What will we do when the Government run out of things to 'cut'?

[Total Chaos]

Seemed to work ok when Dentists were free.

How come the UK could afford it then, and better GP's, and better Hospitals, but we can't now?

 

The NHS has always been expensive, but we've always afforded it.

Thatcher decided we couldn't anymore.

In America, they will walk past a dying child on the pavement if the parents don't have 'cover'.Do we really want to see that here?

 

Obviously, you 'money before people and services' crowd find that perfectly acceptable.

 

Money is not my God.

 

Erm, no they dont

[Vague_Boy]

What will our beloved Government do when it eventually makes the last 'cut' it can possibly make?

I'd like to see them finally make a start.

 

We're spending more now than ever.

 

UK government borrowing rises (The New Statesman, 20 July 2012)

 

UK government borrowing rose by half a billion pounds in June.

 

According to the Office for National Statistics, public sector net borrowing, excluding interventions such as bank bailouts, was £14.4bn last month.

 

While tax revenues increased in the month by 3.6 per cent to £40.9bn, total government spending only dipped by less than 1 per cent to £52.4bn.

 

This is up from £13.9bn in June 2011, and raises doubt over the government’s ability to meet full-year targets to bring down borrowing.

LINK

 

So we're borrowing even more money to pay our bills. Surely we should be spending (and thus borrowing) less?

[fistygrey]

Yep. Unelected Prime Minister giving it large.

 

He dunt represent me that's for sure. Neither does his muppet deputy.

 

Please, please, please only let Macaroon have the one term. We should kick him out now, but Brits haven't got the guts to get shut.

 

The Greeks and French would have had the ConDems out months ago.

The longer they are in, the deeper we will sink.

 

Yep the Greeks wouldn't let it get this far.:roll:.

[Rupert_Baehr]

What will our beloved Government do when it eventually makes the last 'cut' it can possibly make?...

 

Perhaps they'll say something along the lines of: " We've realised that there is too much 'Central Government' (not too many people in it doing too much work, just 'too much central government') so we're going to devolve authority (the power to decide what needs to be done locally and the power to raise the funds to do it locally) to local government."

 

The people's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire will rise from the ashes, bus fares will fall to 10p for every journey and property taxes will increase by a factor of 10.

 

... In fact EVERYTHING is worse now than what is was in the 70's, apart from a certain few bank balances which have soared into billions of pounds.

Cameron's Election speech a couple of years ago was EXACTLY the same as the ones I heard in 1973.

God help this country in the next 30 years.

 

Funny you should mention the 70's. I remember the exodus from South Yorkshire when people couldn't afford the rates on their houses. There were whole villages up for sale.

 

The economy in South Yorkshire was hit hard under the Socialist Democratic Party's rule, but it was 'all Maggies fault' (of course.)

 

It'll probably be Maggie's fault next time, too.

[MrSmith]

Perhaps they'll say something along the lines of: " We've realised that there is too much 'Central Government' (not too many people in it doing too much work, just 'too much central government') so we're going to devolve authority (the power to decide what needs to be done locally and the power to raise the funds to do it locally) to local government."

 

The people's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire will rise from the ashes, bus fares will fall to 10p for every journey and property taxes will increase by a factor of 10.

 

 

 

Funny you should mention the 70's. I remember the exodus from South Yorkshire when people couldn't afford the rates on their houses. There were whole villages up for sale.

 

The economy in South Yorkshire was hit hard under the Socialist Democratic Party's rule, but it was 'all Maggies fault' (of course.)

 

It'll probably be Maggie's fault next time, too.

 

That’s a very scary thought, to have a permanent labour council with more power would mean more abuse of power, and more wasted money.

