Tax credits down £280 per month

sniggings

I think we agree:beer:

But :rotfl:

I didn't say the fuss was only because the rate was increases, I know a big/main part of it was the cut off point, oh and it wasn't only affecting single people but a household with only one single earner above the cutoff, but yes maybe more single people would have been affected.

my point still stands though how the Government can see we are hardly keeping the lights on yet pay out money to people on over £1,000 a week.

Icequeen99

sniggings wrote: »

WTC or CTC call it what you want but one of them was paid to MPs as I have seen them admit it on TV.

But the family allowance was raised as it was all over the news so to say it wasn't a Uturn by the Government is just wrong not semantics.

It has always been possible, in theory to get tax credits on high incomes - 70,000, 80,000 even 100,000. I suspect the number that actually do is very small if any.

60,000 wouldn't be surprising though.

See here: http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/pdf/Income_limits_WTC_and_CTC_combined.pdf

IQ

princessdon

I don't think the cut off bothered people (certainly not on the ones who signed the petition I did - who asked for any household under £44K to have it removed (joint income). It was the unfair way it was processed.

And after tax that £1000 a week is lower - and people on benefits *can* get more.

I posted how a single father earning £60K with childcare is worse off by over £400 pm than a single mother working 16 hours at say tesco with all the top ups (and that doesn't include free school meals or other benefits, purely the cash ones), nor take into account work expenses for the 60K earner.

benefits *can* be too high - they need cutting - it's no longer a safety net for some but a way of life they can't get out of, there is no incentive to work, to change this benefits need to be lowered or expectaion of workfare - full time in exchange for benefits to encourage work.

sniggings

princessdon wrote: »

I don't think the cut off bothered people (certainly not on the ones who signed the petition I did - who asked for any household under £44K to have it removed (joint income). It was the unfair way it was processed.

And after tax that £1000 a week is lower - and people on benefits *can* get more.

I posted how a single father earning £60K with childcare is worse off by over £400 pm than a single mother working 16 hours at say tesco with all the top ups (and that doesn't include free school meals or other benefits, purely the cash ones), nor take into account work expenses for the 60K earner.

benefits *can* be too high - they need cutting - it's no longer a safety net for some but a way of life they can't get out of, there is no incentive to work, to change this benefits need to be lowered or expectaion of workfare - full time in exchange for benefits to encourage work.

yep agree again, but surely the Government in it's wisdom when confronted with you Tesco example should have lowered benefits for said Tesco worker rather than say oh ok lets pay the £50k full time worker the same, as you say if a benefit claimant doesn't need that much then a worker on £50k should not be in the system either.

I just wish the Government would sort this mess out fairly instead of doing as much as they think their poll rating will support.

princessdon

Far too many loopholes. The £500 benefit cap doesn't apply to workers (even 16 hours a week ones), families can claim childcare for 40 hours a week and work 16, families can claim IS if 1 work able is a carer etc etc.

There are loopholes everywhere - only genuine will be penalised - those intent on playing the system will find a way at some point.

The whole thing is a mess (plus the tax avoidance issues).

Can't see anything being done about it anytime soon though.

Thomas_The_Tank_Top

sniggings wrote: »

Take me, if I still worked (have done all my life until this year)

Two issues here matey.

1. No. You haven't worked ALL your life. Maybe started paying Tax at 16. IF you earned enough. How old are you now?

2. Did you give up work this year because of your BR? Working the system so you didn't have to enter an IPA?

scootw1

Thomas_The_Tank_Top wrote: »

Two issues here matey.

1. No. You haven't worked ALL your life. Maybe started paying Tax at 16. IF you earned enough. How old are you now?

2. Did you give up work this year because of your BR? Working the system so you didn't have to enter an IPA?

I know someone who did that and I think it needs to be looked at. Why should someone be able to just reduce their hours or give up work to wipe out their IPA an dthen restart when they have been discharged?

In terms of the benefits being too high I think in some cases they are. I know someone who is on disability benefits and DLA and get saround 250 pounds a week in his pocket after rent and council tax paid and regularly piles money in fruit machines (I'm talking £150 - £200 a time) and drinks a couple of times a week, smokes. How on earth does this sort of thing happen?

sniggings

Thomas_The_Tank_Top wrote: »

Two issues here matey.

