Turn on thread page Beta

How would you cut the deficit if you had supreme influence. watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Who said I worked for a Quango...?

    Edit
    Also Quangos are non-Ministerial Public Bodies. HMRC is a Quango - is HMRC a private company?
    No it is a Quango. Obviously.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No it is a Quango. Obviously.
    But you said Quangos are private companies...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Massively cut welfare and benefits, Almost completely get rid of the foreign aid budget, stop allowing people to use the NHS if they are part of their problem, only taxpayers of x amount of years and British citizens may use it. Also make studying certain STEM subjects (maybe humanities if it can be justified) at university free, such as engineering in an attempt to get more highly skilled individuals in the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    But you said Quangos are private companies...
    They would be if the government didn't employ them. That is what I was saying, so the government wouldn't be paying for their employee's if the government said their services were no longer needed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    They would be if the government didn't employ them. That is what I was saying, so the government wouldn't be paying for their employee's if the government said their services were no longer needed.
    Sure, but the Govt would be paying their redundancy cost...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, crack down on tax evasion such as that by the likes of Amazon and Google.

    Then, increase the tax rate for the very richest in society (we're talking top few % here).

    Scrap things like HS2, that would save a lot of money.

    We could look into legalising marijuana, then regulating it and taxing it to raise money. Just throwing that out there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sure, but the Govt would be paying their redundancy cost...
    No because the government doesn't employ them, the quango does. So the government would be laying off the quango not the quango's employee's. So the quango would have to pay redundancy if it had to lay people off.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No because the government doesn't employ them, the quango does. So the government would be laying off the quango not the quango's employee's. So the quango would have to pay redundancy if it had to lay people off.
    So, the Govt doesn't employ people in HMRC?

    How come they are on civil service headcount?

    Perhaps you should write to the Cabinet Secretary, you could cut the civil service headcount by 20% by point out the Government doesn't employ them...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So, the Govt doesn't employ people in HMRC?

    How come they are on civil service headcount?

    Perhaps you should write to the Cabinet Secretary, you could cut the civil service headcount by 20% by point out the Government doesn't employ them...
    The government does employ them because it employ's the quango. If the government not longer uses the quango then they are employee's of the quango and not the government.

    This isn't hard to understand, so understand it please.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AstroNandos)
    Massively cut welfare and benefits, Almost completely get rid of the foreign aid budget, stop allowing people to use the NHS if they are part of their problem, only taxpayers of x amount of years and British citizens may use it. Also make studying certain STEM subjects (maybe humanities if it can be justified) at university free, such as engineering in an attempt to get more highly skilled individuals in the UK.
    No, you can't do that. There would be too many engineering graduates because everyone would choose it. And then there would be no humanities students to subsidise the engineers' wind tunnels etc

    Also "massively cutting welfare and benefits":
    1. has already been done
    2. is inhumane
    3. causes civil unrest that costs way more than the benefits did in the first place

    What we need is massive disruption in the housing market such as huge social housebuilding projects which would mean no more housing benefit. That would cut benefits at a stroke.

    We also need to cut child benefits but this will never happen because the ruling classes want the poor to have lots of children to do all their work for them and create an upstairs downstairs society. The rich can afford as many kids as they want anyway. The middle classes lose out which is exactly what the rich want to happen. Soon they will extend education and mortgaging past childbearing age and then it really will be the death of the middle class.

    What ought to be raised and/or made less conditional is disability and jobseekers' benefits.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    i would introduce a law called econocide. i would arrest all the bankers who are responsible for management of the banks either for direct participation, conspiracy or negligence.

    the state would then seize the personal assets of those arrested and use that wealth to save the economy.

    in some cases where those arrested try to close down the bank so that the bank takes the hit and not their personal finances then the bank as an asset would be seized from them.

    however before this was done what i would do is introduce a new law where bankers get the best tax breaks in the world so long as they are presently and personally residing in this country.


    this would bring pretty much most of them to us. then we wouldnt have to like go into another country to arrest them. then they would be arrested for conspiracy. and then the econocide law would be fast tracked through and they would be re-arrested for the new law.


    the general vibe is basically treating this body of banks as the catholic church and henry the 8thing them.

    so there would be the state ran bank and then any of the banks that were entirely seized would be subsidiaries to the national bank.
    Small problem that the bankers do not own the banks, they are owned by their shareholders. Now except for Royal Bank and Lloyds most of these shares are held by financial institutions within life policies, pension schemes etc, and then you have all these local authority pension schemes with final salary schemes who are also shareholders. So once you punch a hole in these pension schemes and put the funds in the government's right pocket you can dip into the governmen'ts left pocket with additional payments to the local authorities to refinance these schemes;or of course cut the pensions of all these local authority workers. Same applies re teachers pensions, lecturers pensions, NHS pensions etc etc etc. They own the banks, not the bankers, the bankers are merely rather overpaid employees.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It would be about 80% spending cuts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Legalise weed. The US states that have done it are making huge profits on it. Plus we wouldn't be wasting court, police and prison resources on fighting against it, or criminalising users, curtailing their employment options and making them less useful to the economy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Increase taxation and cut spending obviously.

    I would cut spending on foreign aid and quango's, they would be gone. That would same something like 20 billion a year. As well as cutting regulation and putting productive people back into the private sector.

    I would have a simpler tax system where everybody pays tax from one pound on at 10%.

    http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ye...c1n_30#ukgs302
    What about all the functions some of the quango's perform. who does this after their demise? Something like the Seafish Industry Authority collects in far more in landing dues than its direct government subsidy, so if all the functions go you have saved about a 6th of what you have now lost.; smart business.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Small problem that the bankers do not own the banks, they are owned by their shareholders. Now except for Royal Bank and Lloyds most of these shares are held by financial institutions within life policies, pension schemes etc, and then you have all these local authority pension schemes with final salary schemes who are also shareholders. So once you punch a hole in these pension schemes and put the funds in the government's right pocket you can dip into the governmen'ts left pocket with additional payments to the local authorities to refinance these schemes;or of course cut the pensions of all these local authority workers. Same applies re teachers pensions, lecturers pensions, NHS pensions etc etc etc. They own the banks, not the bankers, the bankers are merely rather overpaid employees.
    right but the bank has a senior person in charge.
    i mean you could say the british people are in charge of the government but really its the prime minister that is in the most senior position.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    What about all the functions some of the quango's perform. who does this after their demise? Something like the Seafish Industry Authority collects in far more in landing dues than its direct government subsidy, so if all the functions go you have saved about a 6th of what you have now lost.; smart business.
    It is bad if you own a business though. The quango's take up so much time that you are curtailed in your ability to take money. Cutting them and their jobs would be an improvement.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Halve the defense budget.

    Eliminate pensions. Instead, tax children (from 18 and in employment) a sum every year to pay for the welfare of their elderly parents.

    If a part of the public have no children, increase the tax on families with a ton of kids.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn-er)
    Halve the defense budget.

    Eliminate pensions. Instead, tax children (from 18 and in employment) a sum every year to pay for the welfare of their elderly parents.

    If a part of the public have no children, increase the tax on families with a ton of kids.
    Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream, oh no there is a Russian cruiser over their lets stop it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Contractual redundancy pay innit.
    Who underwrites this 'contract' ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sure, but the Govt would be paying their redundancy cost...
    As you know, government does not exist, whereas people most certainly do exist. On that basis..... who would be paying?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.