[Afilsdesigne]

In reality the government has barely cut anything. Sure lots of things have shut down, but this has not gone anywhere near fixing the issues. The problem is really simple but on a large scale: HMG (Government) revenues, eg what they raise each year is around £563bn but unfortunately they spend around £750bn and make up the difference by borrowing money. These borrowings are added to the national debt pile (between £1tn and £5tn depending on what you include) on which we pay a large amount of interest. Not good as this steals money from things we really need like the NHS.

 

So we can talk about cuts, austerity, things not to cut until we are blue in the face but the fact remain that HMG can CHOOSE how they manage the budget. If they wish, they can spend a large proportion of the £563bn on creating jobs and employment. To do this though they need to save billions elsewhere unless even more money is borrowed.

 

So, it's down to political choices. Sure you can save a ton of money by doing things like reducing foreign aid, cutting the number of politicians, disbanding NHS trusts, fighting less wars, no EU contributions and, biggest of all, slashing benefit payments. Simple fact is, no politician will make ANY of these choices until dragged into it kicking and screaming as the nations' finances totally collapse. Why? Political suicide. So, it's more of the same for years to come; which is unfortunate for all of us.

[Chris_Sleeps]

What will our beloved Government do when it eventually makes the last 'cut' it can possibly make?

They'll start looking at their own wages, expenses and pensions.

 

Obviously.

[Rupert_Baehr]

They'll start looking at their own wages, expenses and pensions.

 

Obviously.

 

No doubt they will.

 

And when they look at them, they will probably decide that they are inadequate and increase them considerably.

[Rupert_Baehr]

 

That’s a very scary thought, to have a permanent labour council with more power would mean more abuse of power, and more wasted money.

 

There wouldn't really be a problem - would there?

 

Initially, the council might be tempted to overspend, but they would have to raise the money to fund that overspending. The overspending would be 'in a good cause' - because it would be what the people wanted.

 

Those residents and companies who felt they were being asked to contribute an excessive amount of their wealth would vote - with their feet.

 

Those residents who agreed with the council's spending programme would get what they want - and would pay for what they got.

 

Towns, cities and even counties in the UK don't have a lot of control over their budgets, but if power was devolved down to local levels, then the people would get (and pay for) whatever they wanted.

[Hotmale 1954]

I see the point went right over your head. As expected, tbh.

 

Everything has a cost: the Gvt-provided stuff ('free' to you) and the private stuff ('free'-this-that-the other...it's never free, there's always a catch or, well, a way to eventually recoup the cost of the 'free' stuff).

 

If you want free NHS and free dentists, the private sector (and public sector to a much lesser extent) has to make enough money, on which to pay enough tax, to pay for it. Or what do you propose the doctors, dentists, nurses, etc. to live on/with? How do you propose to buy the equipment, medicines, supplies? Maintain the premises? Pay the insurances and settlements for when malpractice happens?

 

In short - where do you suppose the Gvt finds money to pay for this 'free' stuff of yours? On the magic money tree?

 

Less tax receipts = less money to pay for the 'free' stuff. So, keep everything and eventually go bust and have none. Or trim as best as circumstances and requirements allow, and keep some.

 

Now, take a long hard look at tax receipts since 2008. And how many more mouths to feed and house at the taxpayer's expense as a result of job losses in both private and public sector since that time.

 

So, what's your solution? I mean, other than moaning on here about having to make do with trimmed services?

 

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath

 

Free at the point when you need it. Tell me how people losing their jobs saves the country money? Tell me how a country that manufactures very little in comparison to the 60's can make money? We HAVE to sell things to make money. Buying in from abroad and selling on to Brits doesn't make the country any money. MAKING stuff here and selling at home and abroad makes the country money. Some suit moving figures from a screen in Tokyo to a screen in New York via London doesn't cut the mustard either. I suppose China and India making huge chunks of what we used to make, and becoming the worlds fastest growing economies has nothing to do with manufacturing anything then? Cutting jobs and services puts more people on benefits, thereby costing the country millions. I suppose we could get on our bikes and find a job, but India and China is a hell of a long way to pedal.