Future cuts? Another 30,000?
Politicians do not think like us.
They see no massive coordinated conventional threat to this country. They recognise that the electorate will not tolerate another Iraq/Afghanistan type debacle. They know that there are no votes in Defence. That makes us ripe for more cuts without political pain.
I have said that we are heading for a UK Defence Force for some time.
The Nation will get poorer as time passes. Our debts are unsustainable. We are only headed in one direction and that is down. Great Britain is no more and I think those in power do actually understand this. They cannot afford to come out and say this as it would lead to social melt down. Instead there will be a steady erosion of living standards (I doubt my Grandchildren will enjoy a State Pension or NHS like it is now) and - to get back to the original point - the Armed Forces are smallfry and ripe for the chop.
Come back in 100 years (or less) and we will be just like Greece, but without the weather.
They see no massive coordinated conventional threat to this country. They recognise that the electorate will not tolerate another Iraq/Afghanistan type debacle. They know that there are no votes in Defence. That makes us ripe for more cuts without political pain.
I have said that we are heading for a UK Defence Force for some time.
The Nation will get poorer as time passes. Our debts are unsustainable. We are only headed in one direction and that is down. Great Britain is no more and I think those in power do actually understand this. They cannot afford to come out and say this as it would lead to social melt down. Instead there will be a steady erosion of living standards (I doubt my Grandchildren will enjoy a State Pension or NHS like it is now) and - to get back to the original point - the Armed Forces are smallfry and ripe for the chop.
Come back in 100 years (or less) and we will be just like Greece, but without the weather.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VinRouge. Does that mean I can get my job back in the RAuxAF Defence Force that I lost under Options for Change back in '94.
They were the days; protecting Brampton, and the bunker that can't be named
They were the days; protecting Brampton, and the bunker that can't be named
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course we could go back to paying the tax rates we had in the past.......
In 1973, for instance, the marginal rate for earned income went from 30% to 75% by steps of first 10% and then 5%. There was an investment income surcharge of 15%.
You could pay up to 98% on certain income
but I don't hear anyone on here asking to pay more tax..................
In 1973, for instance, the marginal rate for earned income went from 30% to 75% by steps of first 10% and then 5%. There was an investment income surcharge of 15%.
You could pay up to 98% on certain income
but I don't hear anyone on here asking to pay more tax..................
BBC have just done an article highlighting the ups and downs of UK defence spending since the end of WW2.
BBC News - Five years that shaped the British military
BBC News - Five years that shaped the British military
I would certainly like to see higher income tax rates - it seems to me the most effective way to restore the economy and, that way, services and jobs are preserved. I would, however, reduce VAT.
but I don't hear anyone on here asking to pay more tax..................
Some of the headline figures on dubious use of UK taxpayers' money are eye watering:
EU contributions ~ £12bn pa
International aid budget ~ £11.5bn pa
UK tax gap ~£34bn for the last published year's figures
Costs of running and managing the NHS as a market ~ £5 - 15bn pa depending which figures you use
There's ~ £60-70bn pa of questionable spending; even if the govt saved 20% of that each year that would be close to ~£12-15bn that could either go to deficit reduction, to departmental spending or interest payments.
So no, you probably won't find many people arguing for higher tax rates given the levels of wastage already in the system. But I do appreciate it's just easier to continue to be wasteful, implement further cuts and then go after individuals rather than sorting out the systemic problems that are swallowing billions each year.
Last edited by Melchett01; 10th Mar 2015 at 14:09. Reason: VR's comment on NHS expenditure prompted a re-think
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry, no, but I would be keen to cut the state pension in half for those that didn't pay enough into the system in their lifetime. That includes benefits I would receive in future.
I don't see why the current generation needs to pay for the previous generations fairytale promises.
While at it, cut nhs expenditure for the same generations.
I don't see why the current generation needs to pay for the previous generations fairytale promises.
While at it, cut nhs expenditure for the same generations.
@Melchett01 - where exactly is all the cash going
Everyone and everything else is being wrung out to pay for it.
Between that and the mad mullahs so beloved our our press and governments there won't be much left of the UK in a couple or three decades. I reckon that anyone[1] under 40 or even 50 who doesn't aspire to poverty and prayer should be planning an escape route. Of course if you have a ridiculously overvalued million pound house you may feel insulated. That won't last long, you will be next.
[1] Well not the super rich obviously.
jimjim,
Have you read Robert Peston's book 'Who Runs Britain?' ? It sounds like a re-run of that with the state existing purely to facilitate big business and the personal aspirations of a few at the top. Which is somewhat out of kilter with the meritocracy Cameron et al appear to be advocating. Of course, Clegg and Beaker aren't immune from criticism as they seem to want to squeeze the middle to redistribute downwards.
