Tax credits may be cut under Tories - The Times

Lotus-eater

StevieJ wrote: »

If I was entitled I would take my chances £2500 and you didn't notice :eek:

Absolutely, we'd not claimed it before and couldn't believe the amount we got, went through all the figures, decided they were right, rang them anyway to check, all OK.
Decided it must be ok, but didn't use the money luckily, as I was too worried about it.
It was my OH who found one word incorrectly worded in a statement, we rang them again and we were told it was our fault, when we knew it wasn't.

We're both SE as well, so have to estimate our earnings, we got it wrong one year and got overpaid then as well.
Tbh TC's have been nothing but a PITA for us.

Puddleglum

Us too. At times the tax credits have been a life line which kept our heads above water and the wolf away from the door; but the trauma, angst and insecurities which have resulted from them have made Mr Puddleglum and I vow that as soon as we can manage without them, whether we are entitled or not, we will try and extricate ourselves.

That day is getting a bit closer as I am now employed full time (just completed my first week!) but Mr P prefers to be self employed and take the bureaucratic nightmares.

There must be a better way.

kelloggs36

Pennywise wrote: »

But that was also the case before tax credits. The 16 hour thing (or similar) has been in place for a couple of decades at least - I think it was the earnings threshold for income support or family credit or something of that ilk. Tax credits didn't come out of thin air - they are a replacement for some tax reliefs and some state benefits. Trouble is they're more complicated, cost more to administer and are no fairer than what they replaced.

There should be no fixed thresholds at all - all benefits/tax allowances etc should be fully variable. It makes absolutely no sense that someone working 15 hours gets nothing but if they work another hour and they're quids in. Just like the stupid thresholds for stamp duty, VAT registration, etc - they put artificial barriers in place which do more harm than good.

But if they work 15 hours per week they would qualify for income support and can keep the first £20 of earnings.

kelloggs36

Fridge2 wrote: »

It would be better to just abolish all these ridiculous topups and cut taxes in the first place.

That way, we could keep the money we earn in the first place

I agree - originally it was paid via wages, that should have remained but all they need to do is change the tax code, it can't be that difficult. The inland Revenue have access to all the income data of people (or they should have!!!) so they can see which households fall below thresholds and can adjust tax codes accordingly. Obviously it would be a bit more in depth but it must be able to be administered in a simpler way.

olly300

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I agree - originally it was paid via wages, that should have remained but all they need to do is change the tax code, it can't be that difficult. The inland Revenue have access to all the income data of people (or they should have!!!) so they can see which households fall below thresholds and can adjust tax codes accordingly. Obviously it would be a bit more in depth but it must be able to be administered in a simpler way.

A few other European countries whose tax systems I've had a look at they basically give a tax allowance for the amount of children you have.

Some do it after the year ends so it's based on last years earnings, others just give a flat based allowance through out the year. Yes there are problems with both but either way the systems are cheaper to administer.

The problem with means testing tax credits like we do in this country is the cost of administration out weights the benefit to other tax payers and the people receiving the benefits/credits.

And I personally know 2 people who won't claim because of the government claiming money back the year after.

drc

Fridge2 wrote: »

It would be better to just abolish all these ridiculous topups and cut taxes in the first place.

That way, we could keep the money we earn in the first place

Yes, but the tax credits system has created lots of 'jobs' in the public sector so pushed down unemployment (statistics). In the same way the Soviets used to create jobs whereby one person was employed to dig a hole while another was employed to fill it in. That way nuLabour can claim to have some vast utopian Socialist state whereby everyone is employed and no one feels left out :rolleyes:.

mewbie_2

drc wrote: »

In the same way the Soviets used to create jobs whereby one person was employed to dig a hole while another was employed to fill it in.

In a more metaphysical new agey way aren't we all just digging holes, or filling them in. And then we die.

MissMoneypenny

Pobby wrote: »

A good point, mind you we live in different days to when I was a young man. It seems to me that you must have " choices ". One or other partner gets the feeling that they fancy someone else so the tax payer has to fork out. Funnily enough, I understand why some kids today are so messed up.

Affairs aren't something new.

Plenty of children were/are messed up because they had/have parents who row all the time, or didn't speak to each other, but stayed together "for the sake of the children". Loveless marriages are no good for children either.

I agree that it should be the parents who pay for their own children and not the taxpayer.

Mrs_Bones

I would never claim tax credits again, because of the hassel and trouble I had with them last time. In simple terms I was given my award, I question it because I didn't think it was correct again told it was correct, then later 3rd goverment bod came along and oh sorry we've paid you too much please can we have our money back? I'm sorry but we rely on them to tell us what is correct, if they can't even work or understand their own system and get it wrong what hope have any of us got. I think the whole thing should be scraped.

StevieJ

drc wrote: »

Yes, but the tax credits system has created lots of 'jobs' in the public sector so pushed down unemployment (statistics). In the same way the Soviets used to create jobs whereby one person was employed to dig a hole while another was employed to fill it in. That way nuLabour can claim to have some vast utopian Socialist state whereby everyone is employed and no one feels left out :rolleyes:.

Hey! that used to happen in Liverpool in the 19th century

[SIZE=-1]Williamson would often have his men perform apparently pointless duties. It is said that he would get a man to move a pile of rocks from one place to another and then get him to move them back again. In the parts of the tunnels accessible today there is evidence of tunnels being built and immediately bricked up again, alongside fine arches that lead nowhere. This supports the idea of keeping men busy simply to keep them in a job, but may equally lend mystery in the sense of keeping certain parts of the labyrinth secret. Perhaps Williamson was also deriving satisfaction from his growing domain - the power it gave him. The street had become fully occupied, with all the residents vetted by himself. The man that locals by now called the 'King of Edge Hill' was in control of his own kingdom.[/SIZE]

http://www.williamsontunnels.com/story.htm