Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html en-gb 30 Sat 12 Jul 2014 01:16:33 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html waffle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1804 JohnH wrote:Great! dump the problem on us to stop the government becoming unpopular.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Asking the public what to cut seems perfectly sensible, pity the previous government didn't consult the electorate before they burdened us with their social engineering, but then if they were honest with the people they would not have been elected And as for the "blame when it all goes pear-shaped" remark you must be joking, we are not far from pear shaped already.----- And it's not u Sun 13 Jun 2010 13:47:35 GMT+1 tardigrade http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1803 Why not treat all benefits - family allowance, winter fuel supplement, disability payments, etc, - as income and make them liable to tax.The poor, obviously would pay nothing, and the well-off would pay 40% on all earnings above the current banding threshold.The country can't carry on subsidising the already wealthy - it's crazy. Sun 13 Jun 2010 11:25:44 GMT+1 debbie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1802 far to many people get dissability benefits, along with a car,that is changed after 2 yrs when its done hardly any mileage, tax & insurance , plus free parking , the list is endless, many who dont deserve or need it, like the man i no who has an amlulance to take him to the hospital because he says he cant drive the 12 miles, is brought home , jumps into his car & drives 60 miles to his own holiday caravan, after not worked for 20yrs,all out of tax payers money,i know some will say they didnt ask to be dissabled, but i didnt ask to be put on the scrap heap at 50 & no chance of another job after loosing mine, so my 6 yr old car had to go,now i,ve know chance of getting another one, so who is going to help me KNOW ONE look hard at the disability benefits i say Sun 13 Jun 2010 11:12:13 GMT+1 syd vaughan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1801 the first cut should be no more peers, the house of lords has enough and topping up for political reasons just isnt right, we want an elected house not an appointed one and the quickest way to rid us off this club for favours is stop filling it up with political rejects and trade union deadwood Sun 13 Jun 2010 07:50:21 GMT+1 surfinski http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1800 Cut out overseas aid, cut out our EU contribution and cut out our contribution to non-existant man made global warming (It is natural climate change, if it isn't, why was the UK approx 3degs warmer around 1000AD than it is now??)(but I do agree with looking after our environment) then see how much more we need to save/cut back. Afterall, charity does begin at home. Sun 13 Jun 2010 02:56:20 GMT+1 irisrose http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1799 If they did not want 50 million points of view they should not of asked us for it - no they did not want our point of view their decisions have already been made - our views our worthless. We are here to be exploited and to be used as cannon fodder as no doubt there will be some form of war in order to remove the surplus population as always happens during a global economic depression.Figures provided concerning inflation and growth are continally adjusted retrospectively for up to 20 years to reflect more accurate measures - in other words, the figures that are publsihed for the last quarter are inaccurate. Thus, nobody has any real idea of 'growth' - moreover, nobody has any idea to what extent if any the private sector would be able to absorb any of the job losses envisaged in the public sector.As the Government strangely pursued a non-monetarist economic policy in bailing out the banks - without any consultation - why can it no pursue a Keynsian approach to the economic problem of today ie invest in public ventures as a wealth creating enterprise to provide consumers with money to spend in the consumer economy? Sat 12 Jun 2010 20:40:51 GMT+1 rapidviking http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1798 Once again the politicians are asking for us to justify their actions. The coalition want smaller government with more services being provided by charities, companies etc that presumably will mean us to pay for this. I am not certain that the level of cuts being suggested will be needed as no account has been taken of growth but I do wish that they would get on with it. They have to prove themselves as a coalition that can take decisive action - they wanted the power so get on and use it. Dont try to kid the public that we are all involved with this consultation as it is not possible if it was you would have 50 Million points of view. Sat 12 Jun 2010 19:13:23 GMT+1 irisrose http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1797 you want creative ideas to raise funds - lets lease or sell some of the Falkland Islands! Sat 12 Jun 2010 19:12:25 GMT+1 northwold http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1796 Services should not be cut. We should have a progressive land value tax and raise income tax. There are now 68 billionaires, born, living or making their money in the UK, 14 more than in 2006 and treble the number four years ago. The coalition government is using the debt crisis as excuse to bit by bit dismantle the welfare state. Sat 12 Jun 2010 17:43:50 GMT+1 leoRoverman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1795 What services would I cut? Well the answer is those things that we don't need. The Government's normal answer is to reduce funding from a problem until it is low on the radar and then it can be swept under the carpet. It follows then that the only funding will be for those that get votes at the next election QED. Ergo since the last Government wanted immigrants to do low paid work- the Government will actually not cap immigration-because the CBI wants workers. The Border force can therefore be dispensed with. Since Prison is expensive- get rid of the prison service- that means no policemen- who will need no laws- so no need for politicians and that means lower taxes- so no more Inland revenue. Brilliant All we need is the NHS and the military. Sat 12 Jun 2010 17:19:17 GMT+1 Rhetorician http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1794 Everyone will have their own views about what should or shouldn't be cut. But we are in such a dire position at the moment that virtually nothing will escape cuts. If we are to stand any chance of maintaining our current living standards and services, we are going to have to be a lot more creative about how we go about it because the money isn't going to be there. Sat 12 Jun 2010 16:29:46 GMT+1 irisrose http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1793 All Haill Mrwonderfullreality - 1495 - Why oh why did no one raise this issue with Cameron on Monday - likewise why did nobody query the amount we owed, the interest we are paying and who we owe it to. Presumably, if we owe it to the Bank of England - which I believe was nationalized in 1947 - then we own the Bank and, therefore, we owe ourselves ergo we can write off the debt. If only things were so simple.People are obviously interested enough in this topic to take part in this forum but other than allowing us to sound off and learn the views of others what is the point? What use is free speech if no one in power is listening or gives a damn? When are the mass media going to start reporting a more wider and diverse view of political issues rather than the sanitized versions we see on the main news. A appreciate that around six corporations own the global media but the BBC is supposed to be independent. If we are supposed to be involved in a debate regarding where cuts should be made then why were cuts of £700m for HE announced on 10 June and £150m increase for armed services on the same day? Why has the BBC not pointed out that David Cameron has already been shown to be less than honest from his speech on 7 June?I guess this is just a complete waste of time and we will continue to learn who has won Big Brother on the hour every hour on 24 hour BBC news. Sat 12 Jun 2010 13:30:20 GMT+1 Cardiff David http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1792 IT's so simple it's not really worth a consultation: sending soldiers all around the world costs £billions, as do nuclear weapons - food for thought perhaps?Nearer to home, the banking and financial services sector that got us into this mess MUST be made to pay up - let's have that Robin Hood tax idea looked at properly, taxes on huge share tranactions, hedge funds, company takeovers - a tiny group of people make £millions on this sort of thing. Thene there's the huge problem of corporate tax avoidance, much more than individuals' tax evasion.DON'T give more government contracts to private companies - whilst many are good organisations, it's the private sector that has racked up these huge salaries, expenses and bonuses. The poor old public sector that has a couple of hundred people on huge salaries and the vast majority on low salaries with the promise of a decent pension as the quid pro quo - leave them all alone please and go after the real fat cats.The quickest and easiest saving surely though is to drive a coach and horses through the arcane system of perks, bonuses and ludicrously high salaries, including MPs, MEPs (now there's a goldmine), AMs, MSPs, Councillors, Judges, senior civil servants, quango chairs and - get this - the stipend that former British Prime Ministers can draw for life - imagine £109,000 per year for life? That's what we're paying now for Thatcher, Major, Blair and now Brown.....That should sort out the deficit! Sat 12 Jun 2010 13:19:29 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1791 Cameron says we will all have to suffer,I would like to know how he will suffer,will he give away his millions to help the country?Will he sell his house and move to a council home?Just how will he and the rest of his cabinet suffer with the rest of us,to make our country stronger? Fri 11 Jun 2010 23:32:18 GMT+1 Pete Red http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1790 none , I would sack every fourth government,dwp,nhs, and local authority namanager and admin worker. Fri 11 Jun 2010 21:33:28 GMT+1 marie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1789 I think its wrong cutting down our benefits we are all going to be worst off instead of making this situation better. What i think that should happen is you should cut down jsa for the ages between 16-30 the child tax and working tax shouldnt be cut espeacially for working families on low income as u do pay alot of tax. Council tax should be dropped down and water rates. People thats on sick shouldnt be cut down either unless there isnt anything wrong with them so do regular check ups with their doctors etc... I have so many ideas and i think it would work. And car tax i think its stupid how much thats going up that should dropped down too.There is so many expensive things we have to pay out on simple bills and with everything going up and bebnfits dropping down its going to be harder to live and loads of families will end up on the streets. So the goverment should think long and hard before making any decision. Fri 11 Jun 2010 19:54:44 GMT+1 andyfiggy2002 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1788 having served in the forces & more recently local government can i say how it really frustrates me how public money is squandered on inefficiency & wastefulness that would not be tolerated in the private sector, this 'use it or lose it' mentality must be squashed when it comes to budgets, how many more times must money be blown on stupid 'waste of money' projects? maybe if the local taxpayer were to have a say on how their well earned council tax was spent this might stop. Also the government