What do you want to cut?

[unlinkedstudent]

I'd cut child benefit for those earning more than £30k. I'd also abolish the child trust fund where £250 (is it really £250?) is given to each child at birth and put in trust earning zilch interest in some cases so they can buy whatever when they reach 18 - they can have a piggy bank like the rest of us did!

 

I'd cut back on military spending and put more money into local Police forces.

 

I'd make GPs be forced to give you a year's supply of long term medication (for example, blood pressure tablets/diabetic/asthma) thus saving the NHS the cost of paying GPs for each prescription they write out - how many people are on medication long term and their GP insists on them only have 2 months' supply at a time or even one month? That means additional time in preparing the prescription, more time leaving a message on the phone, more times you have to collect the damned prescription, etc.

 

I'd cut some of the overseas aid too.

[lorelei]

I'd make GPs be forced to give you a year's supply of long term medication (for example, blood pressure tablets/diabetic/asthma) thus saving the NHS the cost of paying GPs for each prescription they write out - how many people are on medication long term and their GP insists on them only have 2 months' supply at a time or even one month? That means additional time in preparing the prescription, more time leaving a message on the phone, more times you have to collect the damned prescription, etc.

 

I'd question this bit as it's not as straightforward as simply diagnosing someone with a long-term condition and then being able to give them 12 months of meds straight off the bat. For example, for someone with my condition (underactive thyroid) it's quite difficult to get the appropriate dosage of thyroxine correct on the first try so people tend to get 2 months supply at a medium dose and then go back for further tests to check that the dosage is correct or not....and quite a lot of the time it isn't correct and either needs reducing or increasing. So if GPs were to follow your idea that would mean prescribing 12months worth of meds at the start of treatment at one dosage level and then potentially having to prescribe another 12 months worth at a different dosage level if the initial dose isn't enough or is too much. That doesn't sound particularly cost effective to me!

 

Also what about the overdose risk? Some people have very powerful medications prescribed to them for long term mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia for example) - would it really be wise to give people with fragile mental health 12 months worth of powerful medication in one go? What if the first lot of meds you give them creates dangerous side effects that worsen an aspect of their mental health leading to them trying to harm themselve or kill themselves? How is someone ending up in a psychiatric ward or ICU because they've been given (and/or taken) the equivalent of 6-12months worth of meds in one go cost effective for anyone?

 

Long term illness of any kind is a tricky thing and personally I'd rather trust that the those with the medical knowledge know what they're doing rather than demanding that they palm over 12 months worth of meds at point of diagnosis.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^ Sorry, I didn't mean to imply every single long term medical condition but there are many conditions where, quite frankly, the GPs give out the repeat prescriptions monthly when there are no good reasons why they couldn't be done less frequently.

 

I'm not referring to painkillers where people could OD, but blood pressure tablets, those on insulen, asthma drugs and so on. Not all long term illnesses require monitoring by a GP less than at intervals of 3 months - so why not 3 months' worth of prescriptions instead of a month's worth? In addition, many medications are dictated via hospital consultants with limited input from GP; yet it is the GP who gets the dosh for the repeat prescriptions.

 

My old GP would give me a year's supply of painkillers on one prescription - he had decided I wasn't a "suicide risk". Hubby used to get his tablets in 6 months supply.

 

Up here, you have to debate with your GP to get 2 months' supply yet they would prefer you only to have one month's supply; and they expect you to do the trip to the surgery or have the subsided cab collect them - how much money does the NHS spend on prescriptions and would they save money if GPs prescribed 3 months at a time instead of only one month's supply? If it is considered safe elsewhere in the UK, then why not in Shetland?

[shetlandpeat]

From what I remember suicide rates were high on islands than on mainland.

It would be similar to why there are high suicide rates among farmers.

 

Cost would be involved and the area health board, or trust may have a different policy than others.

 

IMO

[Lexander]

I woud keep childe benefits univursel for all. But only for the first 3 children we dont need no baby farms.

