Double Dip now inevitable?
Discussion
Maxf said:
Futuo said:
What is better for the tax payer, paying some lentil munching politically correct non jobber 60k a year plus perks or giving them £60 a week, mmm that's a toughies isn't it?
But they will pay an average of say 30% in income tax, then VAT on items bought, money pumped into the local economy etc etc. Of course, it is money 'gifted' via the non-job but as long as it stays in the country then its not too terrible.Assuming you put them on the dole instead, you'll pay them £60 a week, plus a number of benefits and freebies - council tax waived, housing paid for and lots of cash taken out of the private sector through lower spending.
Again, not agreeing with the non-jobs but I just can't see how cutting them overnight would be positive for the economy.
And some of the non jobber would find employment within the private sector so would pay real tax and spend what's left.
Nope sacking them all on May 7th would be the best thing for the nation as a whole.
Futuo said:
Nope sacking them all on May 7th would be the best thing for the nation as a whole.
It would certainly be ripping the bandage off! I wonder what the markets would think to the unemployment figures (massaged or not) going from 2.5m to 10m overnight? I think we'd be utterly decimated.The cash must be going into the economy, so this would stop - at least while the new wealth was distributed - leading to all kinds of problems with small/medium businesses.
I'm all for cutting them, but I think the dependance runs too deep to do it quickly.
Maxf said:
I wonder what the markets would think to the unemployment figures (massaged or not) going from 2.5m to 10m overnight? I think we'd be utterly decimated.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12Employment rate for those of a working age is 72.1%
The headline unemployment rate of 2.5 million is just the "economically active" unemployed. There are over 8 million who are classed as "economically inactive" so one could say unemployment is already over 10 million
economically inactive definition
so you was correct to add the massaged bit to your post! 2.5 million is just the number of unemployed who are looking for a job!
Castrol Craig said:
Futuo said:
Ken Clarke is the best option, everyone knows it.
that would be good.Matt.. said:
So just how many public sector workers should be lost? I think the stats are something like 21% (approx 6.1million) of the working population being public sector. Even dropping it by 100,000 doesn't make a huge difference does it?
Total government spending needs to be cut by 30%, or 150bn.All non-jobs need to be cut first, then ...
Now I reckon you can probably cut 25-50bn from welfare, make efficiency savings of at least another 25-50bn in other departments.
ben_h100 said:
If you take the final pensions from firefighters, nurses, police, armed forces etc then you'd have a lot of people leaving overnight.
Public sector (read unfunded) pensions aren't even included in the above debt figures anyway. A rough estimate is that the unfunded liability is around a further £1.2 trillion...and there'll be plenty of nurses willing to come from the likes of the Phillipines and India to cover the grass-is-greener leavers anyway.
Edited by Andy Zarse on Wednesday 28th April 21:08
Too many workers, not enough jobs.
This stuff isn't sustainable and needs to be cut. Pensions need to be hacked into sadly.
If you note the current surpluses of staff, there are plenty who want to work and no real room for striking, self-entitled commie
s. I have no idea why they consider themselves to be above economics and market forces. Ignorance perhaps.
Go to the greener grass, Australia, NZ, Canada, off you go.
The pensions liability is a true cancer on our country. The various therapies lack the required intensity to kill it as it's so big. The only way to survive is to try and cut it down to size with a big sharp blade.
That's how I see it.
This stuff isn't sustainable and needs to be cut. Pensions need to be hacked into sadly.
If you note the current surpluses of staff, there are plenty who want to work and no real room for striking, self-entitled commie
s. I have no idea why they consider themselves to be above economics and market forces. Ignorance perhaps. Go to the greener grass, Australia, NZ, Canada, off you go.
The pensions liability is a true cancer on our country. The various therapies lack the required intensity to kill it as it's so big. The only way to survive is to try and cut it down to size with a big sharp blade.
That's how I see it.
Things that can get cut: ID Cards (and believe me there is nobody left in government who thinks they are a good idea), All infrastructure projects not yet started (so a big delay for the high speed line, and the electrification of the Great Western) add up to about another £30bn I think.
I reckon we'll see the Royal Mail sold, as well as network rail. All of the bank shareholdings, the East Coast Franchise, The Air Traffic Control Service, the CDC group (look it up) and a few other bits and bobs would probably raise another £50bn. There's also the 4g spectrum sale which should raise about £5bn based on the sale in the Netherlands.
I reckon we'll see the Royal Mail sold, as well as network rail. All of the bank shareholdings, the East Coast Franchise, The Air Traffic Control Service, the CDC group (look it up) and a few other bits and bobs would probably raise another £50bn. There's also the 4g spectrum sale which should raise about £5bn based on the sale in the Netherlands.
Tony*T3 said:
Maxf said:
What would huge cuts to the public sector do though in the short term? Surely the welfare state would just become more overburdoned? It has to be a gradual shift, IMO. Not replacing natural wastage and cost cutting, rather than a wholesale chop.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to chop the non-jobs, I just don't think we can completely. Winky et al really have woven the public sector into the economy to such an extent that it will take years to unravel - probably generations.
Agreed. Move 500,000 people from being Tax payers (contributers) that spend their money on products and services to being benifit burdens, long term unemployed and probably the majority of them never gaining reasonable levels of employment again. Cant see how thats going to help really.Don't get me wrong - I'd love to chop the non-jobs, I just don't think we can completely. Winky et al really have woven the public sector into the economy to such an extent that it will take years to unravel - probably generations.
k is that sustainable??Bin the lot.
I'd say theres a good proportion of non jobs that could be cut without real issue to anyone.
The Lou Gerstener approach needs to be taken, sack 50% to ensure the remaining 50% work twice as hard in fear of their jobs.
The Government are also, incidentally, the largest buyer of television and radio advertising in the UK...
The Lou Gerstener approach needs to be taken, sack 50% to ensure the remaining 50% work twice as hard in fear of their jobs.
The Government are also, incidentally, the largest buyer of television and radio advertising in the UK...
Maxf said:
rypt said:
You lower taxation levels, and business rates to help increase the tax intake 
How would lower business rates increase the tax take? I understand the argument for other forms of taxation, but business rates doesnt fit in with this.Maxf said:
rypt said:
You lower taxation levels, and business rates to help increase the tax intake
How would lower business rates increase the tax take? I understand the argument for other forms of taxation, but business rates doesnt fit in with this.Paint a few quid coins so that people see them occasionally. If you tax heavily, it slows the money down so that people see X painted £ coins. If you tax them less, they are more free to spend their money, so they do, so your less tax takes the same amount of painted coins.....geddit?
Something like that.....
It's something that socialist governments don't get. But then again, they are eutopian ideals over economic reality anyway
Matt.. said:
So just how many public sector workers should be lost? I think the stats are something like 21% (approx 6.1million) of the working population being public sector. Even dropping it by 100,000 doesn't make a huge difference does it?
Since 97 there are an extra 2½m so that amount can be lost without any adverse effect on services as we seemed to manage without riots, plagues and the like pre Nu Labour.New contracts offered to those left, 2½ % p.a and a no strike deal and massive reduction in pension vs. no contract no pay increases ever.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff