted that the new coalition government had acted "very quickly", making deficit reduction a top priority and identifying £6bn of savings.

 

But it also sounded a note of caution. It said the new Office of Budget Responsibility, established to make an independent assessment of the UK economy, could deliver a more pessimistic outlook, offsetting the impact of efforts to cut spending.

 

It also pointed out that most other countries had pledged to cut their fiscal deficits by more than the UK has.

 

"With other European sovereigns strengthening their fiscal consolidation plans and market concerns about sovereign risk in advanced countries increasing, both the size of the UK deficit currently projected for 2011 and the failure to reduce it to 3% of GDP within five years are striking," the report said.

 

Fitch did not revise the UK's credit rating - AAA - but said the UK had the fastest rising debt ratios of any of the highest rated economies.

[Happy Face 29]

It also pointed out that most other countries had pledged to cut their fiscal deficits by more than the UK has.

 

Is that true as a percentage of GDP?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

It also pointed out that most other countries had pledged to cut their fiscal deficits by more than the UK has.

 

Is that true as a percentage of GDP?

 

not sure in what terms they mean it. The full report is on the fitch site but you have to sign up / it's free tho I think.

[NJS 3976]

Fitch are trying to regain their reputation after quite rightly being called to book for being full of shit during the crunch - I wouldn't trust them to count to 10.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Good performance by George at the dispatch box.

[ChezGiven 0]

Fitch are trying to regain their reputation after quite rightly being called to book for being full of shit during the crunch - I wouldn't trust them to count to 10.

 

Why the fuck are we taking macro economic advice from a bunch of fucking risk assessors in the fucking first place?

[manc-mag 1]

Good performance by George at the dispatch box.

 

I thought the Beast of Bolsover was going to literally rip his face off at one point. Proper snotty public schoolboy put down from Osborne, the superciliousness of the man is utterly repugnant. The quintessential Tory Chancellor.

 

Noticed the Honourable Member for http://linuxdrivensouth was there again, making sure Toontastic was represented with her stinky hands! Nice one, Biddy!

Edited June 8, 2010 by manc-mag