david cameron and tax credits

andrewmp

zagfles wrote: »

You'd be in a minority if you voted Labour too! See the first graph here:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/to-explain-voting-intentions-income-is-more-important-for-the-conservatives-than-for-labour/

Once above £10k support for Labour isn't vastly different to the Tories. Plus of course as we saw in the last election, opinion polling tends to underestimate Tory support.

Fiscal policy isn't the only reason for voting of course, but even if it is, take a couple with no kids both on NMW who are certainly "working low paid" by definition.

They'd likely get nothing in benefits or tax credits. Over the last 10 years - Labour raised their income tax by abolishing the 10% tax band. The Tories/Lib Dems reduced their income tax by raising the personal allowance.

Under Labour council tax went up by way over inflation. Under the coalition they mostly stayed the same or went up by less than inflation.

Under Labour fuel tax went up by well over inflation, under the coalition they were cut in real terms.

VAT went up under the coalition, but that is easily less significant than the other taxes for those on low pay.

This might sound like a party political broadcast but that's not my intention - just to point out there are perfectly logical and rational reasons why some people on low pay vote conservative. Of course some people still vote based on tired old tribal stereotypes...

You make some good points there, the link to the income thing pretty much backs up what I assumed, the more you earn, the more likely you are to vote conservative.

The increased income tax threshold was a great idea, it wasn't a conservative idea though.

VAT went up under the last government too. I don't think the last government did a bad job though and as a working person I was certainly better off as a result of their policies. I'm just hoping a conservative government can be as seemingly sensible without the liberals keeping them from reverting to form.

missapril75

andrewmp wrote: »

I'm just hoping a conservative government can be as seemingly sensible without the liberals keeping them from reverting to form.

Perhaps I'm misreading that but far from keeping the Conservatives in check, the Liberals enabled them to carry on penalising the poor and rewarding the rich.

andrewmp

missapril75 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misreading that but far from keeping the Conservatives in check, the Liberals enabled them to carry on penalising the poor and rewarding the rich.

Youre right, I think you're reading that wrong.

Big_John_246

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

Been reading about the money Cameron wants to save in the budget.

It says the main benefit to be cut will be tax credits.

How can he possibly do that with so many on this benefit who are working the few hours that their employer gives them and are also on NMW?

It would crucify the population as the newspapers are saying there are millions of people on this benefit. Surely it would be in staged amounts so that an employer can raise the hours and increase the hourly rate bit by bit.

It is quite ironic that he Cameron is saying this, I am a civil servant and I am on a low wage and get working tax credits to help and I do struggle, so what I feel he is saying to me is;

"you are on a low wage and we pay your wage but we are not going to help you any more as there are more wealthy people that need it, :rotfl: or we might even use it on our MPs wages." :j

We have also had a pay freeze for years.

If anyone voted for this T__T you have only got yourself to blame, but I can assure you he did not get my vote. :mad:

bloolagoon

Big_John_246 wrote: »

It is quite ironic that he Cameron is saying this, I am a civil servant and I am on a low wage and get working tax credits to help and I do struggle, so what I feel he is saying to me is;

"you are on a low wage and we pay your wage but we are not going to help you any more as there are more wealthy people that need it, :rotfl: or we might even use it on our MPs wages." :j

We have also had a pay freeze for years.

If anyone voted for this T__T you have only got yourself to blame, but I can assure you he did not get my vote. :mad:

I'm suprised to read that. I always assumed 2 working civil servants would be above WTC by miles.

nannytone_2

an AA grade in the civil service, probably earns around 15k a year ( full time)

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

Why is that known as a strawman?

It's an analogy of being unable to knock the "man" down, ie being unable to provide a counter argument to the point actually made, so instead, build a "man of straw", ie something which vaguely resembles the "man" but which is a lot easier to knock down.

It's a common tactic used mainly, but not always, by those on the left. It often includes an implication of moral judgement, and is often used as an excuse for an angry and judgemental response to attempt to gain the moral high ground.

An example (about benefits, to keep it on topic):

A: I think benefit rates are easily enough to provide the basics for living
B: So you think benefit claimants live in the lap of luxury do you? Well, I can tell you from personal experience I could never afford champagne and caviar when I was on benefits...

So knocking down the "strawman" - ie the claim which was never made that benefit claimants live in luxury, which is quite easy, rather than addressing the actual point made, which is that they are sufficient.

zagfles

nannytone wrote: »

an AA grade in the civil service, probably earns around 15k a year ( full time)

Which would be above the WTC limit for a single person (unless disabled).

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

You make some good points there, the link to the income thing pretty much backs up what I assumed, the more you earn, the more likely you are to vote conservative.

Indeed and that's always been the case, but the difference isn't that great amongst those at the income level of the "working poor".

The increased income tax threshold was a great idea, it wasn't a conservative idea though.

Indeed it was, but the Tories have nicked it and decided to increase it even increase it further by promising to set the allowance at full time NMW, about £12.5k.

VAT went up under the last government too. I don't think the last government did a bad job though and as a working person I was certainly better off as a result of their policies. I'm just hoping a conservative government can be as seemingly sensible without the liberals keeping them from reverting to form.

Yes, I think people who slated the LibDems will soon start to see their value in govt! The IFS did an analysis of the tax and benefits changes of the last govt, see the first 2 slides here:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/budget2015/Distributional_slides_post_budget_draft_2015and2017.pdf

As you can see, the richest 10% actually lost the most due to the changes made by the coalition, and even in percentage terms they lost more than the average.

Wonder if that will continue? Will the Tories start helping their "rich mates" as their opponents always accuse them of? Because they haven't done a very good job of it so far!

missapril75

zagfles wrote: »

As you can see, the richest 10% actually lost the most due to the changes made by the coalition, and even in percentage terms they lost more than the average.
Wonder if that will continue? Will the Tories start helping their "rich mates" as their opponents always accuse them of? Because they haven't done a very good job of it so far!

Or perhaps they have.

ONS says median disposable income remains lower than in 2008, with poorest fifth paying disproportionately more of their income in taxes than richest fifth