MSE News: The hidden Budget benefits cut at £25,000

gruggles

Definitely sickening, and very sad all round. Thousands dead, dying, wounded, for a lie(or a pipeline) The British public duped once again and we have an upper class dimwit thug without a majority and self appointed as PM. Our last PM. not the other unelected one, I mean bliar(oops) has made a fortune from OIL, lets see in a while where our millionaire rulers start to invest.

golfwidow22

pault123 wrote: »

I have to admit the changes make perfect sense.

Gordon brown kept harping on about loss of child tax credits on the live debates, but in reality its only affecting people earning more than £50k, and then £40k after a couple of years who should need help anyway. I mean is £45 a month loss really going to bankrupt a couple on £50k?

Also sub £40k people are actually better off!

Now weather a family who have chosen to have kids who only earn £10k are entitled to £6000+ in free money is another question!

I really dont think the condems have thought this tax credit change through, many couples now will be thinking of ways around this, for instance lets say the husband earns £30,000 and the wife around £10,000 they have 3 children,i think this budget will be responsable for more couples seperating, because the husband could be packed off lets say to his mothers and voila 2 seperate households, she will claim full tax credits, the conservatives say they wanted to support marriage well you moron david cameron this budget will see a rise in marriage break ups and seperations!

Zoelikesjam

It will affect families like mine. I had three children, worked paid child minders, hubby works. Disability takes over, making me unable to work, and lie on my back all day watching Jeremy Kyle...So should I be punished for having children and not looking into the future, knowing that i would become disabled. Should I have seen a clairvoyent or something and not had children? Planned for the future as it were. I have no problem with them removing/reducing tax credits, child benefit. I do agree you should 'fund' you own children, but then you come across a family like mine where one of the parents CANT work, and CANT be a stay at home mum so the other parent has to work to fund the household, bills rent all normal things but ontop of that also has to pay child care as I can't look after the children when he is at work. At the moment WTC help towards that cost, but for how much longer? What will we do then? I know we won't be able to afford child care
I know someone who has asked for a pay cut at work to reduce her earnings from £25,299 down to £24,999 just so she'll be elegible(hate that word) for around 7k in working taxes...remove that 300quid and shes much better off.
I disagree with this, but i can see why shes done it.

ILW

sarflee wrote: »

Problem with the £25,000 cut off, I would agree that for the majority this should be enough to provide for a family with 1 or 2 kids, but tax credits include car benefit and other benefits as an income. A lot of people have to have a company car to do the job, not by choice, and the government keep putting the rates up and up. Even a very basic model, without private fuel, could end up being assessed as £5000 income a year. A lot of families would struggle on just £20,000 income with little help.

A lot of people say it is choice, but I am very glad I live in a society where just because you don't earn as much as someone else you are still given the chance to bring up a family and receive a little help. It doesn't mean you don't work just as hard.

As an aside, I thought the budget was fair yesterday. I used to work in the public sector, made redundant due to the cuts and received very little redundancy. Luckily my partner earns a decent wage so we do not need benefits. We do receive basic tax credits but this will be cut shortly due to this budget. I'm happy as long as everyone else is made to pay their fair share which this budget when some way to doing.

Only if it was a £20,000 gas guzzler.
1.4 Micra is about a grand, therefore about £250 per year tax.

ILW

catastrophe10 wrote: »

We have to remember that 'security' is a very vague term.
Any moment things could turn for the worse, a tragic car accident, you break your back, never to walk again, you develop a terminal illness, anything. Yes, working hard to pay for those on benefits like myself IS tough, and trust me, there is not a day goes by that I do not feel shame for claiming. However, one day something may happen when you need them, it happened to me, and I wouldn't wish the day to day humiliation on anyone.

There is a world of difference between you situation and knowingly knocking out kids that you know you cannot support by your own efforts. The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle.

Percy1983

As much as I have made this point to Me Deepmistrust many times he still hasn't grasped it.

I don't think benefits should be cut to bail the country, if the countries finances where going perfectly I would still want them cut.

Simple reason, why reward people for doing nothing?

When I say cut, I don't mean stop, I mean reduce so they can afford food and warm accomodation, not 40" TVs, PS3s, 360s... etc

starnight_2

As a single, disabled working mother on a low income I actually think the busget was harsh but fair. In all fairness to the current government they weren't the ones who let the country get to this point. They are doing what needs to be done, would anyone else? People voted them in, they may not have won outright, but the two parties with the most votes are now in coalition, yet when the budget comes out people start railing against them!! I'm sorry but if you voted them in then you voted for their policies.

People need to start living within their means, and I know sometimes circumstances turn againist us and we need a bit of support. BUT if you know your circumstances have changed you need to change your lifestyle with that.

As to golfwidow, I understand what your saying, but if those families tryuly want to be families why would they split for a bit of extra money each month? How would that benefit their children, actually I'm not even going to think about that situation as those who would do that obviuosly care more about money and their own lifestyle than a family.


