Tax credits, is this true?

Jessikita1983

Flower08 wrote: »

Why does everyone who claims any sort of benefit get dumped together into the typical stereotype group?

My OH worked hard to get his SIA license, is out of the house 15 hours a day working as a security guard yet is still on a rubbish wage. I work 20 hours a week (probably going to get slated for it not being more, not by me, sounds like a nice balance, you get to raise your baby mostly, still have a sense of pride for earning and get adult company and a sense of independance, good luck to you) am currently on maternity leave.

We get WTC and will get CTC/CB as well when baby is born - does that mean we get piled into the same group as everyone who gets benefits? not by me - see somments below for my opinion on tax credits Some people seem to forget that the people who get benefits also contribute to the system and work bloody hard for not a lot!

It really does annoy me that people get dumped into the same money grabbing category just because they dont earn a lot. that isn't my problem, quite the opposite, people who work SHOULD get rewarded, not the opposite! So I am in support of you.

Please do not misinterpret me, I am not categorising people who claim tax credits due to a low wage in the same boat as the people who have not worked for 20 years, claim everything going, live in a council house, continue to have children despite not paying for the first one they had, then the state sees it right to give them a bigger house and more money etc, the children are raised the same, starting the cycle again.

If you work - fine. No problem at all with CB and TC's!

TC's are the one "benefit" I am in support of.

If both parents are working, chances are they will use childcare, so not only are the parents being socially and economically productive, but by using childcare they are helping provide jobs in this field, then of course, in the wider economy too, nurseries/childminders need products, a payroll person etc and the economy grows. (I know not as simple as that but you hopefully get the jist)

Make it better off for two individuals sitting a home doing nothing but taking money out of the country - doesn't look good to me!

Flower08

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

Make it better off for two individuals sitting a home doing nothing but taking money out of the country - doesn't look good to me!

Oh I completely agree with you there!

Sorry if I seemed like I was having a moan directly at you, I wasnt honestly. Just sometimes you do see people (again not saying you!) clump everyone who gets any kind of benefits into one group.

I completely agree when it comes to people who dont work and have no intention of doing so yet get everything paid for them.

And for what its worth - if it is true about the tax credits being stopped for your wage, I agree it is unfair!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

Please do not misinterpret me, I am not categorising people who claim tax credits due to a low wage in the same boat as the people who have not worked for 20 years, claim everything going, live in a council house, continue to have children despite not paying for the first one they had, then the state sees it right to give them a bigger house and more money etc, the children are raised the same, starting the cycle again.

If you work - fine. No problem at all with CB and TC's!

TC's are the one "benefit" I am in support of.

If both parents are working, chances are they will use childcare, so not only are the parents being socially and economically productive, but by using childcare they are helping provide jobs in this field, then of course, in the wider economy too, nurseries/childminders need products, a payroll person etc and the economy grows. (I know not as simple as that but you hopefully get the jist)

Make it better off for two individuals sitting a home doing nothing but taking money out of the country - doesn't look good to me!

But they aren't taking money out of the country. They are pumping it into the local economy, creating employment for others etc etc etc. It's a sort of clumsy wealth re-distribution. Higher tax yield areas, like the South East, send their money to lower tax yield areas like the North East. Where would , say, Middlesbrough be without public money?

Jessikita1983

Flower08 wrote: »

Oh I completely agree with you there!

Sorry if I seemed like I was having a moan directly at you, I wasnt honestly. Just sometimes you do see people (again not saying you!) clump everyone who gets any kind of benefits into one group.

I completely agree when it comes to people who dont work and have no intention of doing so yet get everything paid for them.

And for what its worth - if it is true about the tax credits being stopped for your wage, I agree it is unfair!

That's ok no worries. Just thought I would clarify my position! Anyone that WORKS has my upmost respect.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Flower08 wrote: »

And for what its worth - if it is true about the tax credits being stopped for your wage, I agree it is unfair!

You think it's fair that a single person earning £8k should have to contribute towards the subsidy for a couple earning £37k because they have a child? That low earner is already contributing towards the childs health needs and education. Isn't he doing enough already?

Jessikita1983

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But they aren't taking money out of the country. They are pumping it into the local economy, creating employment for others etc etc etc. It's a sort of clumsy wealth re-distribution. Higher tax yield areas, like the South East, send their money to lower tax yield areas like the North East. Where would , say, Middlesbrough be without public money?

It's money that I feel wasn't there's to have any right to in the first place, to redistribute the wealth as they see fit.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

It's money that I feel wasn't there's to have any right to in the first place, to redistribute the wealth as they see fit.

I'm pretty sure that they make a better job of it than central government would.

Jessikita1983

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that they make a better job of it than central government would.

That I can't disagree with! Making a very broad general statement here, under labour I saw things go to far one way, and it seems the tories are trying to push things too far the other?

I strive for an equitable balance!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

That I can't disagree with! Making a very broad general statement here, under labour I saw things go to far one way, and it seems the tories are trying to push things too far the other?

I strive for an equitable balance!

As a general rule, public spending is a good thing. It recirculates tax revenue into the economy and helps to create wealth. Whilst we would all like to see tax cuts, there is an argument that such action does more harm to an economy in recession than increasing tax AND public spending. Tax cuts always disproportionately advantage the wealthy (and I mean PROPER wealthy) who merely salt the money away in whatever regenerating scheme they choose (Countries such as Jersey only exist to take care of such schemes. ie the British taxpayer subsidises them while they suck money from our economy). Directing money at the poorest in society (the opposite of "trickle down") is the most effective way of ensuring that it is used in a more universally advantageous way for the good of the nation.

clemmatis

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

For the last, I don't know how many years I have paid for others to be on my salary and get TC's, now it comes around to my turn and it looks like they are going.

I know how you feel. IB was changed just before I became eligible for it, the change cost me thousands. But that is no reason to turn on "welfare claimants".

I have read all your comments thoroughly and I'm not afraid to say my opinion has not changed. I do not now nor will I ever believe in a welfare state.

The rate of teen pregnancy in the Netherlands is around 6 times lower than the UK and it is not hard to see a contributing factor why - you do not get provided accommodation you have to look after yourself, the council does not give you a house.

The teen pregnancy rate in the USA is higher than in the UK. Does the US provide housing?...

what does happen here?


-- from a local council board:

Someone is not automatically placed in social housing just because they become pregnant or have a child. The person/people have to prove they have no other suitable accommodation available to them (including immediate family). If they do become homeless, and are expecting or already have a child, then they will be given priority for the childs sake.

what does happen in the Netherlands? The lack of social housing for pregnant teenages (under 18) is certainly a difference, but it is only one of a number of social and cultural differences:

http://www.famyouth.org.uk/pdfs/LDM.pdf

and now we see,

The social do-gooders can try and sway me all you want but I will not change. I will always prefer a model much more that America, I would rather pay for my own healthcare than be forced too pay for the NHS and wait the same amount of time for treatment as someone who has never contributed.

you don't have to, you could get private insurance. Just as in the US, if you wanted never to have to wait, you could buy extra-expensive insurance and also co-pay more. -- yes I know people in the US, rich ones and poor ones, and "just not poor enough to get Medicaid" ones.

If you were in the US, and qualified for Medicare/Medicaid, would you turn them down?

Is Holland a welfare state? Oh yes. A most generous one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all

Your views are your own, but I suggest they should be voiced in Discussion Time, not in a Welfare Benefits' forum.