 

And i would make it harder to get job sekarer allowance, is to easy to get it now and you dont even need to go to the post office anymore to get the money is transfered right in to your account.

 

I would allso scrap council tax and replace it with a rubish fee which depends on how much you want to recycle. So if you help ceep the landfill tax for the council down your bill will get lower. And then a small concil fee for roads etc. So insted of paying 1100 in council tax you pay 600 for rubish disposiel then maybe another road maintance fee of 300.

By doing thath pepole cant get benefits to cover the council tax.

 

I would also scrap houcing benefits if you cant pay the rent the council should make hostels with bunkbeeds and have pepole who can pay move in to there houce.

 

I am getting Sick of the waste i am seeinng why are we paying council members? Cover there expenses thath is okay but on a local level you become a council member to help your community or Get experience for a political carrer not to make money.

And what is it with this benefits culture. I am not ageinst benefits but benefits should be your last opption in case of emergency. I see benefits as a trampoline to help you bounce back.

[lorelei]

And i would make it harder to get job sekarer allowance, is to easy to get it now and you dont even need to go to the post office anymore to get the money is transfered right in to your account.

 

As far as I'm aware you still need to sign for it every two weeks as you always have at your local JSA office. Also I'm not entirely sure how making people have to go to the post office to have it paid (which means more admin for post office workers and thus more costs) is more effective than a BACs transfer which can be set up once and then activated as and when the claimant signs for their JSA (which is just a case of clicking a button rather than an added admin faff).

 

I would also scrap houcing benefits if you cant pay the rent the council should make hostels with bunkbeeds and have pepole who can pay move in to there houce.

 

How would this work in areas where there are few council houses available? Where do you expect the councils in question to find suitable buildings to make these hostels? Even if they don't have to build them from scratch they are still likely to need to pay for conversion of existing buildings into hostels and for their maintenance - I don't see that as especially cost effective either. Also why this need to penalise low paid workers (who also can and do claim housing benefit)? What have they done to deserve to be penalised in such a way?

 

And what is it with this benefits culture. I am not ageinst benefits but benefits should be your last opption in case of emergency. I see benefits as a trampoline to help you bounce back.

 

Define emergency? As I said before, I do think that the benefits system as it stands is abused by some people, but overall I am in favour of it. If we decide that people can't claim any benefits until their completely without other options that won't help people to get back into work or rise out of poverty. What it will do is potentially lead to low paid workers (and their families) ending up homeless and on the streets because there are no council houses available and they cannot claim housing benefit (by your rules) and potentially starving. Or at best it will lead to the large numbers of people who have suffered redundancy since the banking crisis and those who will soon be suffering due to the spending cuts developing mental health issues as they try to struggle on with only their redundancy pay outs (if they even have one) to cover their rent/mortgage, food for their families and costs of getting to interviews etc. That isn't helpful either and in cases where people may be getting repeat rejections from jobs they're applying for it will most likely lead to a rise in social/health problems such as alcoholism, self harm or suicide as people seek out ways to try and cope with the fact that they have barely enough money to survive and can't get work despite their best efforts. Is that really what we want our society to become? A place where if you lose your job and have the misfortune to not immediately find another you're left until you're destitute before you can even consider asking for help?

 

Thanks, but no thanks. Yes benefits get abused because there will always be some people who want to abuse the system (much like those billionaires that play the tax avoidance game that costs the UK £25billion a year vs benefit fraud which costs £3.1bn in 2009/10), but not all who claim benefits do so fraudently. I'd rather live in a society that tries to help those in need rather than one which harks back to a Victorian set up and waits until those in need are desparate, demoralised, homeless and potentially starving.

[Lexander]

My point About having them to go to the post office is for 1. To support local post offices 2. Make them stand in line to get the money make them work abit for it.

 

My point about having them to love in shelters/ hostels Are to prevent pepole from claming houcing benefits year after year.

 

Emergency i would think would be getting made redundent or getting to ill to work, then abselutely the goverment should be there to help but only for a limited time, to prevent them becoming dependend on the state.

