Emergency Budget: tax credit cuts for millions

asandwhen

Deepmistrust wrote: »

The working class people of Greece, like the people of Britain did not create this mess. Yet they are the ones who will suffer the most.

Exactly - this is why I consider myself lucky that we have been hit alot less harder.

A pay freeze is going to hurt but can you imagine a 10/15/20/25% pay CUT now that would hurt!

Deepmistrust

asandwhen wrote: »

Exactly - this is why I consider myself lucky that we have been hit alot less harder.

A pay freeze is going to hurt but can you imagine a 10/15/20/25% pay CUT now that would hurt!

I don't consider anyone who is a victim of the effects of the banking industries greed "lucky", tbph.

krisskross

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I have no idea why certain folk think that freezing pay and child benefits is OK and no one will suffer, whilst completely ignoring a large VAT rise. Spot the obvious.

It isn't a 'large' VAT rise. On a £200 article the extra VAT will be £5. Less than a packet of fags or a portion of fish and chips. For most of us I think the VAT rise will be barely noticeable.

I completely agree with reducing child orientated benefits. The country has no need to pay people to procreate.

scattykat

Does anyboy know about dissability living allowance and tax credits

My daughter get dla so gets extra tax credits but they say in 2012 the cut off if £30k, our income was 31k last year so how would the dla work, would it be totaly gone so no tax credits or will they reduce it, have no idea

thanks

Deepmistrust

krisskross wrote: »

It isn't a 'large' VAT rise. On a £200 article the extra VAT will be £5. Less than a packet of fags or a portion of fish and chips. For most of us I think the VAT rise will be barely noticeable.

You do not speak for most people, and are in no position to judge whether an addition £5 per £200 spent is affordable for others.

The point is the cost of living is increasing, not just VAT, and that freezing pay, cutting jobs, and cutting benefits, will only further add to the misery of a population already paying the price for the greed and incompetence of the banking sector. The working people did not cause this mess, I for one, am not happy to bail out those that did, whilst they continue a lavish lifestyle in comparison.

I'm impressed with the support the ruling elite and their cronies that run our institutions actually have on these boards from working-class people who are being forced to cut back so they don't have to.

EDIT: And sadly this country does have a need to persuade people to procreate, it's called an ageing population.

Nonetheless, it is also called keeping children out of poverty and supporting families. I have no idea what you think the role of the state is, if not to support the people it is supposed to represent.

tizzy333

However, I assume he has to declare his wages and dividends to the CSA, so if he is paying himself a (below) minimum wage, he is also actually only living on a (below) minimum wage. He can't declare a low wage, then somehow draw other money out of the business for his own use

.

deepmistrust, he is now living with another woman and her kids (she doesn't work!!) and has financial commitments there so any dividends he takes means again that his disposable income is seen as minimum. the company is in its infancy and therefore legitimately does not show much profit, particularly after the recent recession. I did enquire at the beginning and the CSA assessed he would have to pay £0. we all know that any business done that is not showing on the books is going to be pretty impossible to find/prove...

Deepmistrust

tizzy333 wrote: »

.

deepmistrust, he is now living with another woman and her kids (she doesn't work!!) and has financial commitments there so any dividends he takes means again that his disposable income is seen as minimum. the company is in its infancy and therefore legitimately does not show much profit, particularly after the recent recession. I did enquire at the beginning and the CSA assessed he would have to pay £0. we all know that any business done that is not showing on the books is going to be pretty impossible to find/prove...

I'm not sure, but are you saying that he draws dividends and doesn't declare them to the CSA? Or that the CSA still don't consider him able to pay anything (more) even taking into account his dividends? (i.e. his living costs with his new family are only just met with his wage and dividends?)

EDIT: And are you saying you have evidence that he is working for cash/undeclared payments?

emweaver

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I use to walk to every playgroup I could find each week, as soon as my children were born. That way they socialised from babies and got a wide cirlce of friends. Plus I made a load of friends too.

So mine had 3 playgroups a week since birth, plus they got extra socialising when us mums met at each others houses for coffee every week.

Fortunately there is not much choice here as we dont all live in towns, cities etc. i took my dd to playgroup from age 1 only once a week as thats all it is or was here but being with mummy isnt the same as being with children without mummy.

krisskross

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Nonetheless, it is also called keeping children out of poverty and supporting families. I have no idea what you think the role of the state is, if not to support the people it is supposed to represent.

It is the parents responsibility to support their offspring certainly not the tax payers and I think you will find you are totally incorrect in suggesting the population needs to be increased.

Personally I would have felt a total failure as a parent if I had brought children into this world to live in poverty, knowing that I could not afford to support them.

We live on a fixed income, spending perhaps £100 a week for everything including food, utilities, council tax etc. Even if all those things attracted VAT (most of them don't) I think we could manage to find the extra couple of quid a week we would need.

It is totally fair that everyone who has enjoyed the fat years under a Labour Government, and this will undoubtedly be people with children, should now have to make a small sacrifice to get the country's finances back on track.

emweaver

DaiJoA wrote: »

I think it is £13,500 but it could be £13k, definitely no higher than that though.

Quite a few families will now have to pay for school meals then, but if you only have an income of 13k before tax then £10-£15 a week for school meals is quite a lot