pension is ludicrously generous as I paid 6.5% into my local government pension scheme (lgps) which was matched by the governments contribution of 18%, YES 18%, you are lucky in the private sector to get 6% on a stakeholder pension matched the same by your employer, if the government were to get ALL their workers to contribute more to their pension, millions could be saved Fri 11 Jun 2010 19:49:42 GMT+1 Carole http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=99#comment1787 Consider a scenario....Your local authority no longer provides a refuse/recycling collection service.But you are provided with names of companies who will provide such services - at a cost.Will your council tax be reduced?No. Fri 11 Jun 2010 19:13:31 GMT+1 090665 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1786 Abolish House Of Lords.Apply same rules to MP's expense claims as those for employees and force them to submit detailed breakdown of their expense claims each month for public scrutiny.Abolish all benefits for family households with joint income of £60k.Cut Trident.Stop providing houses and flats for benefit claimants, but instead provide rooms in hostels with food, clothing and water.Abolish jobseekers allowance and make unemployed work for public sector for minimum wage to obtain value for money for taxpayers whilst maintaining public services at lower cost.Remove excess management from within public sector to cut spending whilst maintaining frontline staff who actually do the job rather than sit down filling in paperwork all ady long for an extortionate amount of money.Abolish all benefits for pensioners with income of £20k since they no longer have children to support or the need to maintain large family homes and already receive a higher personal allowance.Scrap state Pension and free prescriptions, bus passes and winter fuel allowances for pensioners with income of £20k per individual.Many pensioners enjoy substantial incomes from private pensions, interest on savings, business income and letting income from surplus properties.Cut all public sector pensions and bring them in line with private sector pensions, since public sector wages and pensions are all funded by the private sector ! This is grossly unjust !Cut number of MPsScrap benefits for economic migrants, they are here because they are already getting a better deal, they do not need benefits. Fri 11 Jun 2010 18:50:11 GMT+1 Carole http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1785 Turkeys cheering for Christmas?I despair...We, the ordinary people, did not cause the 'deficit' - so why are you VOLUNTEERING to forsake YOUR public services? Remember..when they are gone they are GONE and you will NEVER ever get them back again. Stop giving them permission to cut our services. We have paid for them and you can bet your boots (while you still have some on your feet) we will continue to pay for them in one way or another (well..have you ever known tax rates be proportionally lowered in economic good times? No, I haven't either - not in 40 years of employment).I want my taxes spent on services for kids/elderly/sick/unemployed - many of whom through no fault of their own. Get off their case and, instead, get angry about the corporate handshakers/non-dom tax dodgers/greedy Parliamentarians/banking industry.LibDems should hang their heads in shame. Fri 11 Jun 2010 18:09:02 GMT+1 harris http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1784 The legal aid services extended to foreign nationals with no right to remain in the UK should be curb since they do not and have not contributed to Britain financially or socially.The NHS should be the preserve for legal residents in the UK who have paid their Taxes and all foreign visitors should have their embassy paid for the medical bills in an emergency or privately if they can afford it.Schools should have more teachers and less classroom assistants since it sole function is to teach and not to supervise. Fri 11 Jun 2010 15:59:37 GMT+1 Beltrae http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1783 The population of the UK (and indeed much of the Western world) have had an ever increasing expectation of the public sector services and facilities they have a right to access. However, unfortunately our economy has not kept pace with this expectation and essentially we are a nation living beyond our means with an unbalanced economy, too much debt (personal, corporate and national) and a public sector cost base ie salaries/pensions and infrastructure cost that we cannot afford to support.Therefore we have to cut the public sector costs and the main ones to be tackled are the number of public sector jobs and their goldplated pensions. It is a fallacy to say their pensions are compensation for salaries that are lower than the private sector, who have to fund their own pensions.The coalition government is perfectly positioned to tackle this difficult issue - but have they got the courage to do it? Fri 11 Jun 2010 15:35:27 GMT+1 Hyopocon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1782 I would scrap Trident and the over-hyped independent nuclear deterrent. Defence spending has been a mill-stone round our necks for far too long - and the Tories and New Labour have no vision, fore-sight or percipience to think through what they have done out of sheer habit for the last 65 years and keep on banging on about imaginary Threats. THE COLD WAR IS OVER - WAKE UP YOU DOZY CREEPS, Russia is an Enemy No More! Fri 11 Jun 2010 15:21:30 GMT+1 James T Kirk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1781 1780. At 12:54pm on 11 Jun 2010, ABritMum wrote:I don't think we should be looking at cuts in services at all until after we stop paying to the EUHow will losing access to the UK's biggest export market help the economy and prevent cuts in public services? Fri 11 Jun 2010 15:08:15 GMT+1 James T Kirk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1780 948. At 8:29pm on 08 Jun 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:885 Rodi, I suggest you read the post before yours, number 884.Yes there are global problems but ours have been caused by the Labour government which inherited a healthy economy are proceded to wreck it. Check out the history of all previous Labour governments and you will see the same thing, wrecked economy, country in debt every single time.I suggest you check out history as you are wrong to say "every single time". In 1970, the outgoing Labour government left a budget surplus: Woy Jenkins was the last Chancellor before Nigel Lawson to do that. In 1930 the outgoing Labour government in its efforts to balance the budget as the great depression started made that economic downturn worse. Some Keynesian deficit spending may (but we'll never know) have helped save many millions becoming unemployed. It was this experience, in fact, that probably guided Brown in the 2007-2009 period to ensure history didn't repeat itself.So, it is impossible to defend the statement "Check out the history of all previous Labour governments and you will see the same thing, wrecked economy, country in debt every single time".As for the argument Labour inherited a strong economy and then went on to wreck it, you can say the same about the Heath government and the Major government: both inherited healthy economies and then recessions happened (in Major's case the economy recovered whilst still PM). The only lesson one can learn from this is that recessions tend to happen about once every 10-12 years, irrespective of who is in power. Fri 11 Jun 2010 12:43:45 GMT+1 ABritMum http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1779 I don't think we should be looking at cuts in services at all until after we stop paying to the EU, stop all international aid payments, cut the pay of top civil servants (those earning on-par and above the PM), stop all civil service bonuses and MP's expenses. This crisis was caused by our greedy Govts and the more greedy Banks. It is they who should be made to pay not the tax payer. Do you think these austerity measures will affect them? They walk away scot-free, lives unaffected whilst we are on the breadline leading to poverty or worse.All around the world people from different cultures, with different backgrounds, speaking different languages are all saying the same thing: Greece, Romania, Spain etc etc. To think this will not happen on the streets of the UK also is very naive.We can either use this time or lose it.... Fri 11 Jun 2010 11:54:54 GMT+1 Judith910 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1778 I thought this was what the politicians were elected to do!But certainly stop foreign aid (certainly to countries such as China!); cut public spending on non-essential jobs and services; means test such benefits as child benefit as we cannot afford such benefits to be paid to reasonably off mid-earners (I have heard of many cases where the money is just saved until the child is 18); means test legal aid on criminal cases (although those we are aquitted should have their legal costs reimbursed from the public purse); reduce bureaucracy and non-essential management levels in such services as the NHS; ensure those in receipt of JobSeekers Allowance have to do some voluntary work each week (that could be in those non-essential jobs so that some services continue); charge for such leisure activities as museum and gallery entrance, SureStart schemes etc. And before you ask I am a "middle class", mid range earner so yes some of these cuts would affect me. Fri 11 Jun 2010 10:24:43 GMT+1 PhilipInCoventry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1777 The uk needs to stop paying benefit to all healthy working age adults, where the benefit reduces the insentive for those receiving it, to work, in order to maintain their living. The problem is such that so many people receive so much benefit that their next door neighbour is no better off when they are working full time. Fri 11 Jun 2010 10:01:48 GMT+1 chestham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1776 One thing that warms my heart is I believe there is a large proportion of this country are getting mobilised, people who don’t buy this idea that by removing everything that has made this country historically great, will make this country better.We need to take back our country; it’s beginning to feel like an occupation to me, banks, corporations, huge profits for the few, massive debts for the many, whilst wages are forced down in the private sector, the public sector is being pointed at with scorn for being a shining example of fairness and decency that the private sector should be emulating. Instead the corporate machine continues to want more for less and whilst the public sector exists they cannot enforce this.How long before the abolishment or reduction of the minimum wage, how long before the return of swet shops to the cities of Britain, how long before we send our children out to beg on bustling main roads whilst the rich get chauffeured around between their gated communities and estates protected by duck housed filled moats.Are we too “Great” to end up like that, that is our decision and it’s a choice we need to make now and not when it’s too late. Fri 11 Jun 2010 08:58:28 GMT+1 johnmo1943 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1775 I am a UK citizen living in Spain. The UK could save an immense amount of money by following the example of Spain (and most other EU countries). On arriving in Spain you receive no benefits (unless paid by the UK)and only emergency health care as covered by the E111 document. This is particularly relevent in that to get full health cover you have to take out private insurance or work for a period to obtain state benefits. No-one, even EU citizens, can arrive in Spain and live off the State. Fri 11 Jun 2010 08:11:52 GMT+1 Reflectionseeker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1774 Alright Purée (vil), I’ve now had time to read a lot more of this page and have a broader angle on you.You’re not a complete child-hater since you’ve produced one yourself, you just don’t like other peoples’ – especially if they haven’t been properly paid for. So your concerns about humanity becoming a plague upon this Earth are, one supposes, mostly for your offspring.My original point was that people having children is not a terrible thing when you look at it in economic terms. You said that that was short-term thinking, bribes for votes etc, which may have some truth in it, but then again it’s the job of politicians and economists to make sure the country doesn’t fall into ruin. The subject of this topic is after all economics. Within two posts you had me advocating population increase and all sorts of other things which you appear to quickly attach to anyone who dares to present a view contrary to your own.You, however, do advocate increasing the decline in the birth rate, which is not necessarily evil in itself, but it’s the practicality of carrying this out that’s the problem. It’s no good relating everything back to the ‘scientists’ and ‘facts’ when there simply isn’t the morality to support a solution. And ranting and raving about ‘the truth’ about which the rest of us are apparently ‘in denial’ amounts to about the same as saying “the government should do something!"I'll come back to that in a minute.Re my original point. There’s a lot of talk on these boards about making babies for benefits for which, although there are probably a few who who think it’s a great idea, nobody has ever produced any evidence.On the other hand, in countries where benefits for having children are higher than the UK, birth rates continue to fall. Something else is therefore causing the recent rise in this country – could it be despair? It’s that cause which needs to be addressed if we want the birth rate to fall again.So. You’ve got your little bit of immortality in your child, and now it appears you want the population to decline rapidly so that s/he can continue to have more than most. In order for this to happen you’d have to both deny others (the poorest presumably, who have very little but their relationships) the option of becoming parents and then have a lot of people die.Really, a lot of people. Even more than will be caused by fall in world population about to occur when the currently ageing baby-boomers eventually shuffle off this mortal coil.In effect, you would like a lot of people to remain childless and/or die so that your child can live. It's kinda like the opposite of the Christianity message, don'tcha think?When the mechanics of your agenda are actually revealed, it’s no wonder you blow up so easily and accuse other people of having a “disgusting morality”, since projection is one of the means of relief for a deeply disturbed psyche. Fri 11 Jun 2010 07:56:54 GMT+1 Carole http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1773 You are sleepwalking into having your public services TAKEN AWAY from you, AND paying higher taxes. On top of those increased taxes will be the costs of benefits for the millions who will lose their jobs. I include you too, Mr Moderator. It doesn't have to be this way. Just as you can afford to pay your credit card balance every month without having to sell the 42'' plasma tv, so this country has assets which are far in excess of the deficit (caused by the banking industry).Keep swallowing the propoganda tho' Fri 11 Jun 2010 00:15:33 GMT+1 Carole http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1772 I am of an age where I have lived through many governments - good bad and mediocre and everyone of them has heaped blame on the previous administration and every one of them has talked of cuts/inefficiencies/value for money.When it comes to any serious public consultation I just hope that, like some 'thinking' posters who have realised what is actually occurring, yours will be a majority view. I refuse to be a pawn in this 'new' game that is being played out. I also refuse to allow our elected representatives off the hook by allowing them to abdicate their responsibilities. They are the ones who are accountable; they sought our votes and they are getting paid to do what they were elected for - to make the decisions that will benefit the people of this country. Never have I known ordinary people be so worried.Be afraid. Be very afraid. Thu 10 Jun 2010 23:38:58 GMT+1 jim300 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1771 Restrict foreign aid to goods and services (british) no cash for swiss bank accounts and usa missiles Thu 10 Jun 2010 22:47:43 GMT+1 HypocrisyRulesUK http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1770 I am currently attending a swim group aimed at fathers, presumably those who from the lower socio-economic class who can ill afford to pay for a gym or pool membership themselves, as it is heavily subsidised. As far as I can tell, like me, most of those attending are reasonably affluent, and are simply taking advantage of cheap access to a swimming pool. I can tell this from the range of expensive transport they seem to turn up in.So if this was cut the only person who would miss it would be Tracey (the lady who runs it). While I don't wish her any ill I am sure she could find another job, and we have a benefit system takes care of those who cannot find employment, so I don't really understand why my taxes go to very inefficiently keep her in a job! am sure Labour would have classed this activity as "essential front line public services", but it isn't. So I do wonder how many other "essential front line services" are equally pointless. Thu 10 Jun 2010 21:20:38 GMT+1 jim300 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=98#comment1769 Disband the RAF which has such enormous staff and admin costs and split the flying tasks between army and navy as they originally were. Thu 10 Jun 2010 20:35:50 GMT+1 too_true http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1768 I hope most people would agree that the pain of cuts and savings should not fall on the poorest in our society (thank God that word has been rehabilitated). Unfortunately though the richest are practically untouchable since they are not significantly reliant on government funded services (using instead private schools, private health care etc.) Also despite their relative wealth, even imposing penal taxation regimes on them would still not make any significant dent in the deficit.This leaves the middle classes and (unpopular though it may sound) I would advise the government to immediately cease all mortgage income tax relief (which has distorted the property market for generations).In the event that this move does not generate sufficient tax revenue, then the next step should be to make property purchases liable to VAT (or equivalent sales tax). Finally VAT on mortgages themselves, they are after all a service.I recognize that these changes will evoke howls of anguish from many property owners, and that there will no doubt be real cases of hardship as some families that have overstretched themselves go through the process of descending the property ladder.But I am sure that on objective analysis, most will come to realize that the effect of these changes would be equitable. If sufficient additional tax revenue can be generated, then the government may be able to avoid entirely the kind of cuts to basic services that are its alternative. Thu 10 Jun 2010 20:28:30 GMT+1 Idont Believeit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1767 At 7:24pm on 10 Jun 2010, TheWalrus999 wrote:>>1747. At 4:35pm on 10 Jun 2010, earthB4worth wrote:"The govt has to find £B165. This can be done by doing nothing...."-----------------------------------------------------------------That might be true, but it only takes care of this years debt.Over the next 5 years the UK will have an accummulated debt of around £1.4 trillion.Sadly, cuts, efficencies & tax rises across the whole economy is the only way to make up that much debt.------------------------------------------------------------------You're at cross-purposes. The first figure,£165 bn (now reduced to 156 bn) is the budget deficit. That is the difference between what we spent last year and what we collected in. This is what we are talking about reducing.The second figure £1.4 trillion is Britain's National Debt. The total debt built up over the last 300 years or so. ( And at times has been larger than at present.) Nobody is talking about getting rid of that. We'd be very lucky to reduce it by even a small amount. Next, all the figures above are estimates and may or may not be revised upwards or downwards as events unfold. Lastly, George Osborne has further confused the issue by starting to talk about the Structural Deficit rather than the Budget Deficit. The Structural Deficit is estimated at between £70 to 80 bn and is therfore easier to get cut down. G O plans to get rid of about 64 bn over 5 years . He and those who support the Structural idea say the rest of the deficit will go away if the economy returns to normal (recovers). Some economists do not recognise the idea of a Structural deficit because it is uncertain whether the economy will recover or how long that will take (It partly depends on the actions of the Government - where and how it cuts.) Thu 10 Jun 2010 20:06:43 GMT+1 killerdalek http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1766 Re: post 1500 by Lime Candy - "...It is a human right to have a baby..."No it is not a human right to have a baby! Mira Hindley had human rights, but would you have allowed her to have a baby? What about Peter Sutcliffe - would you have let him have one? Also, the lack of a willing partner or donor of sperm, ovum or womb can be a problem, because you cannot demand those of someone else, and they most definitely are necessary! Thu 10 Jun 2010 19:21:49 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1765 1755. At 5:39pm on 10 Jun 2010, James wrote:You know what id really love to know... WHO EXACTLY do we owe this 900+ billion, god knows exactly how much it is, to? i suspect the bulk of it will be to a very select group of people/countries/corporations.Absolutely brilliant James...I look forward to more of your blogs. Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:32:01 GMT+1 TheWalrus999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1764 >>1747. At 4:35pm on 10 Jun 2010, earthB4worth wrote:"The govt has to find £B165. This can be done by doing nothing...."That might be true, but it only takes care of this years debt.Over the next 5 years the UK will have an accummulated debt of around £1.4 trillion.Sadly, cuts, efficencies & tax rises across the whole economy is the only way to make up that much debt. Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:24:50 GMT+1 Swoosh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1763 Why spend an extra few hundred million abroad in Afghanistan and make cuts to public spending in the UK? Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:24:41 GMT+1 monic1511 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1762 Why not put the managers and politicians on the minimum wage for 6 months, they probably have enough savings to be able to cope and then when the advocate abolishing the minimum wage - which is likely under the con-dem government - they will know exactly how much/little a person has to live off - at least if they were doing 50 hours a week they'd have a wage of £292.50 (before tax) a week, mind you it would mean they'd have to pay tax as its a "wage" Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:23:54 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1761 How about asking the banks to give us back our money?Stop aid to India,Pakistan,and China...yes, China,we are giving aid to China.Government seems to equate with stupid. Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:23:12 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1760 Let me see now,we pay the prime minister somewhere around £150,000 a year to run the government and country.Is he not capable of deciding,with the help of experts what is the best course of action?Is he trying to pass the buck onto the public?Is he as useless as this makes him look?Personally I think it is the latter.We pay the chancellor of the exchequer about the same amount,so that gives us two useless millionaires,I suggest we get rid of both of them,and save ourselves a packet of money.Perhaps we should look at Osbornes coalition partner,a person who cannot even string enough sentences together try and answer a simple question,did you also see his dismal performance the other night with Paxman.These three are at the top of our government...God help us all. Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:18:27 GMT+1 Blister http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1759 I know that the government said about all families being effected by thecuts but I didn't expect it to come so soon after they said it - my wife has just lost her job.My suggestion for clawing back money? Cap the profit on every bank involved in scamming the public and causing the disastrous crisis we are in at the moment. Also - do not allow the financial landscape to return to what it was - take the opportunity to change it so this can NEVER happen again... and remember that the last time we were in such a precarious position the Conservatives were in power... remember Black Wednesday? (the events of 16 September 1992 when the Conservative government was forced to withdraw the pound sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) after they were unable to keep sterling above its agreed lower limit)... If they got it wrong then.... (kettle/black springs to mind)Instead of a coalition government - we should have had a Government of national unity - the problem is so severe, so mind boggling enormous that we need everyone to make a positive contribution and to heck with the continual childish back biting and sniping - what was done was done - not just here but in the majority of other countries as well - because it was the right thing to do at the right time - the problem wasn't caused by governments - it was the banking sector - they should feel the real pain not us - we have paid our dues into the public coffers once - we shouldn't have to pay a second time. Leave the banking system to rot - it deserves to die - let it. Thu 10 Jun 2010 18:03:40 GMT+1 Barbara Murphy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1758 Our new Government has asked us to tell them where we think the cuts should be. The first thing whould be to stop ALL international aid. Charity begins at home. We need to sort out our country before we bail out other countries. We cannot help the world. If we carried on giving away money, our economy would collapse, we would be of no use at all then to anyone.Lets get our economyy right first, then we can consider helping others. There has been lots said about cutting civil servants wages and "gold plated" pensions. Those are for SENIOR civil servants, a very small percentage. The vast majority of civil servants are not in this category and are on a low wage who have tax credits to help them pay thier bills. Cut at the top first. Also why should ex MP's get a golden handshake for leaving Parliament. They have been compensated enough through generous pay and expenses. Thu 10 Jun 2010 17:42:42 GMT+1 Rogerjohn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1757 Crime and Criminals. I would like to see a major review of prison and probation. I have been a prison visitor and have always been concerned by the culture of 'uselessness' that pervades them. What if prisons had to be self maintaining. With prisoners growing their own food, ear the money to run the prisons and pay the prison guards? Obviously the trades unions and the prison reformers would be up in arms, but so what? People are in prison because they have broken the law and are as a consequence an enormous cost to the rest of us. If as a consequence of having to work like the rest of us whilst in jail, they could develop useful skills for a change for when they leave jail. Thu 10 Jun 2010 17:32:48 GMT+1 weallmustvote http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1756 We could merge the Army Navy and RAF into one force; we already have Marines and Pilots under the Navy flag, so why not trim the forces down?We would save £Trillions if the MOD followed suit and downsized, there would not really be a need for such a large "Money-Sponge" of time wasters, who take years to justify and improve the simplest inovations and by the time they have the Yanks have coppied or bought the idea. i.e Harrier, Hovercraft to name but a few. Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:56:36 GMT+1 bakersboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1755 Cut all unemployment benefit. Replace with an obligation to provide any and all applicants with 10 hours work per week at minimum wage, as long as targets are met. Three sackings from Government employers and you are out. You are fully permitted and encouraged to find other work without this affecting your entitlement to this state employment. There are no entitlement criteria apart from being a UK citizenThis should result in lower costs as the truly lazy and non desperate may not apply. Everyone who can work will have work experience and a higher sense of self worth. We also then have the resources for a lot of services that we would like to have but cannot otherwise afford. At the same time much admin and paperwork is saved within Dept of Employment etc.Also scrap business rates and replace with local income tax. This will allow far more small and part time businesses to develop without having to reach a minimum threshold to pay the taxes. Overall this should bring more people into work and improve the quality, quantity and range of services available. Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:48:06 GMT+1 James http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1754 You know what id really love to know... WHO EXACTLY do we owe this 900+ billion, god knows exactly how much it is, to? i suspect the bulk of it will be to a very select group of people/countries/corporations.and to be honest, as an average joe who has had no part in building up any of this debt i want our government to grow a set and say screw you we're not paying it, the people of this country are not slaving their lives away for the next 50/100 years to pay for money they didn't borrow... that is the change i voted for.we're big enough and bright enough as a country to continue without the rest of the world, the powers that be just want you to think that we need the rest of the world, i refer you to a quote a number of world leaders including brown, blaire, obama, bush and others use often "NEW WORLD ORDER" well here it is folks... debt = slavery = control The funny thing is i was reading about this 2+ years ago and thought na it could never happen, how wrong did i turn out to be.and if a particular country would like to come after us for not paying, then fine!!! we've been through far worse wars for less !! and if i were called to the line FOR THIS REASON then i would happily fight for my kids freedom from slavery! Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:39:25 GMT+1 Kingmolo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1753 Cut out the middle management who just sit behind desks all day, not really seeing the patients, the victims, the welfare claimants or the people of their business but make policy on how to best do those things. We don't need them, they are expensive and a waste of cash. And, all HR departments should be put to bed once and for all - we certainly do not need them! Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:27:40 GMT+1 newshounduk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1752 It's sad that government always tend to think of cuts as the first line of attack on government expenditure.The ministers in the cabinet seem to forget that the 5% cut in their salaries is what a lot of people have to live on.What we need is growth. We need to get the unemployed back to work. In that way we can:-a) reduce costs on unemployment benefitb) increase the amount of National Insurance Contributions being paid to the government as well as the increased taxc) increase productivity and hopefully exportsWe can cut crime by massively increasing fines and gain extra government income that way.We do not need to raise the cost of fuel as that will cause everything delivered to increase in price.We do not need to sack people as that will increase the number of unemployed, so it's better to use pay freezes and pay cuts.We can cut bureacracy, waste and red tape.We can stimulate the British economy by awarding government contracts to British companies.Encourage young children to start saving by bringing back the school saving stamps scheme.Re-introduce Military National Service in a phased way so that the unemployed have an incentive to find a job.Don't call in private industry to take over government contracts which can be adequately dealt with by government-employed staff e.g. NHS staffIf VAT has to be increased let it be only by half a percent.Increase income tax in small increments e.g.by 1%/2% gradually over the life-time of the Parliament.It is possible to reduce the deficit in a relatively painless and sensitive way by reducing costs and increasing income steadily rather that in large dramatic, counter-productive ways. Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:25:18 GMT+1 Reflectionseeker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=97#comment1751 1743. At 3:41pm on 10 Jun 2010, Pure Evil wrote: "Is this why you’re so this...is this why you're that...What a disgusting, repulsive morality you have"Postulate away, oh angry one."Perfectly fair since having children are increasingly a luxury then what exactly is wrong with those who actually can afford to look after and provide for those children actually paying for them?"If the next generation consists only of middle class children who go to university and want a job in IT, who's gonna change your incontinence pads in the nursing home when you're eighty? Or are you already eighty?I've given more serious responses to this question in other HYS topics but since I 'don't have any arguments', why should I bother to rehash them for your convenience? Why is it so difficult for you to accept the argument that having a large ageing population unsupported by a much smaller young population is not a good position for a country to be in?Perhaps you would prefer to see the economies of these countries collapse in order that your personal quest for a quieter and roomier planet is fulfilled?What do you care about the future of the planet if you're a child-hater anyway? Presumably you don't have any kids whose welfare in a few decades needs to be addressed now by stopping other people making more.Or maybe you're a kid yourself, worried about getting your 'share' in the future? Do tell. "Where exactly does this blind faith in politicians (European or otherwise) actually come from?"Your overactive imagination apparently."BTW, why have you assumed that cutting child benefit means that no one will have any children?"I think you're getting mixed up with your having assumed that keeping child benefit means that people have more children."Professor James Lovelock has calculated there are 3 Billion people more on this planet than can possibly be sustained so we need that Birth Rate to drop – not the other way round."Lovelock has also calculated that climate change will wipe out most of us within the next century. He chuckles a bit when he says it. On the other hand the UN Population division has calculated that world population will begin to fall in 2052. Not sure if any of them chuckled.But he and the quotes you pasted previously are talking about growing numbers, whereas the measures in Europe are designed to bring birth rates up to replacement levels. Nobody is advocating population increase, but obviously many people think that its decline is a problem - for the reasons quoted in my previous comment.With your being such a ranter you've completely wandered off the original point which was that your view that everyone should stop having babies isn't the only one in the world. However, since you've decided that you're completely right, tolerating others' views is making you cross.Like a lot of angry people, you've made many assumptions about my beliefs and position. I don't suppose you would therefore grasp the concept that full understanding comes from gaining the ability to hold an opinion for just long enough to be able to examine it closely. With dispassionate argument one can occasionally glimpse something like the truth. Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:16:49 GMT+1 Dennis Wiseman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1750 I would cut all free interpreter services including multi lingual pamphlets(make them pay for it or get a friend to interpret) and charge drunks for ambulance and hospital services Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:13:35 GMT+1 Tony Fisher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1749 The BBC could save a bit by shutting down Have Your Say, which mostly seems to attract comments from illiterate dimwits and neo-Nazis.To the small minority of posters who think things through, I apologise unreservedly. Thu 10 Jun 2010 16:05:16 GMT+1 BBConservatives http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1748 I would assist the recovering by ensuring that the greedy zealot directorsof the CBI representatives are not allowed to make excessive, untaxed profits whilst the normal people go without and worse.I posted before the election that people should note the comments of directors of various companies and respond by directing their spending away from those companies who endorsed the savage cuts on others, just so that they can avoid paying their fair share of tax. Why should we fill the pockets of them and let them get away wiithout feeling the effects of the cuts?The CBI has long been a self serving mouthpiece of greed and we, the public, should remember this, especially now the LIECON alLIEance has cut the so called NI jobs tax for companies, but diverted the burden to the employees - seemingly the LIECONS think normal people can afford this whilst large companies somehow can not - I am suprisesd how many ordinary people do not realise this! Thu 10 Jun 2010 15:52:58 GMT+1 Paul Ashby http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1747 Not sure we really need a replacement for Trident, if we are to keep a nuclear deterent lets look towards holding a lot less warheads and retain a capability of delivering them from land or ship based systems like the cruise missiles. I do not beleive this would cost anything like a Trident replacement.Lets raide money through a VAT but instead of just putting the current rate up lets have a flexible rate that adds more VAT to imports and environmentally poor products whilst reducing VAT on local and environmentally friendly products. This will raise extra TAX in the shorter but but long term will start to encourage buying british and manufacturing in this country again. Lets end cheap crap from China costing this country jobs. Thu 10 Jun 2010 15:48:41 GMT+1 earthB4worth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1746 The govt has to find £B165. This can be done by doing nothing;NOT - Decommissioning Nuclear power Stns is £70b.NOT - Replacing Trident nuclear submarine is £35b. NOT - Replacing fighter jets with Euro-fighteR £20b. NOT – Introducing UK identity Cards for all is £15b.- But also the public can NOT waste energy now £75b/y.(all figures from Prof D MacKay http://www.withouthotair.com/ ) Thu 10 Jun 2010 15:35:39 GMT+1 BrianW http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1745 What will not work is cheese-paring of Ministries budgets.That just leaves the structure in place doing the same job but badly.The only solution is a zero-based reassessment of what Government NEEDS to be doing and withdrawal from those activities which do not meet that criteria.Unless we see the closing of whole Ministries or departments the excercise is doomed to failure.The "What if" rule needs to be applied to benefits. For example it is all very well helping new parents with the expenses of a first child, but ask yourself "what if" those parents go on to have six, eight or a dozen children. That assistance then becomes a lifestyle financed by the State with no need for the parents to work. Better to give a large allowance for the first child, compensating to some extent for the mother giving up work, maybe a smaller allowance for the second, but after that the choice of size of family is that of the parents and subsequent children are financed by themselves and not the taxpayer.Why not incorporate the winter fuel allowance into the basic pension, giving a higher weekly payment throughout the year and cutting out the bureaocracy of separate lump sum payments?Why pay child benefit to foreign nationals working in the UK whose children are not living in the UK?And so on.With the application of a little logic the scope for savings is pretty large. Thu 10 Jun 2010 15:30:59 GMT+1 090665 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1744 Cut or better still abolish House Of Lords which is full of has been politicians who are more of an obstacle than anything else since they are out of touch.Cut Trident since it is not a necessity at this present time.Stop providing houses and flats for benefit claimants and house them in rooms within hostels.Cut public sector pensions and salaries.Cut publice sector managers' jobs - far too many managers !Cut all benefits for unemployed - make them work in the public sector for minimum wage and pay taxes like everybody else !Cut expense claims for MPs since normal working people cannot claim for travelling to their normal place of work and treat all their expense claims as those of normal employees but make them submit detailed breakdown every month to their public within their constituency for scrutiny since they are paying the bill. Thu 10 Jun 2010 14:54:30 GMT+1 garymanc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1743 India has it's own nuclear weapons and space programme but Britain give it £312million in overseas aid in 2008/9, Britain also gave Singapore over £8million durng the same peoiod, a country with a GDB 43% more than the UK. This nonsense has to stop. Overseas aid must be directly to help the starving or those in danger. Thu 10 Jun 2010 14:42:17 GMT+1 Pure Evil http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1742 @Reflectionseeker “Oh dear, someone has run out of arguments.”Coming from someone who hasn’t actually made any arguments other than "this is what Politicians do in Europe" – you call that an argument? Where exactly does this blind faith in politicians (European or otherwise) actually come from?“Sorry, what was your solution to rising population rates again? Oh yeah, to allow only well-off people have children. That seems fair.”Perfectly fair since having children are increasingly a luxury then what exactly is wrong with those who actually can afford to look after and provide for those children actually paying for them? Presumably you think the direct opposite should be the case – those who can’t afford or pay for them at all should be allowed to have as many as unwanted children as they want presumably so they can blackmail the state and society in getting want they want for themselves? How extremely selfish and what about the quality of life for that child? Do you even care about that?Allowing Third World conditions to thrive where people only have children for the sake of their own survival is not great for that child or the environment so again – you’re on the wrong side of the argument“And sorry, how was my informing you of other European countries' solutions to falling populations qualify for any of the cheap insults you list above?”They’re not solutions. That’s just throwing petrol over the fire for short term political gain and failure to acknowledge the bigger picture. Professor James Lovelock has calculated there are 3 Billion people more on this planet than can possibly be sustained so we need that Birth Rate to drop – not the other way round.“Do you think that all those people are wrong because there's a conspiracy against your being right?”They’re wrong because there are politicians only concerned with short-term political gain and not scientists who have researched and looked into this whole area in far greater detail than they or you have ever done.You obviously haven’t seen the David Attenborough Horizon documentary that examined this in detail otherwise you would already know that there is no alternative:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pdjmkhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stmThere are 5 Billion more people on Earth than can possibly be supported:http://globalpolicyforum.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/earth-heading-for-5-billion-overpopulation-march-16-2009/“The world population is expected to rise from the current total of 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050. If current levels and patterns of consumption continue, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) estimates that this trend will result in 5 billion more people than the earth can support.”Overpopulation is a threat to the Eco-system:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation“The scientific consensus is that the current population expansion and accompanying increase in usage of resources is linked to threats to the ecosystem.”Chinese styled restrictions on family size may become unavoidable:http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release11Jul07“Governments may be forced to introduce compulsory limits to family size if urgent action is not taken to restrain population growth through voluntary family planning, according to a report published today, World Population Day (Wednesday, July 11).”This issue is not going to go away or disappear no matter how much you wish it to and it is going to be dealt with so it is best to do it now whilst Bankrupt Britain is bust and there is no more money for any of this stuff. Your self-deception and denial is merely the philosophy of a cancer patient who refuses to accept that he is ill. “The odds aren't in your favour there.”I don’t know what you think you mean there and I suspect that you don’t but the facts are certainly in my favour. Speaking of which – where are yours?