EDIT: the only thing I think hasn't been addressed is the banks, they need a good *insert your choice of bad language/word here*

worldwheeler

gruggles wrote: »

Definitely sickening, and very sad all round. Thousands dead, dying, wounded, for a lie(or a pipeline) The British public duped once again and we have an upper class dimwit thug without a majority and self appointed as PM. Our last PM. not the other unelected one, I mean bliar(oops) has made a fortune from OIL, lets see in a while where our millionaire rulers start to invest.

It's funny how the divide is so easy to maniplate in the general public. "it's the people with more than one child's fault" " it's the Polish and Latvian's fault" "it's the Islamic's fault"
The oil statement, above, is just part of the "game". The budget is another. The "government", whoever that is, is a tool in this game. Get one side to borrow massively, paying interest and charges to the money men, build infrastructure and services. Overheat the borrowing to cripple the country. Then the "other side" comes in and say due to the recklessness of the left we have to administer harsh cuts. They also sell the best infrastructure and best operating services, which can be made into profitable charging businesses, to the money men.(very good business sense to get others to build a venture and then test it before buying at a cheap rate) These sales are cheap as the country clearly needs the money urgently.
The people will not see the bigger picture, instead they focus on differences with their neighbours or people they feel slightly superior than. It's all a game, look through the smoke and mirrors.

Look for who the real player is and who benefits from:- 'boom & bust' the so called business cycle; wars; dramatic traumatic events.

Deepmistrust

worldwheeler wrote: »

It's funny how the divide is so easy to maniplate in the general public. "it's the people with more than one child's fault" " it's the Polish and Latvian's fault" "it's the Islamic's fault"
The oil statement, above, is just part of the "game". The budget is another. The "government", whoever that is, is a tool in this game. Get one side to borrow massively, paying interest and charges to the money men, build infrastructure and services. Over heat the borrowing to cripple the country. Then the "other side" comes in and say due to the recklessness of the left we have to administer harsh cuts. They also sell the best infrastructure and best operating services, which can be made into profitable charging businesses, to the money men.(very good business sense to get others to build a venture and then test it before buying at a cheap rate) These sales are cheap as the country clearly needs the money urgently.
The people will not see the bigger picture instead focusing on differences with their neighbours or people they feel slightly superior than. It's all a game, look through the smoke and mirrors.

Look for who the real player is and who benefits from; boom bust the so called business cycle; wars; dramatic traumatic events.

Precisely, look even at the wars, WHO benefits? Not us, not Afghanis or Iraqis, not soldiers. So WHO? So far it's been the major oil companies, and consortiums of various groups of contractors who have billion dollar contracts. Dig a little deeper and see whose friends their lobbyists are. Even Karzai himself was reported to be the intermediatary between the Taliban and the US Oil consortium who were originally reaching a deal to pipe out the gas via Afghanistan from the Caspian region. (No need to point out that George Bush's friends were happily dining the Taliban just a couple of months before the invasion, in the hope of getting their hands on their gas that way). The Taliban broke off the deal, then the US invades, and shock horror, the gas is safe in the hands of western corporate interests again. So we have US troops strategically places protecting about 5bn cubic feet of Natural Gas.

Meanwhile thousands of working-class people: British and Nato soldiers, and thousands more Afghanis are dead.

Exxon Mobile and BP are raking it in in Iraq with $50 billion oil deals the norm. Before the invasion on Iraq, they couldn't get their hands on Saddaams oil, it was the Russians who had the greater interest in Iraq (Iraq just so happens to be stting on the second biggest supply of Oil reserves discovered on Earth).

Pretend we are liberating them, whilst simultanously installing puppets who want to legalise marital rape.

Then they create enough smokescreens so the rest of the working classes are so busy bickering about single moms and low income families on a pittance needing benefit assistance, these people are literally getting away with murder.

Time to wake up people.

divastrop

starnight wrote: »

As a single, disabled working mother on a low income I actually think the busget was harsh but fair. In all fairness to the current government they weren't the ones who let the country get to this point. They are doing what needs to be done, would anyone else? People voted them in, they may not have won outright, but the two parties with the most votes are now in coalition, yet when the budget comes out people start railing against them!! I'm sorry but if you voted them in then you voted for their policies.

People need to start living within their means, and I know sometimes circumstances turn againist us and we need a bit of support. BUT if you know your circumstances have changed you need to change your lifestyle with that.

As to golfwidow, I understand what your saying, but if those families tryuly want to be families why would they split for a bit of extra money each month? How would that benefit their children, actually I'm not even going to think about that situation as those who would do that obviuosly care more about money and their own lifestyle than a family.


EDIT: the only thing I think hasn't been addressed is the banks, they need a good *insert your choice of bad language/word here*

The current government aren't the ones who let it get to this point, but neither was it the last government. Thatcher did some bad things, but basically the conservatives support a system which is flawed and taking money from those on benefits or low incomes is not going to help the economy. The Lib Dems seemed to have the right idea, but I think they have been swallowed by the conservatives now and will never be seen again.