Can Grandma claim the child Befefit instead of me?

zagfles

jetplane wrote: »

The boys were told they were going to a scottish university. :cool:

Why use a ridiculous word like hyperbole when you can just say exaggerate?

It's easier to spell

I wasn't referring to the 16/24 hour rule as I happen to agree that a couple who are both capable of working should not choose to work only 16 hours AND have their wage doubled with tax credits.

I was referring to the cuts that affect 2 people who work full time on minimum wage,

Most such people get more in tax credits now than previously

the cuts to earnings disregards

You mean the "income increase" disregard? That was only put in place to paper over the design flaw in tax credits which resulted in massive overpayments. When tax credits first came out it was only £2,500, now it's £10,000. Was it "savage" in 2003?

cuts to the baby element,

Why does a 1 year old cost more than a 15 year old?

cuts to the childcare element,

Back to what it was in 2007, was it "savage" then?

withdrawal of the basic family element

It's not been withdrawn, it's just tapered with the rest of tax credits, which takes it off higher earners. Hardly "savage".

removal of the 50+ element,

Why does a 50 year old need more than a 49 year old?

the reduction in notification time,

Encourage people to update TCO asap, nothing wrong with that

freezing of amounts

The child element hasn't been frozen, it's gone up by way above inflation - 5.2% this year and 11% last year. The disability elements weren't frozen either.

When it hits the lowest earners they are savage, brutal, crude, harsh, whatever word you want to use.

Except it doesn't. The very lowest earners, other than those in the 16-23 hours range affected by the WTC change which you agree with, are better off in most cases, because the big increases in the child element will, in most cases, more than make up for the other changes.

The majority of the changes to tax credits since 2010 have mainly affected those on higher incomes.

jetplane

I cant do these split quotes like you have so;

zagfles wrote: »

It's easier to spell
Most such people get more in tax credits now than previously.
I don't agree that those on minimum wage get more than previously. eg a couple on 26k with one child will not receive WTC, last year they would. (if they have no childcare costs)

You mean the "income increase" disregard? That was only put in place to paper over the design flaw in tax credits which resulted in massive overpayments. When tax credits first came out it was only £2,500, now it's £10,000. Was it "savage" in 2003?
Yes it was savage in 2003 and I agree there is a design flaw in tax credits. ie administering an annual benefit to subsidise a weekly income. The costs to IRS to correct and write off the overpayments were huge, hence the hike in disregard. Although I do agree that when they upped the disregard to 25k it was a ridiculous allowance. The £2,500 is now ignored when income drops, which is new, and I think that is harsh when you're earning the minimum.

Why does a 1 year old cost more than a 15 year old?
You have children? Then you know that the first year has extra expense and also a time when the household income often drops due to maternity pay / allowance etc.

Back to what it was in 2007, was it "savage" then?
I can not remmber it being 70% in 2007, I thought it was 80%

It's not been withdrawn, it's just tapered with the rest of tax credits, which takes it off higher earners. Hardly "savage".
No it is not only taken off the highest earners. A couple with a child who earn more than 25k between them will receive nil CTC. I do not consider them to be higher earners.

Why does a 50 year old need more than a 49 year old?
They don't but the 50+ element assisted with older workers in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Encourage people to update TCO asap, nothing wrong with that
Except that the tax credit system is not geared up for coping with changes during the financial year, and a shorter notification period will lead to more reassessments, and given that the IRS have a month to act on new information they could well overlap each other. Causing havoc for the claimant.

The child element hasn't been frozen, it's gone up by way above inflation - 5.2% this year and 11% last year. The disability elements weren't frozen either.
These increases have been offset by the cuts on an overall award

Except it doesn't. The very lowest earners, other than those in the 16-23 hours range affected by the WTC change which you agree with, are better off in most cases, because the big increases in the child element will, in most cases, more than make up for the other changes.
I disagree. The overall awards are lower, less people qualify and more people will receive overpayments, otherwise how will the government save money?

The majority of the changes to tax credits since 2010 have mainly affected those on higher incomes.
Again I disagree and I also think that the higher earners are more likely to have room to absorb the cuts than those living on the minimum.