 

I dont want pepole to starve but it Gets me angry when i see pepole not Even looking for Jobs but still expect a handout.

 

And yes tax avoidence by the super rich Are a bigger problem but does thath mean we shouldent fix this problem?

 

Maybe we should stop britain be considered a tax hevan by foreigners, becouse you dont pay tax on income from aborad so foreigners and brites register there company abroad to prevent paying tax.

[lorelei]

My point About having them to go to the post office is for 1. To support local post offices 2. Make them stand in line to get the money make them work abit for it.

 

But how does creating more work for the post office help to cut back public spending? Also I'm not entirely sure how standing in a line in the post office to get your JSA is any more work than standing in line at the Job Centre to do the same thing? Unless you're proposing that the Post Office takes on the role of the Job Centre, which would of course mean a need for more staff and higher admin costs?

 

My point about having them to love in shelters/ hostels Are to prevent pepole from claming houcing benefits year after year.

 

My point was that not everyone who claims housing benefit does so to try and screw up the system. Some people need it because they're stuck (usually by circumstance) in a low paid job for a long period of time and in a lot of places there are limited council houses and next to nothing in the private market that (for example) a single mother working as a low paid cleaner can afford without it. Someone in that position isn't necessarily repeatedly claiming to try and abuse the benefits system, they may well be claiming because their pay does not cover the cost of renting privately and nor do they have enough spare cash to pay someone else to look after their child/children whilst they go out to a second job. To assume that all people who are repeated claimants are only doing it because they're some how lazy or after an easy ride pre-supposes that everyone is being paid enough to cover the cost of living where they are or that there is adequate council housing stock for those who aren't being paid enough or that those not being paid enough are able to take on a second (or third or even fourth) job to top up their wages. In the real world sometimes none of the above is the case and that is why some people may repeatedly claim housing benefit....and I'm not entirely sure what penalising them will achieve, other than either a) making them homeless or leading to an influx of children in care where their parent(s) have been made homeless because of this.

 

I also note that you've not put forward any ideas as to how local councils can either build or convert existing abandoned buildings into the shelter/hostels you talked about without it adding an extra strain on to the public purse. Could you explain how you would create these hostels without using public money to create & maintain them?

 

Emergency i would think would be getting made redundent or getting to ill to work, then abselutely the goverment should be there to help but only for a limited time, to prevent them becoming dependend on the state.

 

How limited is a limited time? Many of those who were made redundant due to the financial crisis last year are still out of work and not necessarily because they've not been trying to find it either. Many of those who lost their jobs under Thatcher spent years without work because there were no jobs for them to apply for and they had no capital to allow them to move to other areas where there were jobs. Again, how do you regulate this (without any extra costs to public spending) without penalising those who are genuinely in need?

 

I dont want pepole to starve but it Gets me angry when i see pepole not Even looking for Jobs but still expect a handout.

 

And yes tax avoidence by the super rich Are a bigger problem but does thath mean we shouldent fix this problem?

 

Maybe we should stop britain be considered a tax hevan by foreigners, becouse you dont pay tax on income from aborad so foreigners and brites register there company abroad to prevent paying tax.

 

I didn't state that tax avoidance means we shouldn't deal with abuse of the benefits system - quite the opposite in fact, I was merely putting the problem into context.

 

As for your anger, I think that most (if not all) of us who do work or have worked to earn our livings are angered by those who repeatedly abuse the system. However, those people are by no means the majority of those who claim benefits so I see little mileage in schemes that aim to persecute all those who need to claim benefits (either now or in the future) as that is unlikely to solve the problem. At best it will mean that the abusers get smarter and raise their game a bit to circumvent the new measures that are set up. At worst, it will mean more admin for the people who deal with benefit claims (and thus more cost to the public) and quite a lot of people either unable to or not bothering to claim money that they both need and are entitled to because of their circumstances. A far better way to deal with this is to look at the root cause of the problem - which is essentially an on-going cycle of poverty that leaves people with no aspirations, no motivation and no ability to move out of their current socio-economic position - removing their benefits to leave them further entreached in poverty will only further lower their aspirations (or destroy any that they had in the first place) and leave them more and more stuck in their current socio-economic position. How can you expect young people growing up on sink estates to ever think there's any point in working or achieving or setting their sights on a better life if you're either a) spending the whole time telling them that they & their families are scum because they claim benefits or when you take away the money that may well be the only thing keeping those children fed & clothed?