“Another factor contributing to population increase is people living longer. Any suggestions on how we might reduce that trend?”Plenty. Let’s encourage activities that are voluntary but bad for one's health such as smoking, drinking, legalizing drugs and other risky activities. Let’s also legalise Euthanasia – the hallmark of a truly dignified and civilized society.BTW, why have you assumed that cutting child benefit means that no one will have any children? Isn’t this just an admission that such parents only ever have children to get whatever they can for themselves? Is this why you’re so keen to over-populate the planet – because you see children as just mere commodities and objects that only exist for your benefit? In this why you are so keen to burden the next generation with your debts - so that they can be used as future wage slaves to pay for your retirement?What a disgusting, repulsive morality you have – no wonder we have such social problems with irresponsible parents like those of Baby Peter and Victoria Climbie. However, it is now a futile objective as the over-population crisis makes this entire way of life completely redundant. Thu 10 Jun 2010 14:41:49 GMT+1 Mart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1741 I wouldnt it will make our enconomy stagnate. Thu 10 Jun 2010 14:20:42 GMT+1 hopeyet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1740 1725. At 12:59pm on 10 Jun 2010, Sat_tire wrote:Mugabe and the BOE have been printing like crazy. If the government worked for us instead of the privately owned banks, they could be trusted more. As it is we put all our trust in the elite central banks anyway (cornerstones of the markets), which is the same as trusting Mugabe. try watching the money masters. Thu 10 Jun 2010 14:20:42 GMT+1 MeanCaptainBloke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1739 We need to make cuts to reduce the deficit.The Conservatives were quite content to let the financil markets collapse and then blame the Labour administration for failing to take action.In opposition,the Conservative voice was very,very quiet.My worry is the wholesale destruction of public services,forecast by many.People over the years have paid for libraries,parks,swimming pools, C.A.B,the N.H.S.police forces,social services and so forth.Much of this could be lost or become privatised.Sadly,most of privatisation has actually led to privation.If these expected cuts are as drastic as expected,we will be able to see a country going backwards. There are many ways the very rich could be penalised.These people,being able to afford their own private services. BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE FAIR.Making the less well off suffer,would be????? Thu 10 Jun 2010 14:00:02 GMT+1 JPatr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1738 Re government cuts: Winter Fuel Payments should be stopped to people living overseas in all countries. Thu 10 Jun 2010 13:33:27 GMT+1 Britman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1737 Some ideas on how to reduce deficit.Increase VAT to 20%(consumption tax)extend government employees retirement age to 65 immediately,and stop pay increases for those on more than £15k pa,Cancel Trident immediately (it's a HUGE expense and not necessary, keep ICBM's for emergency)Stop fraudulent Benefit claims,increase basic rate tax 1%, and employees NI by 1% (not employers)that's for starters. Many more things to do to cut wasteful expenditure like NHS managers! Thu 10 Jun 2010 13:26:13 GMT+1 Reflectionseeker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1736 1697. At 10:59am on 10 Jun 2010, Pure Evil wrote: "So much better to give actually solutions than to hide in the pathetic pig-ignorance of bone-headed denial. ;o)"Oh dear, someone has run out of arguments.Sorry, what was your solution to rising population rates again? Oh yeah, to allow only well-off people have children. That seems fair.And sorry, how was my informing you of other European countries' solutions to falling populations qualify for any of the cheap insults you list above? Do you think that all those people are wrong because there's a conspiracy against your being right?The odds aren't in your favour there.Another factor contributing to population increase is people living longer. Any suggestions on how we might reduce that trend? Thu 10 Jun 2010 13:15:17 GMT+1 weallmustvote http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1735 This question should be where to save first, then where to spend. Because we simply do not have money to spend. So I suggest.....................We all know that the gulf between the wealthy and poorest of our nation is widening at an alarming pace. I suspect that we also realise that the gap will increase even further in the coming years. I also suspect that we are aware of the pension problem which will hit in the next 5 years, BILLIONS of £s for doing nothing. a problem created by succesive Governments over the years in an attempt to even up the Private and Public sector retirement payments. That problem has swung much too far the other way and will not go away unless something is done.Given that Government is agreed that a pensioner of 65 years can live on about £150 per week, and knowing that at that age it is quite difficult to spend £500 per week on a constant basis, I believe that any pension that yealds £1000 per week is quite sufficient for anybody and att sums above that amount should be taxed, (AT SOURCE) heavily. 90% or 95% would be about right. this would mean that Freddy Goodwins £700,000 pension would work out at £1k + £1235.00 = £2235.00 per week, more than 18 times what the state say is an acceptable pension for the normal person. with about £588,000 giong direct to the coffers of this country. PER YEAR FROM ONE PERSON.This is not a swipe at Freddy Goodwin, both he and his pension have been in the limelight recently, there must be many more. Adopting such an idea would in its self, Help claw back at least some of the money wasted by Government in this bad economic cycle. and Possibly bring a little fareness back to our beleagered populas. but I won't hold my breath. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:59:08 GMT+1 justanenglishman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1734 There was a recent article on the number of people employed in Quangos, what are they? how do you get a job in one, what do they do? I would start there, the savings would be immense. Also lots of mails regarding people here who do not contribute also the balck economy, one thing we all do is eat, VAT on food, the sytem is in place so no adeed overhead, just income, 5% would raise a fortune. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:49:00 GMT+1 UnluckyBrit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=96#comment1733 Cancel the so called 'Eco Towns', this will save around £350-£450bnCancel forign aid £70bn Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:45:03 GMT+1 David http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1732 Cuts cuts, cuts, just more hype.Simply it should be added to the constitution of the UK that government is NOT allowed to borrow money.Government is not a business, it is an oversight authority and should be providing a safe environment for people to live and businesses to thrive funded by taxes collected.If the taxes raised do not cover everything then increase taxation whilst taking the risk of being voted out of power or provide the basics and scrap all the rest of the costs.It really is that simple. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:34:23 GMT+1 citizen42 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1731 stop defending the rich! dont you worry they can look after themselfs thankyou very much.these people will not suffer in anyway,shape or form in the coming austerity.that is reserved only for the less well off in society. (isn't society a wonderfull word)if anyone takes time to read the postings on AYS it becomes apparent the way ordinary working people tear at each other and with such spiteful vitriolic rhetoric.i think we should think carefully on our actions,these cuts effect us collectively not the camerons or cleggs of this world. i beseech you from the profound depths of my sole to stand together as one on this epic task which lies before us.the rich laugh at our stupidity and narrow mindedness,we are acting right into there hands. remember, "we have only to fear fear its self".the only people who are willing to fight for us and our loved ones,are ourselfs.so let us put our personnel axes away and stand together on what WE want to see develop and come about in OUR country, let us see to THE NEEDS of OUR people make sure that they are taken care off,let the burden of responsibilty be laid on the most affluent shoulders of society decreasing accordingly as it travels down the scale of prosperity. i hope to judged without predjudice on this posting and it is seen as a patriotic and caring response to the current political conditions... Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:32:01 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1730 I don't have any particular suggestions on what to cut, but I do have an idea on hopw to get the government into the modern era, enabling them to make the correct decisions for themselves.Almost everyone working in Britain today is somehow rewarded in their salary/career structure based on some kind of objective performance appraisal. (I know, the word "Objective" there is an issue). Except for two special classes of people who are happy to force that way of life on us, but not lead by example: MPs and senior civil servants.Both classes should be given a "grace and favour" house to live in, to reduce the expenses farrago, and a basic living salary. They then get bonuses and pensions and seats in the Lords based on some index of success. These days, that is probably best achieved by some kind of X factor phone in. I like the idea: Phone XXX to reward Sir Humphrey who cut the department's budget; or YYY to have him sacked because you were the teacher he sacked. The phone line revenue alone would surely help reduce teh defecit as well!Trebles all round. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:21:10 GMT+1 LondonHarris http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1729 1714. At 12:14pm on 10 Jun 2010, Sat_tire wrote:1698. At 11:01am on 10 Jun 2010, Malcolm Sutherland wrote:The United Kingdom faces a desperate crisis, and it is time for us all to face up to reality.We have over 5 million working-age adults who are unemployed - and no, they are not all disabled. Most of them like me just can't find a half-decent job for a half-decent wage.My proposals are two-fold:- Abolish cash payments for benefits. Job seekers can receive cheapfood coupons and be told to turn up at the Job Centre every Mon to Fri until they secure a job.============================================Taken a step further, what about these so called unempoyed doing comminity service through the job centre? Painting in parks, gardening, pluging gaps where they are needed. You would hope that those that actually wanted to work would shine and get employment through being proactive in this comunity service.That way those of use who are giving them the money can see some value for our tax that goes on the welfare budget. ------------------------------------------------------------Any going down the Route of creating Force Employment for those Unemployed to do Painting, Gardening, Road - Sweeping, Bin-Men or ANY other Un-Skilled Job WILL mean that anybody whom currently has a Full - Time Job in these Fields of Un - Skilled Employment will find that their particular take Home Pay is reduced to State Benefit level when trying to complete in the open Market Place for Work.I say to ALL those whom think this is so much such a GOOD Idea to agree with ME that THEIR Jobs should also be targeted in the very same way, so that they can also enjoy a REAL TERM reduction in THEIR Pay. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:20:57 GMT+1 chestham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1728 I’ve been doing some research on this "Debt" and removing the 2 years of the bank bailouts/recession in 2009 & 2010,which accounted for a rise of 20% to our national debt. Conservative highest % of debt was 1982 44%Labour Highest % of debt 2008 36%% when conservatives took over from when the country went "bust" under Labour in 1978 46%% when labour took over from conservatives after 18 years of cuts, underfunding and the sell of all British assets 41%Conservative average % of national debt during term (18 years) 38%Labour average % of national debt during term (13 years) 34%So can we get one thing straight when labour took over in 1997 the publics debt (as a % of GDP) was almost exactly the same (running between 40 & 50%) than it was at the beginning of the credit crunch/bailoutand what did we have to show for it, new hospitals, new schools, new universities, low waiting lists, more police (accountable) massively reduced crime rates, investment in IT projects and low unemployment, and now were back to fear, hatreds, peddled by the right wing rich kids of Eton, because of ideology that they believe people should pay low tax and those who can’t help themselves should suffer the consequence of natural selection. The highest % debt that this country had in the last 100 years was under a prime minister who was not elected as party leader but went onto become prime minister and faced a huge global crisis only to lose his seat in following election That man was Winston Churchill Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:17:47 GMT+1 Proudtobeacumbrian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1727 Why the debate?You are getting what you voted for. Lib Dems hold your heads in shame. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:16:53 GMT+1 archivist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1726 "as the partner which goes to work and earns money I would like the other partner to stop wasting my money and get a job which brings in money. Actually to be honest I would like to divorce the other partner and keep as much of my hard earned money as I can."On this public/private sectors marriage metaphor: What your partner is ACTUALLY doing is all your housework, your paperwork, dealing with the dangerous people from next door who want to kill you, caring for the family silver plus being a full time carer/parent.You just don't recognise or value their role, like a lot of wage earners who have "domestic" partners.OK - they've been doing a bit too much online shopping of late and need their credit card limit reduced, but divorce them and you'll be left as a single parent holding down enough work for three. And it will be an expensive divorce to boot. In the real world, would you really divorce your partner because your bank manager had gambled away all the money in your account?So think carefully first, and maybe the two of you could even try being a bit nicer to each other. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:15:13 GMT+1 ian crooke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1725 George Osborne, you're paid over 100K a year to do your job. Why are you asking me how you should do it? If you're not up to it, step aside for someone who is. Thu 10 Jun 2010 12:06:30 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1724 1707. At 11:46am on 10 Jun 2010, hopeyet wrote:The "private" BOE's printing powers should be cut.The government should print its own money as is necessary then we would not need to borrow money or pay back any monies.=============================================Is this for real, a fellow called Bob Mugabe has been doing this for a while now and look where it has taken his country.The markets make the world go round, whether we like it or not. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:59:03 GMT+1 LondonHarris http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1723 1687. At 10:09am on 10 Jun 2010, Petrena wrote:Home-Working Proposal for the Disabled and HouseboundIntroductionI don’t want to be considered a leper and a drain on society, I want to be part of society and I have really tried myself to get forward, but I am at a point where I need some help to get the goal of being independent and being a member of society instead of being treated as if I am a criminal for claiming benefits.So this is why I have put this basic idea together and with a little luck someone might just think it is a good idea and help to make it into a reality.--------------------------------------------------------------They once upon a time had a place where the Disabled when and done some form of "Home - Working", this was back then called - The Work House, whereby this once Sweat - Shop and Cheap - Labour System was the Victorian "Values" Order of the Day.The problem with being Classed with any single Disability for Working purposes [ which at one also mean that you were Classed as a Green - Card Worker, and only able to do Light - Duties ], is that now due to the rising tide of Unemployment, ALL Employers whether they be in the Private or Public Sectors have a vast Pool of the Abled - Bodied People to choose from should they require to Hire and/or Train anyone, and this trend is set to RISE further faster over the Life-Time of this CON-DEM Parliament.Along with our Younger Generation, it is NOW in the Over - 50's Age Group that we are seeing the largest RISE in Unemployment, while ANY drive for Employment places will be further centered within the 25 - 37 Age Groups, and this now DOWN from the former limit of 45 Years whereby when reaching 45 it is now considered by many Employers to be the NEW adjusted downwards 50 Year Old Limit.With the curreny High - Levels of Totals in Unemployment including those that DON'T appear upon any Register now standing at over 8 Million along with an expected rise to between 10 - 12 Million over the Life - Time of this Current CON-DEM Parliament, those of ANY Working Age whom have just the one Disability will continue to find themselves in reality at the Bottom of ANY Employers and Employment Shopping List. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:57:19 GMT+1 SSnotbanned http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1722 ''Look after the Penny's and the Ezra's will look after themselves''. Sounds like some accountant's mantra doesn't it ?? Doesn't really involve people, yet I know many who use this method in their lives. Unfortunately, they use it for all their life. Whilst this should ensurethe cash-based system works, I can't help feeling they would be even better off in a barter system.Wait a minute,... maybe that's what the public services should use. A barter system. Starting with vouchers for food and essentials. Gee, some amount of 'money' would be saved. In some ways this is represented by the idea of public services being delivered by volunteers (the 'volunteering' unemployed).Jonathan Ross, barber of terry's seville oranges, services.O Bloody 'Ell !! Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:53:53 GMT+1 Maud in Morden http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1721 Why do we waste money on legal aid and court costs for appeals from murderers like Roy Whiting? Why reduce his sentence from 50 years to 40 years? Just what was the point of all that? In the not too distant past he would have been hanged and forgotten. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:49:25 GMT+1 noregret http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1720 The most obvious cut is to stop the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Re-call the army back to UK and of course, this will save billions on bullets, mortars and human casualties. The most costly is the human casualty, imagine, the compensation and support paid to family members.The worse this is that the PM announced an extra £67mil on top of the £150mil already in placed. What a disgrace when he is talking about cuts in his own country but still can afford to support another country. Who's money are those? UK tax payers and not foreign on. What earn on this country should be spent on this country and not other especially when UK is in dire state of bankruptcy. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:36:02 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1719 This post has been Removed Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:31:47 GMT+1 John Campbell http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1718 If our Politicians,Captains of Industry and Top Civil Servants,lead by example and freeze their pay,pension contributions and benefits in kind until such times our economic woes are behind us the majority of the General Public would have no problem facing up to a reduction in living standards.The question is::Will they lead by example? Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:29:12 GMT+1 wilko1001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1717 Firstly, Ask for all the billions we 'loaned' the banks. Have we ever had any indication we will get our money back? NO, why not?. Then cut MPs wages and expenses, job done Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:21:57 GMT+1 alwaysspeakmymind http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1716 I agree with Karen Z, the government should do the job they are paid to do run the UK for the british citizens. Providing basic services that are required. Stopping the expensive consultants services which are usually unneccessary and could be done by an existing civil servant. They should also stop sending money abroad. With the amount of debt our country is in and the numbers of british citizens on benefits we need to close our doors to any new immigrants and those that come here without permission should be removed.We need to get our national debt under control and get a government who actually wants the best for the UK Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:20:41 GMT+1 Rob http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=95#comment1715 FYI Before you read this comment: I am an immigrant!Cut translation services. This country speaks English/Welsh/Gaelic. This would save, I imagine, quite a lot all across the public sector from the NHS to local councils. Then provide English language courses at a costStop giving child benefits to immigrants for children that have never been in this country Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:15:34 GMT+1 Kickstart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1714 There are plenty of things that can be cut before services are cut. For example scrapping VED (road tax) and SORN and putting a small amount on petrol would save a fortune wasted on the DVLA and cost nothing extra to collect.How much money do hospitals waste in trying to collect and fudge figures to look good on random statistics? Just look at Stafford hospital for the results of wasting money in that way.How much is spent processing increasingly complicated income tax / national insurance? Simplify the whole system, completely merging tax and national insurance, single high tax allowance (and removing most tax allowances) and a minimal number of tax bandings after that. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:15:04 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1713 1698. At 11:01am on 10 Jun 2010, Malcolm Sutherland wrote:The United Kingdom faces a desperate crisis, and it is time for us all to face up to reality.We have over 5 million working-age adults who are unemployed - and no, they are not all disabled. Most of them like me just can't find a half-decent job for a half-decent wage.My proposals are two-fold:- Abolish cash payments for benefits. Job seekers can receive cheapfood coupons and be told to turn up at the Job Centre every Mon to Fri until they secure a job.============================================Taken a step further, what about these so called unempoyed doing comminity service through the job centre? Painting in parks, gardening, pluging gaps where they are needed. You would hope that those that actually wanted to work would shine and get employment through being proactive in this comunity service.That way those of use who are giving them the money can see some value for our tax that goes on the welfare budget. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:14:29 GMT+1 Jim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1712 Darling says it is thanks to Labour that we have a growing economy now. And he is right. If Labour had not wasted so much money during their time in office the economy would not have shrunk so much after the banking crisis and so would not be in the position it needs to grow from now. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:13:22 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1711 I find it most disturbing how many people say tax the rich.Don't they understand the rich are already paying more tax than the rest of us anyway and those in the private sector are helping to grow the economy and provide employment. When you tax punitively you reduce the incentive.Jackie Stewart became a tax exile because he was risking his life in the early 1970's for 7p in every £1 he earned. Instead of saying the rich must be taxed, when ususally they have more than contributed, perhaps if people paid for what they used and respected what they used things would improve slightly.My council spends 33% of its budget on education. Why don't we cut my council tax by 33% and then let schools set the entrance criteria and we pay them to educate our children. Then at least you have the right to be critical of poor standards and parents who have an interest in their education will take an active interest. Education is a mess in the state sector and part of the reason is because its supposedly free. The school would strive to be efficient, could attract the best teachers etc etc. Of course they will be those that don't do all of this, but thats life and at least children who want to learn and have ambition in life would not be held back by those that do not.Parents will have to pay a bit more, but why should some pensioner have to pay 33% towards the school system?It's the same with the NHS, people get appointments and don't turn up because it doesn't cost anything to them. It costs the practice, or hospital in abortive time and therfore costs all of us in reality.The government has asked for our idea's. Perhaps personal responsibility is all we can contribute and hope they make the right decisions on the actual cuts. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:09:35 GMT+1 Slave to the System - I am not a number http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1710 Cut Foriegn Aid - Only benefits the cofers of foriegn diplomatsUnemployment Benefit for people out of work for >1 year. Get a job or move to find one.National ID Card - It wont stop terrorism and is a waste of moneyTrident - We dont need a nuclear deterrent anymore.IT Projects - NHSBig 4 Consultants - Charge a fortune and deliver little valueCivil Service pension and income - No one is worth more than £100kMuppet jobs created by New Labour such as Ethnic intergration officer. Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:09:03 GMT+1 Count Otto Black http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1709 Scrapping ID cards is a good start and dropping plans to include everyone on a DNA database will save money too.Not sure what we're trying to achieve in Afghanistan and Iraq now but we'll save a fortune if we can get out of those countries fairly soon.Pointless quangos and the public service's middle management administrators must be a target for cuts too, although I suppose we risk having to pay dole money to those we boot out.Government IT projects seem to cost extortionate amounts of money and then sometimes end up being scrapped anyway. It's probably worth the money to pay someone who knows what they're doing when it comes to these.Some people are genuinely ill or cannot get a job and they deserve the full support of the state, but I suspect there are a lot of 'shirkers' who could be targeted to save on benefit payments. There are these people who simply breed to get more and more dole money - not sure what can be done about them but something needs to be done.I'm all for EU (and non-EU) trade deals and military treaties but we simply don't need European governance and maybe we could save money by cutting our contributions to that. It's all very complicated of course and someone who knows what they're doing would have to evaluate the long-term costs of getting out of the EU against those of staying in.We could get the money we used to bail out the banks back at the earliest opportunity. If those banks start making a profit a proportion of that should immediately go back to the treasury.Legalise drugs and tax them. We'll never win the war on drugs the way we're currently going. Syndicates we bust and dealers we arrest are simply replaced with new ones. Make the drugs legal and pull in some tax; this would also lead to less drug-related crime and we could redistribute the police currently involved in tackling it. Making them legal *may* lead to an increase in addiction, in which case there would be an extra burden on the NHS. Someone would have to properly assess whether it is in fact cost-beneficial to legalise drugs as I'm only guessing it would be.Tighter immigration controls. It's a sensitive area I know, but it seems a bit odd that we allow more people into the country when we can't even afford the ones already here.We need to cut costs but we should be careful not to cut corners while we're doing it. Labour's solutions were so often merely paying lip service to problems. Properly thought out solutions that are fully implemented are likely to be more cost-effective in the long run.I don't believe in sweeping taxes levied against the rich because in a lot of cases the rich are the entrereneurs who innovate and create jobs (although not always of course). If someone takes the necessary risks, works hard and makes good I think they deserve to be rich. However, I'd like to see taxation move more towards VAT and away from other methods. The rich spend more than the poor so this would to a certain extent target them but I think it's better (and fairer) than extortionate income tax rates. I couldn't say how this would work out in terms of income to the treasury and someone more experienced than me about these things will have to assess that.Those are just a few ideas for starters! Thu 10 Jun 2010 11:00:10 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1708 Theres just so much nonsense on these BBC HYS comments, from people who just DO NOT UNDERSTAND the WHYs, we are in present situation.Under Labour, we may have been growing our national debts and of course there was waste but this DID NOT result in our CURRENT national debt crisis.ANYONE who says it is, is basically a stupid FOOL and of an inteligence level of that of a semi-fabricated muppet.The reality for UK, like most countrys, is that we were all CAPABLE of meeting our borrowings, it was ONLT WHEN we were ALL forced to BORROW £BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of EXTRA MONEY to PAY for CONSEQUENCES of the BANKING FIASCO and to PREVENT our nation AND THE WORLD from plunging into TOTAL economic/social/financial CHAOS.The banks have been majorly blamed, and they are part to blame, some very much moreso than others but if you want to know the MAIN REASON why we are in this position then read my previous comment- 1495. At 1:58pm on 09 Jun 2010.I do not think that we should be making these cuts in such a way as is planned.There are other ways, and one way is to make those who were endemic in this catastrophy to actually pay a large chunk.If you can be bothered to look into this properly then you will find out that the MAIN and CENTRAL POINT is that the major credit rating agencies, like Moodys/Standard and Poor, and Fitch, SOLD FRAUDULENT investment packages to the banks. They tarted up Sub Prime mortgages, then told ALL the banks/buyers that they were very nice SAFE investments, when in fact they were as valuable and as much worth as mouse droppings.The banks bought into this and over a number of years they purchased £$billions upon £$billions upon £$billions.When the number of defaulters of Sub Primes grew, it was THEN that banks/pension funds etc found that they had basically purchased and invested in something that was as valuable as mouse droppings. THEN the BUBBLE BURST.Early on this year at the END of many banks financial year, the banking system in UK, though very poor we are told, though doing terribly badly, THEY paid out over £40BILLION in bonuses.Now to my mind, if you are doing badly, and you do not have the funds to meet your commitments, or to survive and need £billions of taxpayers money to prop you up, then HOW CAN YOU EVER afford to pay out £40BILLION in bonuses.For this ONE reason, I personally would STOP PUSSYFOOTING around as Torys/Lib Dems and previously Labour were doing, I would PLONK an INSTANT 25% LEVY upon BANKS etc, BASED UPON the bonuses they paid out in year 2009 to 2010. This would raise over £50billion over a 5 year period which basically amounts to over 70% of present intended government cuts to expenditure.At present, the ratings agencies, who to MY mind are the MAIN reason for all this, are under investigation in USA.If I phoned you up and sold you a Rolls Royce then sent you a package with a Lada in it, then that action would be NO LESS CRIMINAL AND FRAUDULENT than what these credit rating agencies have done.Yet these credit rating agencies can still wander around SMASHING up nations economies by threatening them with lower credit ratings, when these nations have BORROWED EXCESSIVE amounts of money SOLELY to STOP CATASTROPHY DESIGNED AND INFLICTED/FORCED UPON THE WORLD BY THESE VERY SAME CREDT RATING AGENCIES.BEFORE I CUT A SINGLE PENNY OF MONEY THE ONLY THING I WOULD CUT IS THE LIFE OF THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREATEST FINANCIAL FRAUD IN HISTORY and WHO CREATED THIS MASSIVE ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL/SOCIAL ATTROCITY.To my mind, they are no better than the worst war criminals, and should be tried in court as such, but I think the penalty should be nothing less than the death penalty. Thu 10 Jun 2010 10:59:28 GMT+1 Samantha G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1707 I would like to know when the banks are going to start making interest and capital repayments on the loans we made to them!!!!!!!or offering free loans to us tax payers........ Thu 10 Jun 2010 10:50:46 GMT+1 hopeyet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1706 The "private" BOE's printing powers should be cut. The government should print its own money as is necessary then we would not need to borrow money or pay back any monies.End of boom, bust, inflation and debt. Wouldn't it be nice if governments worked for us and not for the owners of central banks from whom they buy bonds (borrow money in simple terms). Thu 10 Jun 2010 10:46:58 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_government_spend_yo.html?page=94#comment1705 There was once a lady who ran this country and many people make her out to be a re-incarnation of the devil. When she tried to bring in the community charge to try to rein in the barmy spending of councils, one of the provisions of the legislation was that you had to spend on priorities before you could spend on pet projects. In other words, potholes had to be fixed before you could open a drop in centre for one-legged, single mothers; you could not close a library to open a Lesbian advice centre etc etc.Because people who pay little and make no contribution began rioting the botched council tax was introduced in its place without the spending safe guards.Since then we have seen an unbelievable profiferation of gender equality, race equality, target setting for race and gender equality departments and even Quango's. So we spend all this money on basically a racist agenda, because you are discriminating against people because of sex at birth or background, rather the the most important criteria of all, ABILITY.Last week at a NHS hospital I refused to aswer a question on my ethnic group. When asked why by the receptionist i said for two reasons, first that it is racist in nature and secondly you don't have the option under which I classify myself, a human being living on earth. How much money in the ring fenced NHS budget is wasted on this? How many managers and staff are employed to corrolate this useless information and what is it ultimately used for. And by consequence at every government department, city, county, parish or town council, Quango etc.I would bet we would save the £6 billion that has just been cut, by getting rid of every department and tax payer funded organisation that has any kind of so called equality remit. You have people who are unemployable enjoying massive perks because they have an immigrant past and trade on that, rather than have a skill that is neededCut that waste out amongst the many others which have been suggested. Thu 10 Jun 2010 10:46:54 GMT+1