Tax credits dropped from £500+ to £42 - help!

zagfles

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Well I thought the tory's said they would abolish tax credits for those on a one / combined income of 42k???? and is child benefit going to go for those also where only one earns 42k but if i is as the posters conditions joint it will remain , is this the bit Ken clerk was on about when he said I do not think the middle earners no whats coming and the Bit Gordon Brown was trying to get across in one of the debates. .

£42k is not an upper limit on tax credits. If you have childcare costs you can still get tax credits on incomes much higher than 42k.

Someone who has 4 kids and £300pw childcare costs would get tax credits on an income over £70k! However much anyone rants about it

elisamoose

My generation brought up our kids with no tax credits just child benefit and no free nursery places either. And I am not talking about pre war , but children born in late 1980's early 1990's. You had to manage on what you earned.No safety net apart from your own savings.

zagfles

elisamoose wrote: »

My generation brought up our kids with no tax credits just child benefit and no free nursery places either. And I am not talking about pre war , but children born in late 1980's early 1990's. You had to manage on what you earned.No safety net apart from your own savings.

What a load of rubbish. "Tax credits" have been around (by other names) since 1971. They started as FIS (Family Income Supplement), which because Family Credit, then WFTC and then the current tax credits.

People who earned too much for these had the benefit of additional tax allowances instead, eg married couples' allowance, additional personal allowance and children's tax credit. All now abolished (except the MCA for pensioners) and merged into the current tax credits.

So tax credits are basically a combination of the family benefits (FIS, FC, WFTC) and family tax allowances (MCA, APA, ChTC). Which practically every family in the 70's, 80's and 90's would have got at least one of.

brian_723

I got tax credits once because ,they base them on previous years earning ,and as part of the previous year i was out of work for a little while my earning where low.I got 30 pound a week and it was great spent the money on a holiday to Thailand .totally stupid system if you ask me .Why tax peole in the first place just to give it back to them ,better system let deduct tax acordingly based on circumstance number kids married single what ever ,then you just tell them as or if circumstance change and immediately they can adjust your tax coding accordingly .

dktreesea

melly1980 wrote: »

I hate to **** on your chips but most of them you named are publically funded anyway so it would still cost the tax payer to pay them more.

Just because one works for the people, i.e. the public sector, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid a living wage for the work they do. We can be sure the minimum wage is not a living wage because even a family of four, with both parents working on the minimum wage, fulltime, (£11,563 p.a. 37.5 hours a week), paying out £170 a week in childcare would still be entitled to £184.82 a week in WTC and CTC (source: entitledto.co.uk, assumes family capital less than £6k).

Plus, if they were a private tenant living where we live (Edinburgh, so I would think similar to the south east when it comes to rents) they would get a further £100 a week towards their rent and an miniscule amount of around £2 a week towards their council taxt.

Nevertheless, throw in the child benefit, and that's £321 a week in benefits, paid solely because the minimum wage is too low to live on.

Sure, if this hypothetical minimum wage family works for the government, then maybe whether they are paid in benefits or wages doesn't matter, - the taxpayer is funding it all. But why should the private sector benefit to the tune of £321 a week just so two people can have a job?

neil277

dktreesea wrote: »

Just because one works for the people, i.e. the public sector, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid a living wage for the work they do. We can be sure the minimum wage is not a living wage because even a family of four, with both parents working on the minimum wage, fulltime, (£11,563 p.a. 37.5 hours a week), paying out £170 a week in childcare would still be entitled to £184.82 a week in WTC and CTC (source: entitledto.co.uk, assumes family capital less than £6k).

Plus, if they were a private tenant living where we live (Edinburgh, so I would think similar to the south east when it comes to rents) they would get a further £100 a week towards their rent and an miniscule amount of around £2 a week towards their council taxt.

Nevertheless, throw in the child benefit, and that's £321 a week in benefits, paid solely because the minimum wage is too low to live on.

Sure, if this hypothetical minimum wage family works for the government, then maybe whether they are paid in benefits or wages doesn't matter, - the taxpayer is funding it all. But why should the private sector benefit to the tune of £321 a week just so two people can have a job?

People have to work not wait for the state to help them, Yes same as the private sector, End Benefits once and for all

dktreesea

neil277 wrote: »

Lets all get back to work and earn money for our family, why should the state keep other peoples children.

Thanks

Neil

And why should the state, or anyone else for that matter, be able to pay people so pathetic a wage that they then fall below the minimum income guarantee, so far below it would appear, that they are viewed as unable to afford their accommodation, let alone the cost of bringing up their children? It's bad enough that the private sector are allowed to get away with it, but 100 times worse that the government should exploit its own people in that fashion.

It's about time that everyone who was employed received a living wage, regardless of whether or not they have children and high enough to not be entitled to any benefits.

neil277

I had no education left school poor wages, i went to college for 5 years to better myself, Thats what you have to do.

neil277

Stop all benefits once and for all

melly1980

dktreesea wrote: »

Just because one works for the people, i.e. the public sector, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid a living wage for the work they do. We can be sure the minimum wage is not a living wage because even a family of four, with both parents working on the minimum wage, fulltime, (£11,563 p.a. 37.5 hours a week), paying out £170 a week in childcare would still be entitled to £184.82 a week in WTC and CTC (source: entitledto.co.uk, assumes family capital less than £6k).

Plus, if they were a private tenant living where we live (Edinburgh, so I would think similar to the south east when it comes to rents) they would get a further £100 a week towards their rent and an miniscule amount of around £2 a week towards their council taxt.

Nevertheless, throw in the child benefit, and that's £321 a week in benefits, paid solely because the minimum wage is too low to live on.

Sure, if this hypothetical minimum wage family works for the government, then maybe whether they are paid in benefits or wages doesn't matter, - the taxpayer is funding it all. But why should the private sector benefit to the tune of £321 a week just so two people can have a job?

although that is a nice little story you have wasted your time because I never suggested that they should be paid gash. I merely pointed out the simple fact that paying these people more money would not save the tax payer by reducing the amount spent on tax credits. The reason is that their wages come from the public purse anyway, so nothing would be saved.