 

Just to make things absolutely clear here - I do *not* support benefit fraud, nor will I ever support it. However, that does not mean that I want to use the actions of the minority to persecute the majority of claimants....nor does it mean that I want to use the actions of parents committing benefit fraud to penalise their children. There are better ways to deal with this, but they all begin with people getting off their middle class high horses and actually talking to and with the people who do claim benefits...including those who do so legitmately and through fraud. Find out why they're claiming, why they don't do more (or in some cases anything) to find work, what barriers (percieved or real) are there to them working or striving to escape their situation. I'd hazard a guess that more investment in tackling drug problems, alcoholism & domestic violence in areas of high deprivation would go a long way to helping people to both want to get back to work and actively look for work. It would certainly do more help than simply cutting people off and leaving them to rot, at any rate.

 

Also, since when did the UK become a tax haven? Unless you were referring to Jersey/Guersney that is?

[JustMe]

Cuts are dangerous!. Some cuts such as to public services are dangerous because of the bad things that may happen once services are reduced. Just think of a reduced fire service or even less policemen on the beat than we have now.

 

That obviously applies to cuts to "front-line" services. Cuts generally can also be dangerous because of the knock on effects. To use an extreme example suppose the SIC decided that they had to cut 25% of the full time jobs provided by the council and could do that without hitting services. Sure we might all cheer at first but once the effects of those cuts began to lead to other cuts such as less staff employed in shops as turnover had fallen and in fact less work generally as the council staff who had been sacked had to reduce their budgets so no longer employed tradesmen and so on.

 

Then the 25% cut in staff would mean some sort of cuts in council spending on the sort of things the staff used in their jobs. Sounds good until we start to think that this would lead to less work for suppliers making staff redundant. And the redundant staff would spend less in local shops leading to more redundancies and so on.

 

Ok not explained this that well but I am trying to show that cuts can have knock on effects and by the time this is expanded to a national scenario could well plunge the economy back into recession which is not something the country wants or needs right now.

[MuckleJoannie]

 

 

 

I dont want pepole to starve but it Gets me angry when i see pepole not Even looking for Jobs but still expect a handout.

 

And yes tax avoidence by the super rich Are a bigger problem but does thath mean we shouldent fix this problem?

 

Maybe we should stop britain be considered a tax hevan by foreigners, becouse you dont pay tax on income from aborad so foreigners and brites register there company abroad to prevent paying tax.

 

 

Also, since when did the UK become a tax haven? Unless you were referring to Jersey/Guersney that is?

 

The rules on tax on overseas income are fairly complex, depending on where you live. It depends if you are resident, ordinarily resident or domiciled. You can read them here

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480

 

If you live in the UK permanently you'll pay tax on overseas income. If you live here temporarily, you'll normally pay tax only on overseas income you bring into the UK.

[lorelei]

 

 

 

I dont want pepole to starve but it Gets me angry when i see pepole not Even looking for Jobs but still expect a handout.

 

And yes tax avoidence by the super rich Are a bigger problem but does thath mean we shouldent fix this problem?

 

Maybe we should stop britain be considered a tax hevan by foreigners, becouse you dont pay tax on income from aborad so foreigners and brites register there company abroad to prevent paying tax.

 

 

Also, since when did the UK become a tax haven? Unless you were referring to Jersey/Guersney that is?

 

The rules on tax on overseas income are fairly complex, depending on where you live. It depends if you are resident, ordinarily resident or domiciled. You can read them here

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480

 

If you live in the UK permanently you'll pay tax on overseas income. If you live here temporarily, you'll normally pay tax only on overseas income you bring into the UK.