1. No. You haven't worked ALL your life. Maybe started paying Tax at 16. IF you earned enough. How old are you now?

2. Did you give up work this year because of your BR? Working the system so you didn't have to enter an IPA?

1,Your first point is daft, it's a term and most normal people understand what is meant by that term.

2, Good to see you putting your free time to good use no I worked all through my BR, I didn't have an IPA even though I worked 40 hours a week. My BR was for 12 months so ended in 2010, so sorry but better luck next time :rotfl:

somethingcorporate

sniggings wrote: »

£40 for 40 hours of work not taking into account travel cost to work etc and that is just a single person.

The min wage will always be at about the same place £6.08 at a couple of kids and £220 will always be lower than benefits, housing costs would take up most of the £220 alone.

Remember too housing benefit and working tax credits cost more to pay to those in work than out! so you can lower benefits all you want but untill someone working 40 hours a week doesn't need housing benefit or WTC then nothing will change.

Just think about it for a min, this Government pay a working person earning up to £60,000 a year family credit and WTC :eek:
Blame the people on those benefits if you want but I put the blame at the Governments door and if someone sees they will be better of on benefits why would/should they take less, and those that say respect are fooling themselves.

I haven't blamed anyone on benefits I blame the system which is run by the government (both minimum wage and benefits) so not sure why you think I blame the people on benefits!

Luckily, this government appear to be doing some stuff about it.

BurnleyBob

skintmacflint wrote: »

I'm from the generation before all these complicated benefit systems, and been lucky to never have never needed to claim any.

I believe in benefits when needed and don't care for the press placing the economic decline blame on benfit claimers. Not while the banks and corporate companies fleece the public+ tax payer at every turn.

But I'm speechless at the rate some benefits are paid to families Saw a post with family , 4 kids who with 2 parents earn £15000 per year but get £11000 in CTC/CB each year. No offence to the individual but if this typical then the tax payer is paying a heavy price.

I'm not saying I'm right or life was perfect but my generation didn't have kids unless you could support them. You didn't leave home unless you could afford to pay your own rent. But in those days jobs were available and they didn't all pay MNW, banks were banks not fleecing companies, and the newly formed NHS was the best thing since sliced bread.

So the whole world/system seems wrong from top to bottom. Companies take advantage of the tax payer paying top ups allowing them to pay buttons, private landlords abuse the tax payer by charging exorbitant rents for poor housing .Councils don't build enough housing. Maybe HB is using up all their funds? Governments make public service staff redundant who then need benefits , then they give millions in contracts to private companies who pay buttons and rake in the profits for a minority in high positions.

Meanwhile some people have lost all sense of personal responsibility, and expect the goverment to make life simple.

The Labour government introduced all these benfits to reduce child poverty but it hasn't worked. all it seems to have done is make a minority of people lose all sense of personal responsibility, and force others into a position of welfare dependancy.

If thing don't change at the top and the bottom, the plug will be pulled on welfare and the NHS. And people will find themselves back in the position of the days of my parents when I was born, overcrowded poor housing, long work hours no NHS , and if you weren't one of the minority well off, life was hard and I mean hard.

Nice post.

This country has been in decline - economically and morally - since the early 1970s. All by design in my opinion.

The proliferation of single mothers knocking out lots of kids (many if not most who became chavs that are seemingly everywhere) along with the disabled culture allowed for successive governments to mask the true unemployment numbers as they fell outside the criteria to be included in the official number.

When this government came to office they estimated that austerity measures would be required until 2015. Then last autumn they said 2017. Earlier this week Cameron upped that to 2020 "at least." Sure, they might lose the next General Election in 2015, but Labour as with the Lib Dems, are controlled by the same corporate and banking interests that pulls on the Tory strings.

The agenda will remain the same and the welfare system will be dismantled piece by piece as wealth continues to flow from west to east. That's why we are already the most spied upon people in the world so as to keep the newly impoverished in line as more and more citizens fall into poverty.

This country, along with nearly all others, have been lumbered with inextinguishable debts. Henry Ford, founder of the car company, said that was the aim some 80 years ago. We are living it now and will continue to do so for as far as the eye can see.