Where would you make the cuts?

[Huguenot]

It's clear UK Plc. needs to do some paring down, as government receipts are down.

Where would you make the cuts?

In order to make this moderately realistic I've attached a map of current government spending, rules being that you can't score big points for cutting something that doesn't have much cash allocated!

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I didn't know half those departments existed.

If Scotland want their independence, then cut them off without a penny.

[vinceayre]

Some of these departments I have never heard of.

What you really need to know though is what is the corresponding income from each area because some departments seems to have quite small budgets for their proportional impact on the country, transport springs to mind.

[Milo]

Beautiful graphic, well done The Guardian. When illustrated like this the 'financial stablilty' spending is totally shocking, ...and the bonuses roll on.

[Milo]

Maybe cut the heads off some banksters?

[????]

The most efficient way is too impose the cut universally and then let the individual departments do the budgeting. My prejudibe is thst they could all lose 10% without affecting their efficieny...they won't agree naturally.

[Huguenot]

That's against the very spirit of party politics though isn't it?

It's the comparative prioritisation of investment and cutbacks that define the ideology of the party.

Besides, some of them may be more or less deserving of cutbacks. For example pension expenditure may only include a fraction on administration. Hence if you want to cut the overall spend by 10% then you have to ask for a 10% reduction in pension payments. From Grandma? That'll go well with voters.

Likewise, do you cut benefits such as disability and welfare by a blanket 10% (penalising both the scroungers and the needy), or try and cut out the liggers by introducing an identity card system?

Often the most efficient systems are unpopular. Voters demand performance from politicians and then tie their hands...

[Brendan]

Am I right in assuming that the 85 bagillion pounds for financial stability was a one off to stabilise the greed fuelled lunacy that was the financial sector and that it should not be necessary next year?

[Huguenot]

I heard rumours that there was still new money being pushed into the market.

I understand that last month HMG bought another 35bn quids of shares in RBS and Lloyds.

There's also the fact that they provided 600bn (now downgraded to 280bn) quids worth of 'insurance' against bank assets. Should one go to the wall, that's at risk.

[PeckhamRose]

WHere would I make cuts?

I'd cut the big bonus culture, I'd cut three or four levels of management within the NHS and I'd nationalise shampoo. One shampoo cleans all hair. Sorry but I'm having a bad hair day. Mind you as a motorcyclist every bloody day's a bad hair day.

[????]

The 85 Bazillion squids is not a gross spend - it will net out at far less and possibly will end up positive - that's the sharebuying and mainly the guaranteeing etc. Still not nice but not costing the ?40k per family quoted just what we are guaranteeing if the whole world goes bust *(still possible).

The size of the Public Debt and the size of annual public spending budget was very worrying before, this has compounded it and if we lose our AAA rating the cost of serving it will rise considerably which is another reason it has to be tackled. Both Labour and the Tories know this - the boom tax receipts of the past 7 years are gone and gone for a long while and the size of the PS is massive - we can't afford it on current tax revenue. Raise taxes significantly - and that won't wash politically (and some argue economically) or cut governemnt spending significantly or a bit of both. Tough choices but if not we'll go bust, we may anyway.

[david_carnell]

Cancel Trident

Abolish the RAF and absorb it into the Army and Navy.

Abolish all regional assemblies and parliaments.

Abolish plans for ID Cards.

Run the railway network as a not-for-profit enterprise removing ownership from each TOC at the end of their contracts.

Raise income tax by 5p in the ?1 on all those earning more than ?200,000pa.

[????]

I do believe that 2p on over ?200k wouldn't increase the tax significantly at all and maybe counterproductive but it's a nice gesture when it's all the 'riches fault' rather than anything to do with the government. As an aside, the richest 1% contribute 10% of income tax revenue and the richest 10%, half of the total income tax revenue. So, to Hugenot's point you're p1ssing in the wind with that sort of taxation change and risking our economy but polotics of envy is always popular.

I'd like something far more radical like a doubling of fuel duty for private motoring as well as an across the board reduction of 5% in public spending.

[Brendan]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As an aside, the

> richest 1% contribute 10% of income tax revenue

> and the richest 10%, half of the total income tax

> revenue.

Of course they do. That's how % taxation works surely.

I suppose we could just make everyone in the country pay a flat rate of ?20K p/a. That would be fair and workable.