 

Thanks for the link, MuckleJoannie - I'll have a look at it later on before coming back to this.

[owre-weel]

I woud keep childe benefits univursel for all. But only for the first 3 children we dont need no baby farms.

 

And i would make it harder to get job sekarer allowance, is to easy to get it now and you dont even need to go to the post office anymore to get the money is transfered right in to your account

 

I would also scrap houcing benefits if you cant pay the rent the council should make hostels with bunkbeeds and have pepole who can pay move in to there houce.

 

Mercy me !! I canna believe that you seem to be against people claiming job seekers allowance or housing benefits, whilst you feel that child benifit should remain universal for all. I very much question if someone earning over £30k per year really needs child benifit as compared to someone on jobseekers, who I think gets about £65 per week. Out of this they have to buy food, electricity, clothes, tv licence, transport etc. etc.

 

I am assuming that you have never found yourself in a position where you have had to claim jobseekers allowance/housing benefit, in order to be able to scrape by each day. I have a friend who has been actively looking for work for over a year and detests the idea of being on benefits, finding the whole process embarrassing and degrading, however he could not survive without that support meanwhile.

 

Do you really believe that it would be better to uproot him from his home of 20+ years and put him in some sort of hostel. Could you imagine what this could do to a persons welfare, not to mention the stigma that would then be attached. What would be the chances of finding employment then.

 

I accept that there are many on these allowances who are playing the system, but there are processes in place to weed them out. However I would ask you to keep in mind that there are many who find themself in need of this type of support for whatever reason.

 

As a person who has paid plenty in taxes over the years, I know that I would rather they be used to support people like my friend as compared to someone who earns over £30k per year.

[akwan]

Fred Goodwins Throat !!!!!!!!!!!

[lorelei]

Mercy me !! I canna believe that you seem to be against people claiming job seekers allowance or housing benefits, whilst you feel that child benifit should remain universal for all. I very much question if someone earning over £30k per year really needs child benifit as compared to someone on jobseekers, who I think gets about £65 per week. Out of this they have to buy food, electricity, clothes, tv licence, transport etc. etc.

 

I am assuming that you have never found yourself in a position where you have had to claim jobseekers allowance/housing benefit, in order to be able to scrape by each day. I have a friend who has been actively looking for work for over a year and detests the idea of being on benefits, finding the whole process embarrassing and degrading, however he could not survive without that support meanwhile.

 

Do you really believe that it would be better to uproot him from his home of 20+ years and put him in some sort of hostel. Could you imagine what this could do to a persons welfare, not to mention the stigma that would then be attached. What would be the chances of finding employment then.

 

I accept that there are many on these allowances who are playing the system, but there are processes in place to weed them out. However I would ask you to keep in mind that there are many who find themself in need of this type of support for whatever reason.

 

As a person who has paid plenty in taxes over the years, I know that I would rather they be used to support people like my friend as compared to someone who earns over £30k per year.

 

Quite! (And very well said too).

 

Another thought occurs re: your comment about forcing all who claim housing benefit into hostels with bunkbeds, Lexander - how would this work with families who (if they have only 1 child but 2 adults) may not appreciate the idea of being kicked out of their home and into a situation where either their child or their partner is forced to share a set of bunk beds in a public dormitory with someone they don't know for Adam? In larger communities, the chances of people all knowning one another are slim at best, so what safeguarding measures would you be proposing to put in place to ensure that any children or vulnerable adults in these hostels are adequately protected?

 

Again you seem to be assuming either that any children caught up in this situation would be taken into care (which has cost implications and whole raft of other issues all on it's own) or that no one with children would be in need of housing benefit. Similarly, you don't seem to be considering the case of vulnerable adults or adults with disabilities/medical conditions who may also be in receipt of housing benefit and how your proposed hostels could potentially affect them. Please could you expand on the hostels proposal you'd put forward, as I'm struggling to see how this would work in an efficent and cost effective manner - so I'd appreciate a bit more detail.