P.S. I think you are overusing the term savage :rotfl:

zagfles

jetplane wrote: »

I cant do these split quotes like you have so;


It's easier to spell
Most such people get more in tax credits now than previously.
I don't agree that those on minimum wage get more than previously. eg a couple on 26k with one child will not receive WTC, last year they would. (if they have no childcare costs)
I did say "most", and anyway 2xNMWx40 hours is under £26k. But even on £26k, those with more than one child will get more than they would have previously, and "most" families have more than 1 child.

You mean the "income increase" disregard? That was only put in place to paper over the design flaw in tax credits which resulted in massive overpayments. When tax credits first came out it was only £2,500, now it's £10,000. Was it "savage" in 2003?
Yes it was savage in 2003 and I agree there is a design flaw in tax credits. ie administering an annual benefit to subsidise a weekly income. The costs to IRS
Who? I don't think we're the 51st state yet;)
to correct and write off the overpayments were huge, hence the hike in disregard. Although I do agree that when they upped the disregard to 25k it was a ridiculous allowance. The £2,500 is now ignored when income drops, which is new, and I think that is harsh when you're earning the minimum.
Problem is that if you have a disregard for income increases but not reductions, people can manipulate their income to take advantage. Accountants were encouraging relativley well off people to get 98% tax relief on pension contributions by contributing in alternate years. Also sometimes low paid workers could end up worse off working overtime.

Why does a 1 year old cost more than a 15 year old?
You have children? Then you know that the first year has extra expense and also a time when the household income often drops due to maternity pay / allowance etc.
But that's taken account of by paying tax credits according to income. It doesn't need taking account of twice. Also the £100 disregard for maternity pay - something I'm surprised hasn't been abolished.

Back to what it was in 2007, was it "savage" then?
I can not remmber it being 70% in 2007, I thought it was 80%
Apologies, I was a year out. It was introduced at 70%, then increased to 80% in 2006, not 2007.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060213205514/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/taxcredits.htm

It's not been withdrawn, it's just tapered with the rest of tax credits, which takes it off higher earners. Hardly "savage".
No it is not only taken off the highest earners. A couple with a child who earn more than 25k between them will receive nil CTC. I do not consider them to be higher earners.
Higher earners. Anyway on £25k even those with one child will get some (assuming they work 30 hours). For those with 3 children, the limit is over £38k.

Why does a 50 year old need more than a 49 year old?
They don't but the 50+ element assisted with older workers in obtaining and maintaining employment.
Now 60 year olds can get WTC on 16 hours.

Encourage people to update TCO asap, nothing wrong with that
Except that the tax credit system is not geared up for coping with changes during the financial year, and a shorter notification period will lead to more reassessments, and given that the IRS have a month to act on new information they could well overlap each other. Causing havoc for the claimant.
IRS again? Are you an academic who is confusing various countries systems?

The child element hasn't been frozen, it's gone up by way above inflation - 5.2% this year and 11% last year. The disability elements weren't frozen either.
These increases have been offset by the cuts on an overall award
Depends on circumstances. Low paid larger families are likely to be significantly better off.

Except it doesn't. The very lowest earners, other than those in the 16-23 hours range affected by the WTC change which you agree with, are better off in most cases, because the big increases in the child element will, in most cases, more than make up for the other changes.
I disagree. The overall awards are lower, less people qualify and more people will receive overpayments, otherwise how will the government save money?
Because most of the savings come from taking tax credits off higher earners. A large proportion of claimants were only entitled to the basic family element, eg those with 2 kids earning between about £30-50k.

The majority of the changes to tax credits since 2010 have mainly affected those on higher incomes.
Again I disagree and I also think that the higher earners are more likely to have room to absorb the cuts than those living on the minimum.
Which is presumably why they've been the ones targeted.

Those at the very bottom, for instance a single parent on IS, are much better off now than they were a few years ago.

P.S. I think you are overusing the term savage :rotfl:
I do that, ask Miss MoneyPenny about "real men" :rotfl:

jetplane

Sorry zagfles I got distracted;

I did say "most", and anyway 2xNMWx40 hours is under £26k. But even on £26k, those with more than one child will get more than they would have previously, are we talking very small increases? and "most" families have more than 1 child.