[Brendan]

As an aside, if the gap between the richest and poorest wasn?t so big the percentage of how much tax they pay would also be more equal.

[david_carnell]

It's not politics of envy Quids. It's politics of fairness.

I believe:

that the highest earners in this country do not sufficiently contribute in taxation;

the wealth should be redistributed through taxtion from rich to poor;

that those countries and socieities with small wealth gaps are most harmonious;

therefore my above mentioned tax policies reflect that. I notice you didn't comment on any of my other proposals. Care to?

[????]

They all look sensible, apart from the rail one...not sure how much they or mine would save

[mockney piers]

I agree with DC's proposals and political comment. The only problem with the RAF thingy is that it's all brutalist pragmatism, there's a whole few stylee romance connected

to the fellows don't you know, bally Gerry and all that.

It would be like proposing integrating stonehenge into the ministry of obelisks and having a cheaper more

effective site just off the hangar lane gyratory.

I do think that the TOC's have been a huge financial burden and getting rid of that bad idea will be less expensive going forward, good housekeeping I that sense.

Plus, rather than getting rid of the assemblies I'd suggest getting rid of the countries, not net contributors at all, though as long as we get to keep all those expensive liquid gas installations and those welsh resevoifs supplying the midlands and stuff.

[Brendan]

If the midlands want to devolve, good riddance.

[Jeremy]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Raise income tax by 5p in the ?1 on all those

> earning more than ?200,000pa.

I wouldn't necessarily oppose this idea, but isn't this rather an arbitrary amount? Why no extra tax bands between 35k and 200k? Why just hit the rich, rather than the middle classes? I wonder how many of us would put our money where our mouths are, and advocate a 43% rate for earnings over 50K?

[vinceayre]

I would abolish all taxes, income CGT IHT corporation and NIC and have a new flat rate of tax on every purchase from food cloths cars through to houses and companies, it would need to start at 35% and then slowly decrease. You would then do away with all the tax enforcement and collection and have all tax receipts processed by the seller, as in shops company's or solicitors involved in property or financial transactions. As it reached its required level the outside investment would enable it to be lowered even further.Also the richer you are the more you spend and more tax you pay.

I would also do away with the air force army and navy and buy us stacks of nuclear weapons placed all over the UK and its dominions abroad.

[david_carnell]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Raise income tax by 5p in the ?1 on all those

> > earning more than ?200,000pa.

>

> I wouldn't necessarily oppose this idea, but isn't

> this rather an arbitrary amount? Why no extra tax

> bands between 35k and 200k? Why just hit the rich,

> rather than the middle classes? I wonder how many

> of us would put our money where our mouths are,

> and advocate a 43% rate for earnings over 50K?

Yes it was rather abitrary but was more a ball park figure to get the debate going.

The reason I wouldn't instigate the creation of extra tax bands for the middle classes is that, actually, their creation and management is administratively very expensive. Tax should be a compromise between redistributive yet simple to understand. Excessive bands is terribly complex for joe public.

[stereforth]

According to National Audit Office figures, in 2007/8 tax relief on pension contributions was ?37.6 billion. 60% goes to those on the higher tax rate and a quarter, nearly ?10 billion a year, goes to just 1 percent of the population on over ?150,000 a year(of DECLARED income). Just reducing that allowance to a flat rate of 25% for all would save billions.

Things may have changed over the years but ten years ago a friend of mine, director of a small company, had the bulk of his salary paid into a private pension scheme. He then borrowed, at a very low interest rate, from the fund. It worked out that he paid little or no tax.

[????]

Yup...but meanwhile in our untouchable Public Sector.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/3534233/Public-sector-pensions-Just-how-generous-are-they.html

[SeanMacGabhann]

I know I'm supposed to be outraged somewhere but remind me again where exactly?

So, I get taxed a little bit more and nurses, teachers etc get a hardly-lavish pension in a world where private-sector pensions are being jettisoned. So those of us working in private sector are lef to fend for ourselves, I get that bit but I would rather a levelling up than a levelling down.

I'm sure in time under some government or other the public-sector will also have their pensions scrapped and the world will be a better place. Now I'm depressed

I note the article compares public and private sector jobs but not like for like. So the private sector jobs will include all those minimum-wage jobs which will drag the average down significantly no?