Do you have an suggestions that might stimulate the economy / cut unneccesary public expenditure, etc?

Here's my first 3, the first and possibly second would need to be phased in:

1. Put a cap on the number of retail outlets any chain can have across the country. Say, 25. That would allow entrepreneurs to build up a reasonable empire and quality establishments to survive in big cities. It would mean that the big supermarkets and chains being broken up providing more choice, less dowward pressure on wages and ultimately create more jobs.

2. Have an annual tax on the value of homes that are not a persons main residence. Say 5% on the annual value of a second home, 10% on a third home, etc. Combined with the imposition of rent caps this could free up alot of buy-to-let property, force prices down and be beneficial to society and the real economy.

3. To legislate that British forces can only be deplyed into action in the event of a direct threat to British sovereign territory / waters / airspace or for humanitarian reason backed by a clear UN resolution.

I suggest that the army be deployed to forcibly repossess non-main residences, and all >25 retail outlets, be tasked to guard them, billeted at the ex-residences, and the dole scroungers be made to work in the outlets for nothing.

There, 3 birds, 1 stone, genius.

A benefits cap. I have just had a conversation with a German doctor who simply cannot get his head round how generous the UK benefits system is.

It is perverse that there are a substantial amount of people who do not work, have no intention of working, and are still financially better off than many people who work full-time.

We could set it at a figure of, say, around £25,000 p/a.

A huge increase in social housing provision. New build social housing should have a lease that prevents the council selling them on and sales of any existing social housing (still left!) the proceeds must be used to build new properties.

Land to build compulsory purchased at possible less than market value in high value areas such as part of the South East so the houses are built in areas where people need to live to get to work.

The whole idea is to get the construction industry working and in time to reduce the housing benefit bill as increased supply reduces demand. In the meantime introduce a rent cap as occurs in several of our EU neighbours to stop the ever increasing housing benefit bill. If that causes buy-to-let landlords to default on mortgage payments any repossessions to be transferred into the social housing stock. As repossessed properties usually get sold at auction for relatively knock down process compared to their so-called value, payment for such houses to be at that kind of level as opposed to some estate agents over-inflated view.

If your German doctor was educated by you on our benefits system he probably thinks the state buys everyone on benefits a BMW 5 series such is your total lack of understanding of the subject as clearly demonstrated by the above post.

The cost of renting in the UK is higher than in Germany so when you hear these big figures quoted in newspapers for "benefits Britain" a large chunk of that is in housing benefit in rent in expensive areas to rent. That benefit money doesn't go to the claimant it goes to the landlord. The claimant just gets to live there but they could probably live in a better quality house in Germany at lower cost to the German taxpayer.

You'd be better off in real terms on the dole (or as a pensioner) in Germany than the UK.

Which raises the point as to why as members of the EU we don't relocate housing benefit recipients to Germany of somwhere even cheaper like Bulgaria or Rumania? That would reduce the deficit and at the same time stimulate the economies of new EU members thereby reducing the need to subsidise these regions via EU grants. Everyone a winner.

Paying benefits to people in other countries sounds too ridiculous to be true.

Nevertheless the UK is one of only about 4 EU countries that allows migrants to claim child benefit for offspring not domiciled in the host nation.

We already do.

Also as so many people love the EU it is perfectly sensible. Indeed, possibly more sensible than shipping Londoners to Hull.

Says it all. As I implied, they'd be better off in Transylvania!

We could transport them by train, nothing too luxurious mind, freight wagons and cattle trucks should suffice. There shouldn't be a great problem once they arrive, someof the Eastern European countries have previous experience in processing transportees

How about dispersing them in and around the Home Counties?

That's not a matter to be joking about.

By the way, you live in the SW don't you? Just about as far away from Hull as you can get in England!

Too expensive. The point was to reduce costs if you recall.

1. Scrap HS2 and spend the same money on new branch lines, longer trains and the stations to accommodate them, along with major road improvements.

2. Crack down on both benefit abuse and tax evasion and avoidance schemes (I don't say evasion, I say avoision)

3. Introduce rent controls along with restrictions on the number of houses a person or company can own

4. Lower VAT to 17.5%

5. Raise the basic rate of income tax to 25%

6. Large social housing programme

7. Increase the size of all branches of the armed forces but especially the army

I'd agree with all those. Point 7 - I agree from a security perspective but what's your thinking economically / deficit-wise?

I think the armed forces and especially the army is a great way of getting often uneducated/not academically minded, sometimes "lost", and nearly always poor young people into a decently paid job. Plus of course there are jobs for skilled people in areas like communications, engineering etc.
It also helps with knock-on effects like RN ships, army vehicles and equipment are generally designed and built here in the UK.
I think it would help from a security point of view in that if we're to continue to play a role on the world stage we need the forces to back it up - the RN aircraft carriers for example. But I also think it would help economically. One of the big problems in economics is trying to get the measures to help the right people. I think the armed forces, while not perfect, is a pretty good way of getting money to some people from poor areas who would have struggled to find a job and a place in society.