Have you read Robert Peston's book 'Who Runs Britain?' ? It sounds like a re-run of that with the state existing purely to facilitate big business and the personal aspirations of a few at the top. Which is somewhat out of kilter with the meritocracy Cameron et al appear to be advocating. Of course, Clegg and Beaker aren't immune from criticism as they seem to want to squeeze the middle to redistribute downwards.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't see why the current generation needs to pay for the previous generations fairytale promises."
I'm afraid that is exactly the way the UK State pension sytem has always been run - the cash paid in today by the workers is used to pay for the current pensioners
it would have been better if in 1913 they had set up a proper allocated pot sytem but it would have been 30 years before any pensioner had accumulated enough to live on
as they needed to do something straight away (and they needed the votes of course) they went for a current funding model
theoretically this has some advantages - you don't have to invest the cash for 30 years and you can quickly change the pension payments (in & out) if things get good or tough
I'm afraid that is exactly the way the UK State pension sytem has always been run - the cash paid in today by the workers is used to pay for the current pensioners
it would have been better if in 1913 they had set up a proper allocated pot sytem but it would have been 30 years before any pensioner had accumulated enough to live on
as they needed to do something straight away (and they needed the votes of course) they went for a current funding model
theoretically this has some advantages - you don't have to invest the cash for 30 years and you can quickly change the pension payments (in & out) if things get good or tough
Or, to simplify what HH just said... The state pension and public sector pensions for that matter, are ponzi schemes. If you or I tried to set up a pension scheme on the same basis we'd in the same category as Bernie Madoff.
I'm not a millionaire, neither am I defending the super rich, but bear in mind that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 30% of income tax, and that figure has been rising in recent years.
UK Budget 2012: Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax | This is Money
Indeed, many of the lowest earners in society aren't net contributors to the system at all, as they get more back in benefits than they pay in taxes. Indeed, it is largely the "rich" who actually pay their taxes that are keeping this country afloat.
As for "taxing the rich until the pips squeak", well you're in danger of killing the golden goose, as seen by the many wealthy French currently living in London, and spending their money in UK rather than France, due to high tax rates in France.
Lets take the case of a millionaire living in a large house in Surrey. We can argue whether or not he is paying a "fair" amount of tax. However, what happens if tax rates rise enough for him to decide to leave? Does he clean his own house, tend his own garden, even do his own laundry? No, he helps employ at least 4 or 5 others, who will lose that work if he leaves.
Getting the balance right is tricky.
There's some sort of economic rule about taxes, how you can increase them and increase them, and more revenue comes in, but a tipping point is eventually reached, where further increase in tax actually generates less income, because the tax rate is now punitive enough to make it worth avoiding, but whatever method, including leaving the country if necessary!!
UK Budget 2012: Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax | This is Money
Indeed, many of the lowest earners in society aren't net contributors to the system at all, as they get more back in benefits than they pay in taxes. Indeed, it is largely the "rich" who actually pay their taxes that are keeping this country afloat.
As for "taxing the rich until the pips squeak", well you're in danger of killing the golden goose, as seen by the many wealthy French currently living in London, and spending their money in UK rather than France, due to high tax rates in France.
Lets take the case of a millionaire living in a large house in Surrey. We can argue whether or not he is paying a "fair" amount of tax. However, what happens if tax rates rise enough for him to decide to leave? Does he clean his own house, tend his own garden, even do his own laundry? No, he helps employ at least 4 or 5 others, who will lose that work if he leaves.
Getting the balance right is tricky.
There's some sort of economic rule about taxes, how you can increase them and increase them, and more revenue comes in, but a tipping point is eventually reached, where further increase in tax actually generates less income, because the tax rate is now punitive enough to make it worth avoiding, but whatever method, including leaving the country if necessary!!
The state pension and public sector pensions for that matter, are ponzi schemes.
Biggus
Indeed, hence this oldie but goodie:
Indeed, hence this oldie but goodie:
Every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100… If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free; but what about the other six men? – the paying customers.
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay . . . and so
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving)
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving)
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving)
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving)
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving)
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving)
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man ”but he got £10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2 . . . the wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free; but what about the other six men? – the paying customers.
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay . . . and so
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving)
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving)
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving)
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving)
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving)
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving)
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man ”but he got £10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2 . . . the wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
According to Newsnight the PM is now so concerned about the 2% corner he's painted himself into, he's asked for an investigation to see whether other elements of spending such as the Intelligence agencies can be counted as Defence.
It's rare I'm lost for words ...
It's rare I'm lost for words ...
According to Newsnight the PM is now so concerned about the 2% corner he's painted himself into, he's asked for an investigation to see whether other elements of spending such as the Intelligence agencies can be counted as Defence.