egafd.com

When you look around the world and see the people who's lives have been devastated by natural disasters then the poor here in the UK dont seem so badly off, and yes if you give a beggar ?1.00 then once the vat rise comes into effect when they spend it 20% will go to the goverment, so the more the beggar makes the more tax they will pay unless its spent buying drugs !

No they shouldnt pay more tax but the entire welfare system needs a complete overhaul judging by figures that say the UKs revenue v welfare payments is unsustainable

I still find it bizarre that people can have sizeable bank balances & personal assets but still be entitled to welfare benefits after the initial waiting period is met

If you want to change the economic outlook for the better you need to invest in the poor via education & work experience and remove benefits & tax loopholes being claimed by those higher up the economic scale

Negative gearing would be the first thing I'd abolish.Nothing but an incentive for the well off to use the poor to pay for their investment properties while reducing the tax they pay to the government

Hi

"No they shouldnt pay more tax but the entire welfare system needs a complete overhaul judging by figures that say the UKs revenue v welfare payments is unsustainable"

I assume you are referring to the figures that Jim Slip referenced.

My understanding is that social security spend as a percentage of national income was higher under the Tories in 1996 (13.1%) compared to 2008-2009 (11.9%) when Britain was in the midst of one of the biggest global recessions for 80 years. These are the figures produced by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies.

In short there are statistics and statistics.

Does the welfare system need an overhaul? Yes it does. It is far too complex. Does it need welfare benefits to be slashed? I don't think so.

The UK has seen one the biggest media onslaughts on central government spending and welfare benefits ever mounted in this country as far as I can recall. With the government stating that our lifestyle would change for decades; we run the risk of turning into Greece etc. etc. (obviously nonsense); we cannot afford all of this etc etc. And the media 80-90% of which is owned by Tory supporters, this is not surprising.

The G20 countries agreed to cut half their deficit by 2013 - four years, pretty much in line with what the Labour government proposed.

Cameron and Cleggie are proposing to get rid of the entire deficit in 5 years. Economic growth has already been downgraded. Consumer confidence has hit rock bottom. Travel companies in the UK, one of the touchstones of the feel good factor, are going bust almost weekly etc.

Do we need to reduce spending? Yes. Do we need to reduce spending by more than any country in the G20. I suspect not.

So why are Cameron and Cleggie obviously endangering the recovery? For the doctrinaire reason that they have a once in a lifetime excuse to smash public services and shrink the state.

CHeers
D