Another dig at Hull eh Dally.
Last time you got you anus handed to you so much that I actually felt for you whilst I tore you to shreads.

Perhaps you could find another topic you actually have a clue about...Erm.

Do you want to swap some action figures? I'll see if any of the local kids have any going spare and will PM you.

Except, it's not. For one thing, the housing markets in the two countries are not especially comparable, eg the Germans' propensity to rent rather than buy; for another, there are huge variations in rent levels from the big metropolitan areas to the rest of the country, even very large conurbations. There are various factors at play and the proposition isn't made out. An [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/19/brits-buy-germans-rentarticle in the Guardian in 2011[/url suggested German rents were overall cheaper. I'd say "it just depends", and that there is no point of general application.

It must be true because all the papers are full of those stories aren't they



Tell you what, why don't you and your German Doctor friend talk to some real people on real benefits, not the made up ones in the Sun & Daily Mail.

I offer this, it could work alongside what's already been suggested, or as a stand-alone measure, it is quite draconian, and would probably never happen, but would return money to the public purse and boost the economy:-

Renationalise the services that the evil Thatcher sold off for profit in her term in office.

Thoughts?

Germany also has a system of rent capping, which we do not. This is primarily designed to prevent landlords hiking rents for people on lower incomes.

The problem we have is that, just as this country has developed its systems and mindset over many years, the problems that have developed will also take years to sort. Unfortunately, people tend to demand a quick fix to things, when it's impossible. Not only do changes have to be phased in, but it will also take a long time to change peoples' mindsets.

Take smoking as an example. 25 years ago, people smoked in front of kids, in public places and it wasn't deemed a massive problem. It's only a prolonged campaign, and gradual withdrawal of advertising that has got us to where we are now. And it will take another 25 years to get to the 'ideal' stage.

So of course, the first problem is that a government gets five years. It's not enough. The smoking issue is one that both major parties agree on, so it's implementation has worked and both parties have persevered with it. Sadly that can't be the way with everything, where fundamental disagreements fuel an attitude (to some) of digging your heels in when the party you don't like suggests something.

Dally's idea of having a maximum sized branch chain of 25 is, on the surface unrealistic. But it's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. Most large brands in the USA (and we know they're far from perfect, so lets not get into that) are franchised, rather than corporate owned. So whilst you get a big nationwide brand, when you walk into an outlet, you're in many cases dealing with that shop's owner or people directly employed by that person.

The concept of 'master franchising' - having chains within a chain is quite common - most Subway outlets in the UK, for instance, are either owned individually, or part of a chain of between 10 and 20 outlets. The letting agent, Belvoir, is going the same way. Why can't high street chains or even your large supermarkets operate in a similar way? There will be area managers up and down the country who would jump at the chance to be a part of things like that, and if one franchise fails, at least it doesn't put the other parts of the 'chain' at risk.

I often wonder if, say, HMV operated that way it might not have failed en masse, as you will get the individual entrepreneurs at the head of each part coming up with different ideas that they wouldn't be prevented from implementing (plus implementation will come at a lower cost, because they have fewer outlets, and can then be adopted as official policy by head office, to be rolled out amongst everyone else). Secondly, every outlet wouldn't have been in deficit, so at least the profitable ones would have remained. As it was, the entire group was put under strain by the weakest performers, which killed the entire business.

On another note, I don't think removing benefits or adding more tax will do much to encourage or discourage certain types of behaviour. Only education will do that over a long period of time. You have to start with the kids, so that they grow up with attitudes that are alien to most of their parents. Easier said than done, I accept.

I don't think that it's a good idea to tax everyone to death. The only way the economy will grow is when there is money available to be spent in it, and it follows that the more money that goes to the government, is money that cannot be spent in shops or online.

This is by no means everything, but why not start here...?

- Stamp Duty. Currently paid ONLY by the buyer, and only on purchases more than £125k. This has killed the £125-£150k market, and also the £250-£300k market where it jumps to 3%. My view is that all buyers and all sellers should pay stamp duty at 0.5% of transaction value, no matter that the price. It's an affordable level, that way, and everyone pays something.

- Tax. Get rid of tax codes, and introduce a very simple sliding scale. If you earn X, you pay X. The onus should also be on the employee to make payment, not the employer. It cannot in this day and age be too difficult to compel employers to calculate wages online, which sends relevant info to HMRC, who then take the employee's tax by direct debit FROM the employee a set amount of time afterwards. Again, this is as much about instilling responsibility in the general public, and making people take responsibility for their own affairs.

- National Insurance. As above, however the employer should still make their contribution as they do now. A concession should be offered, in that a rebate should be available to the employer if they take on an apprentice, or young staff member who receives some kind of formal training.

There's loads I could go into, but I'll let you shoot the above down first