Is £40,000 really a liveable income for families in the UK?

geneer

Wheezy wrote: »

It was a cheap remark and Miliband even managed to screw that one up.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8927034/Strikes-sketch-Cameron-Jr-stays-home-and-misses-Fathers-Peppa-Pig-impression.html

Bless. It seems ad hominem attacks aren't limited to the internet.

Yeah, lets not bother with the issues.
Ed fluffed a joke. STOP THE PRESS!

greggymagic

silvercar wrote: »

That could easily be corrected by raising the minimum number of hours required to get credits to 35 hours a week.

I suspect they don't make that simple change to allow/ encourage one parent families to work school hours only or to encourage people into part time working as a first step out of benefits.

Just proves that it's impossible to get a one size fits all system - You will always have to rely on peoples morals to an extent - Although as is proven on a regular basis that's more difficult than it sounds especially when we live in a "What am I entitled to" society rather than "What can I do"

For every genuine story of hardship there will be a story of people milking the system and vice versa.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Very true.

I'm not sure if it's right or wrong, but I don't seem to feel that someone putting as much down on their tax form to avoid paying too much tax is the same as someone actively declining work and finding ways to increase benefits income.

It's probably a sub concious thing, for at least the person trying to minimise their tax expenditure has actually worked for their money.

I know both are wrong, I just feel one is morally worse. Whether they are or not is another matter...but I think, based on threads on here in the past, most people feel the same.

As with public vs private pensions debates, it's often those claiming benefits who feel those reducing their income tax is far worse and vice versa!#

I'd be willing to bet a FAR higher number of families are taking more from the benefits system than they actually need, then there are families avoiding income tax....and I guess thats why I feel the whole "I'm working within the rules and claiming more benefits" is wrong.

Only takes one family "working within the rules" and claiming benefits when they could be working to swallow up 20 other families entire contribution of tax.

You keep avoiding my question about the bit I have highlighted in bold. I'll ask again....

How many hours does someone, in your opinion, have to work in order to receive CTC and WTC without shame?

You have made it clear with michaels that you feel 2 days per week in insufficient. What is OK?

michaels

So Graham, you earn more than many others, I presume you don't claim your child benefit as I am sure you could manage without it even if it would mean a lower standard of living?

Did you know the reason 'tax credits' are named as such is because they are treated as negative taxation rather than a benefit hence being administered by HMRC rather than the DSS and in national accounts they do not count as expenditure but are rather part of the overall tax burden. Thus there is absolutely no accounting difference between my choosing not to earn 6k more and reducing my net payments ot the govt by 4.5k and someone on 160k choosing not to earn 40k more and thus reducing their net payments to the govt by 20k - except in the later case of course the impact on other taxpayers is much greater. Whereas when you claim child benefit you are taking money from the benefits budget for which I am sure there are more needy recipients.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

So Graham, you earn more than many others, I presume you don't claim your child benefit as I am sure you could manage without it even if it would mean a lower standard of living?

Child benefit is completely irrelevant. It's given out to everyone regardless. You don't need to claim it. You don't lose it (well you didn't) if you work longer hours. The threshold for loss is still pretty high even after the changes.

Did oyu know the reason 'tax credits' are named as such is because they are treated as negative taxation rather than a benefit hence being administered by HMRC rather than the DSS and in national accounts they do not count as expenditure but are rather part of the overall tax burden. Thus there is absolutely no accounting difference between my choosing not to earn 6k more and reducing my net payments ot the govt by 4.5k and someone on 160k choosing not to earn 40k more and thus reducing their net payments to the govt by 20k - except in the later case of course the impact on other taxpayers is much greater. Whereas when you claim child benefit you are taking money from the benefits budget for which I am sure there are more needy recipients.

At this point, I lose respect, as you are now trying to drag me down for recieving child benefit.

It's a strawman argument.

It's absolutely nothing like what you are doing, with intent to maximise your benefits by choosing not to take offered work and therefore claiming more from the state while you and your wife live the idillic life.

As I say, I have absolutely no problems with you, or anyone else using the system when you unfortunately lost hours. That is what the system is there for. That's its purpose, and thats what you paid taxes into the system for.

We can go down this path if you like, but it's like suggesting OAPs in receipt of their state pension are infact only doing what you are doing. Or suggesting people who have an accident and use the NHS when they could afford private are taking from the needy. It's bollox.

silvercar

michaels wrote:

Thus there is absolutely no accounting difference between my choosing not to earn 6k more and reducing my net payments ot the govt by 4.5k and someone on 160k choosing not to earn 40k more and thus reducing their net payments to the govt by 20k - except in the later case of course the impact on other taxpayers is much greater.

There is a moral difference between not taking on extra work because the financial benefit doesn't justify it and not choosing to earn more because you don't want to lose benefits.

wotsthat

RenovationMan wrote: »

How many hours does someone, in your opinion, have to work in order to receive CTC and WTC without shame?

I doubt you'll get an answer as he's off on a moral crusade riding on his high horse and starting from the moral high ground - not usually the basis for a sensible discussion.

My view is that CTC's and WTC's should be reduced. This would have two benefits

- it removes or reduces the disincentive to work longer hours
- it would deal with one of the major reasons, IMO, that the UK is attractive to low skilled migrant European labour. This would relieve pressure of services and housing.

Eventually the credits should be done away with altogether and tax free thresholds increased as part compensation.

RenovationMan

wotsthat wrote: »

I doubt you'll get an answer as he's off on a moral crusade riding on his high horse and starting from the moral high ground - not usually the basis for a sensible discussion.

He's not answering because he realises the trap he's put himself in.

He states that he's against 'someone actively declining work and finding ways to increase benefits income' but Graham knows that most able people are capable of working additional hours to increase their incomes - thus reducing their CTC and WTC.

People can work evenings and weekends in additional jobs, deliver newspapers, work in pubs/shops, etc. etc. and up their income. They don't chose to do this, and neither does Graham, so by "Graham's Law" they are actively declining work in order to increase their tax credits.

I suspect that Graham's definition of the minumum number of working hours where it is acceptable to receive tax credits would be exactly the number he is contracted to work in his current job.

chewmylegoff

You have to register for child benefit, it doesn't just turn up in your bank account. Therefore if you don't need it, why is it ok to register for it?

chewmylegoff

Graham: when the changes to child benefit are brought in, anyone paying higher rate tax will no longer receive the benefit. I assume you will be getting a second job, rather than choosing to continue to earn below the 40% threshold in order to receive benefits that you don't need.