[Lexander]

I might be wrong on many things. And i do know how it is to live on JSA and i am gratefull thath JSA is avaibel for s short time until i got a new job. and it is £52 a week by the way and thath is plenty to live on if you spend it wisely and it allso worked for me as a extra boost in trying to get a job becouse, i dident want to live like thath.

 

I havent been clear in what i mean by the cuts in the benefit system so i will try to go true it in a more detailed way.

 

• keep childe benefits univursal for all but only the first 3 children.

- why keep it univursal? Becouse a 30k limite is not high enofe and is thath 30k for each family or each parent? And whath if you got two parentes making minimum wage at 15k a year each shouldent they Get childe benefits? And means test childe benefits would be to costely and 30k a year in Liverpool might be a good wage but when you come to London is nothing.

 

• scrape houcing benefits.

• abolish council homes, turn existing council homes in to co-op homes with a state funded houcing bank to support it.

- exampel council home valued at £100.000 set a price of £120.000 to buy the houce, the houce would be financed true the houcing bank at 5% fixed inttrest. So total intres payment would be £6000 a year i would propose thath the co-op only charge the homeholder £3000 and the other £3000 is added to the morgadge so when ever the homeholder got spear cash he can pay down the morgadge more if he want it to. This would give more pepole ownership of there home for a lower cost and it would enchurage saving. Since allot og the council homes inn britain was build many years ago this council homes dont got debt conected to it and as soon as homeholders start paying back the money can be reinvested in to new homes, or to takeover emty homes thath have been left emty for more then 12 months and the ownere of the property have not startes work on the property or tryef to rent it out or sell it.

 

• i would like the goverment to put JSA and houcing benefits in to a emergency fund.

- exampel you get ill or become unemplyed, then you can go to the job center/ benefits office and there would be a person who will go tru your finance with you to see where you can save money, and to help you get a job. The emergency fund will for 4 months provide you with houcing cost within reason and heating cost. They wil allso provide you with a food budget and a bus pass for transport if you live in a area where public transport is avaible. If not they give some form of petrol money. In theys 4 months you have to prove thath you are looking for work and thath you dont for saving over £10.000. When the four mounths Are finnished you have to have got a job, if you have not been sucsesfull in getting a job a minimum wage job for a public works program will be provided for you, if you then refuse the public works program all benefits will be stoped, if you live in goverment controled houcing you will be asked to leave and be given a room at the shelter.

--- yes a public works program will cost money and it will be adminstartive but the idea is from the new deal sutring the great depresion and is to give pepole work experiance and give goverment cheap labour.

 

• i say it agein a flat tax system is needed will save billions in admin cost for govermemt and business. And if we set the tax at 25% for individules and 10% for bussiness with no deductions and loop holes. This woulde result in thath the cleaner at your local school wouldent pay a higger tax % then the supper rich, just becouse she cant hire a smart accountant.

It would allso give britain one of the lowest business taxes in the western world.

 

• allos would like to scrap council tax and business rates.

- homes and buiness would insted be forced to pay a fee for rubish removal.

 

• would like to have a referendum on eu membership to let the public decide if it is a good way to spend money.

 

• re introduce national service and change the millitary in to two units one national and one innternational force. A more stream lined international military force with combine all the current branches of the millitary in to one highely trained and better supported unit.

 

 

Just one finnal note I do consider myself to the left of the political world. Even do it might not show. My ideas might be crazy and stupid but atleast they are ideas and it gets pepole to think. I belive in a strong goverment but a small goverment. I would like public service to be provided by goverment owned corperations where the public can allso play a rolle. The bigest mistake thath have happens in the last 30 years are the selling of goverment owned companys, part privitasion is okay but when you sell out all of the control. What do you got left? You got left with a cash sum thath will not generate money a goverment owned company will year after year give out divdence and it can allso investe aboroad to creat more wealth for Britain in the long run.

So if I controled the country NO privtisation of royal mail. Yes to naturlaisation of the rail network and the water and sewage. Yes to investing in to green technology but use goverment money for goverment controled companys why make the switish or Danish or german companys rich and let they have the jobs when we got te resources.