david cameron and tax credits

andrewmp

lyrical_gangster wrote: »

I never had a mortgage, but I doing a full-time degree I earned close to 800 a month from my part-time job, and during my PhD I was paid a generous tax free scholarship to study.

Though if I had a mortgage, I would have continued to study part time...

Even if you had three kids like Mr Smith, should he be at night school hoping to better himself? Would be have to quit if Mrs Smith was forced to work night shift.

Pedent

andrewmp wrote: »

I know Mr and Mrs Smith well, I used to work with his wife before she had kids. He does work hard and they're a lovely family. I'd hate to see them be worse off.

I know a Mr and Mrs Smith too (must be a common name), although he's in a public sector graduate job earning more than £18k. They both work very hard (him in his job, her with the kids plus some part-time work). They'd struggle without tax credits, mostly because housing costs are so high.

If the cuts are as mooted, £700/child = £2100, then giving back £380 by increasing the Personal Allowance to £12.5k won't compensate them.

andrewmp

lyrical_gangster wrote: »

I'm using past events to predict future events. Since I was 14, I've had precisely seven months where I've not had a job. One month when leaving the army (although I was officially in the army still for my first two weeks of uni), and then six months when an old contract ran out.

It's about attitude. My father was made unemployed in the huge recession in the 90s. He was a manual worker but earned a good wage (around 600 p/w). Within a few months he had a business going that paid as well as the job he lost. Within several years he had an unrelated business, which pulled in nearly 200k per year. During this time he would work until midnight almost every night - this is whilst raising two kids as well - and my mum worked for the business too. Now he's taken semi-retirement and lives off his bank account.

This taught me that you make your own way. If you're poor and don't want to be, then do something about it.

Barring a week following his redundancy, Mr Smith has worked his entire adult life too.

He didn't come from a wealthy family though but his dad worked equally as hard as yours I'd assume.

andrewmp

Pedent wrote: »

I know a Mr and Mrs Smith too (must be a common name), although he's in a public sector graduate job earning more than £18k. They both work very hard (him in his job, her with the kids plus some part-time work). They'd struggle without tax credits, mostly because housing costs are so high.

If the cuts are as mooted, £700/child = £2100, then giving back £380 by increasing the Personal Allowance to £12.5k won't compensate them.

Yeah. People like that shouldn't have to suffer at the hands of the self titled party of the working man.

Pedent

andrewmp wrote: »

Yeah. People like that shouldn't have to suffer at the hands of the self titled party of the working man.

And if they do lose out, then they deserve to be spared lectures about how the changes are designed to support hard-working families (as if the Smiths don't count), and how taking thousands of pounds a year away from them and giving them (and everyone else, no matter how rich) a few hundred back in reduced taxes will make them better off.

Let's have a little honesty: The Tories proposed welfare cuts that they didn't want to and never believed they would have to make purely as a negotiating position, because they thought that the only way that they'd get back into government was in a coalition with the Lib Dems, who would force them to compromise on the scale of any welfare cuts. They then found out that the electorate (those who vote, anyway), are bigger !!!!!!!s even than the Tories, and accidentally found themselves with a mandate to !!!! on families, those with disabilities, and those in low-income work, and they're too embarrassed to admit that they were bluffing and back down.

andrewmp

lyrical_gangster wrote: »

I'm using past events to predict future events. Since I was 14, I've had precisely seven months where I've not had a job. One month when leaving the army (although I was officially in the army still for my first two weeks of uni), and then six months when an old contract ran out.

It's about attitude. My father was made unemployed in the huge recession in the 90s. He was a manual worker but earned a good wage (around 600 p/w). Within a few months he had a business going that paid as well as the job he lost. Within several years he had an unrelated business, which pulled in nearly 200k per year. During this time he would work until midnight almost every night, staring at six am - this is whilst raising two kids as well - and my mum worked for the business too. Now he's taken semi-retirement and lives off his bank account.

This taught me that you make your own way. If you're poor and don't want to be, then do something about it.

What if you got into an accident and needed tax credits as you'd be unable to do the same sort of work and might not be in a position to do much about it.

Personally I think people like that should be supported by the state.

bloolagoon

Pedent wrote: »

And if they do lose out, then they deserve to be spared lectures about how the changes are designed to support hard-working families (as if the Smiths don't count), and how taking thousands of pounds a year away from them and giving them (and everyone else, no matter how rich) a few hundred back in reduced taxes will make them better off.

Let's have a little honesty: The Tories proposed welfare cuts that they didn't want to and never believed they would have to make purely as a negotiating position, because they thought that the only way that they'd get back into government was in a coalition with the Lib Dems, who would force them to compromise on the scale of any welfare cuts. They then found out that the electorate (those who vote, anyway), are bigger !!!!!!!s even than the Tories, and accidentally found themselves with a mandate to !!!! on families, those with disabilities, and those in low-income work, and they're too embarrassed to admit that they were bluffing and back down.

Did you agree with the child tax charge on high earners?

Even IF they lowered by £700 per child per year it would be a sliding scale. They don't get the full CTC now, so it would be a reduction of the £700, so possibly £100 a year. Not too much buckling of belts there.

andrewmp

Pedent wrote: »

And if they do lose out, then they deserve to be spared lectures about how the changes are designed to support hard-working families (as if the Smiths don't count), and how taking thousands of pounds a year away from them and giving them (and everyone else, no matter how rich) a few hundred back in reduced taxes will make them better off.

Let's have a little honesty: The Tories proposed welfare cuts that they didn't want to and never believed they would have to make purely as a negotiating position, because they thought that the only way that they'd get back into government was in a coalition with the Lib Dems, who would force them to compromise on the scale of any welfare cuts. They then found out that the electorate (those who vote, anyway), are bigger !!!!!!!s even than the Tories, and accidentally found themselves with a mandate to !!!! on families, those with disabilities, and those in low-income work, and they're too embarrassed to admit that they were bluffing and back down.

Sounds about right.

andrewmp

bloolagoon wrote: »

Did you agree with the child tax charge on high earners?

Even IF they lowered by £700 per child per year it would be a sliding scale. They don't get the full CTC now, so it would be a reduction of the £700, so possibly £100 a year. Not too much buckling of belts there.

Mr Smith would be £2100 worse off or thereabouts.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Pedent wrote: »

And if they do lose out, then they deserve to be spared lectures about how the changes are designed to support hard-working families (as if the Smiths don't count), and how taking thousands of pounds a year away from them and giving them (and everyone else, no matter how rich) a few hundred back in reduced taxes will make them better off.

Let's have a little honesty: The Tories proposed welfare cuts that they didn't want to and never believed they would have to make purely as a negotiating position, because they thought that the only way that they'd get back into government was in a coalition with the Lib Dems, who would force them to compromise on the scale of any welfare cuts. They then found out that the electorate (those who vote, anyway), are bigger !!!!!!!s even than the Tories, and accidentally found themselves with a mandate to !!!! on families, those with disabilities, and those in low-income work, and they're too embarrassed to admit that they were bluffing and back down.

I don't think I've read anything so far fetched since the last issue of The Beano.