Higher earners. Anyway on £25k even those with one child will get some (assuming they work 30 hours). About £5 week and subject to complete withdrawal before 26k? For those with 3 children, the limit is over £38k.

Who? I don't think we're the 51st state yet;) IRS again? Are you an academic who is confusing various countries systems?
HMRC / Inland Revenue Service same difference to me. I'm not an academic are you a pedant?

Problem is that if you have a disregard for income increases but not reductions, people can manipulate their income to take advantage. Accountants were encouraging relativley well off people to get 98% tax relief on pension contributions by contributing in alternate years. Also sometimes low paid workers could end up worse off working overtime.
Agree it is an easy way to get an interest free loan, boost your pension and when it was 25k disregard some people even took a mini career break. However the poorest paid can't really use this advantage.

But that's taken account of by paying tax credits according to income. No it is a cut because it was paid in addition to the other elements. It doesn't need taking account of twice. Also the £100 disregard for maternity pay - something I'm surprised hasn't been abolished. You are a bit wicked :eek:

Now 60 year olds can get WTC on 16 hours. Yes so they have cut the 50+ route.

Those at the very bottom, for instance a single parent on IS, are much better off now than they were a few years ago. I would need to see the calculations etc etc before I could agree

zagfles

jetplane wrote: »

Sorry zagfles I got distracted;

No worries!

Quote:
I did say "most", and anyway 2xNMWx40 hours is under £26k. But even on £26k, those with more than one child will get more than they would have previously, are we talking very small increases?
Not really, for larger families the increase is quite big. Even a family with 3 kids on £26k:

April 2010: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100104204607/http://hmrc.gov.uk/rates/taxcredits.htm

1920+1890+790+2300*3+545 - (26000-6420)*0.39 = 4409

April 2012: 1920+1950+790+2690*3+545-(26000-6420)*0.41 = 5247

19% increase.

For larger families it's an even bigger increase. The reduction in childcare and the baby element if relevant would offset some of this, but in general most will be better off.

and "most" families have more than 1 child.

Higher earners. Anyway on £25k even those with one child will get some (assuming they work 30 hours). About £5 week and subject to complete withdrawal before 26k? For those with 3 children, the limit is over £38k.
Quote:
Who? I don't think we're the 51st state yet;) IRS again? Are you an academic who is confusing various countries systems?
HMRC / Inland Revenue Service same difference to me. I'm not an academic are you a pedant?
It's just I've never heard anyone familiar with the UK system to refer to HMRC as IRS, and you seem familiar with it.

Quote:
Problem is that if you have a disregard for income increases but not reductions, people can manipulate their income to take advantage. Accountants were encouraging relativley well off people to get 98% tax relief on pension contributions by contributing in alternate years. Also sometimes low paid workers could end up worse off working overtime.
Agree it is an easy way to get an interest free loan, boost your pension and when it was 25k disregard some people even took a mini career break. However the poorest paid can't really use this advantage.
Exactly, so it was a dodge used by the better off to increase their tax credits. And with the massive £200k+ pension contribution limit under the last govt, even the very rich could use it.

Quote:
But that's taken account of by paying tax credits according to income. No it is a cut because it was paid in addition to the other elements. It doesn't need taking account of twice. Also the £100 disregard for maternity pay - something I'm surprised hasn't been abolished. You are a bit wicked :eek:Well it's taxed, so why shouldn't it be taken account of for tax credits? It just complicates the system. Why should someone getting SMP get £100pw of their income disregarded whereas someone not entitled to SMP, eg a SAHM, not get a similar disregard?
Quote:
Now 60 year olds can get WTC on 16 hours. Yes so they have cut the 50+ route.
Quote:
Those at the very bottom, for instance a single parent on IS, are much better off now than they were a few years ago. I would need to see the calculations etc etc before I could agree
Well that's easy enough. In April 2010, 2300 per child plus 545, in April 2012, 2690 per child plus 545. A 13.7% - 17% increase.