david cameron and tax credits

andrewmp

zagfles wrote: »

Ah, a reply starting with "So..." followed by an unfounded assumption. That rings all the Strawman alarms

Your assumption is wrong. Feel free to address what I actually wrote instead of addressing your unfounded assumption. Maybe landlords will have to if they aren't subsided so much by the state.

What is a Strawman alarm?

I'm glad you're also not supporting making the poorest hard working families worse off. Hopefully Cameron agrees with us.

Pedent

zagfles wrote: »

Up until the point where tax credits are reduced to zero, when they then keep 68%. If that point is lowered, then the incentive increases for those who now exceed (or could exceed) the lowered point.

Okay, yes, for a small number of people in a narrow income band, work incentives will be strengthened, but typically they won't. Typically incomes will be reduced significantly, work incentives will remain the same, and nothing will be done to encourage employers to increase wages.

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

What is a Strawman alarm?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Straw_man

I'm glad you're also not supporting making the poorest hard working families worse off. Hopefully Cameron agrees with us.

If I had my way I'd replace all means tested benefits and tax credits with a citizen's income based on need but not means, and a flat income tax rate set at whatever level was required to make it fiscally neutral.

But that's not going to happen, so pointless discussing it here. There is however a point in discussing the effects and outcomes of what is likely to happen. And refuting the scaremongering doomsday scenarios which cause unneccessary worry.

I spent a lot of time 5 years ago replying to people who were in panic mode about cuts after reading misleading and sensationalist stories in the press, and in a lot of cases their benefits/tax credits weren't even being cut at all, some were even better off!

zagfles

Pedent wrote: »

Okay, yes, for a small number of people in a narrow income band, work incentives will be strengthened, but typically they won't. Typically incomes will be reduced significantly, work incentives will remain the same, and nothing will be done to encourage employers to increase wages.

Well it depends how tax credits are cut.

I doubt they'll simply chop £1000 off the child element. I think it's more likely they'll do stuff like introduce capital rules, cap the number of children to 2 or 3 but only apply it to new children born after April next year say (so if you're already getting CTC for 5 children that will continue), maybe change the definition of income eg not to deduct pension contributions, increase hours requirement for WTC but possibly use hours x NMW like UC, etc.

The usual govt ploy with things like this is to leak info that you'll make massive cuts, then when the cuts aren't as bad as the press were predicting, and you don't end up with starving children on the street begging, everyone feels grateful that the govt "listened" to peoples' concerns and didn't do what what they originally planned. When they did!

andrewmp

zagfles wrote: »

Well it depends how tax credits are cut.

I doubt they'll simply chop £1000 off the child element. I think it's more likely they'll do stuff like introduce capital rules, cap the number of children to 2 or 3 but only apply it to new children born after April next year say (so if you're already getting CTC for 5 children that will continue), maybe change the definition of income eg not to deduct pension contributions, increase hours requirement for WTC but possibly use hours x NMW like UC, etc.

The usual govt ploy with things like this is to leak info that you'll make massive cuts, then when the cuts aren't as bad as the press were predicting, and you don't end up with starving children on the street begging, everyone feels grateful that the govt "listened" to peoples' concerns and didn't do what what they originally planned. When they did!

I would support those kind of changes, but would that save them enough money to satisfy the £12 billion they have pledged to save?

I think the worst thing they did with tax credits was include those who don't work. It pushed the cost right up at the same time as putting the working low paid into the same "box" as the never work brigade.

It'll all change with UC anyway which makes me wonder why they're targeting/mentioning tax credits by name as everyone will be getting UC eventually anyway.

bloolagoon

andrewmp wrote: »

What is a Strawman alarm?

I'm glad you're also not supporting making the poorest hard working families worse off. Hopefully Cameron agrees with us.

I don't think the Tories would backtrack on backing hard working families. The grey area is defining hard working and many believe running an Avon business, couples working 24 hours and even singles working 30 are not hard working.

Introducing the UC limits now will save now and after as no transitional protection without affecting anyone fully employed.

andrewmp

bloolagoon wrote: »

I don't think the Tories would backtrack on backing hard working families. The grey area is defining hard working and many believe running an Avon business, couples working 24 hours and even singles working 30 are not hard working.

Introducing the UC limits now will save now and after as no transitional protection without affecting anyone fully employed.

How much would introducing the UC limits now save? Close to the £12 billion required? I'd doubt it.

As always, the genuine hard working, but low paid, will be thrown in with the avon/unemployed and lose money. Increasing minimum wage, even to supposed living wage level won't help the working low paid with kids if tax credits are removed.

andrewmp

lyrical_gangster wrote: »

Nope keep the ladder there. Just don't subsidise the wage of the un-ambitious. Use the money to fund career development courses instead. You hear if educated people being unemployed from time to time, but you never hear about them working crappy paid jobs as anything more than a stop gap.

Topping up wages of the low paid does not encourage them to do better. Fair enough help people out of work, but if the job the do pays more than JSA that is sufficient.

Also don't reward such people with tax cuts either. Everyone should pay tax at a flat rate. If you find its not
enough, then earn more.

Though education - vocational and academic should be free for all.

OK, so lets say married Mr Smith is working full time supporting his wife and three young kids earning say £9 per hour, so circa £18k per year. He might currently receive Child Tax Credits of about £150 per week (£7800 per year).

If minimum wage goes up to say £8 per hour, Mr Smith will see no improvement in his wages so any reduction will not be offset by a rise in the minimum wage.

Mr Smith might be ambitious, he might quite fancy the idea of going to University to better his life, but he can't afford to because he has a mortgage to pay/kids to feed.

Is it right that Mr Smith should be made to be thousands of pounds worse off, to satisfy a pre-election pledge they didn't really expect to have to keep.

wiltsguy_2

andrewmp wrote: »

OK, so lets say married Mr Smith is working full time supporting his wife and three young kids earning say £9 per hour, so circa £18k per year. He might currently receive Child Tax Credits of about £150 per week (£7800 per year).

.

could Mrs Smith not work nightshift when Mr Smith Gets home or vice versa, thus relieving the burden on the tax payer and not need tax credits? That's what my wife and i did when we were younger and didnt earn a lot of money to support our growing family.

andrewmp

wiltsguy wrote: »

could Mrs Smith not work nightshift when Mr Smith Gets home or vice versa, thus relieving the burden on the tax payer and not need tax credits? That's what my wife and i did when we were younger and didnt earn a lot of money to support our growing family.

I reckon Mrs Smith might be a bit knackered after running around after three kids all day to work at night anyway, and when would she be able to sleep, but lets pretend she's a vampire and doesn't need sleep....

Mr Smith often has to work late too anyway and works different shifts each week, as is the norm in a lot of jobs these days. So it wouldn't really be possible. Should the hard working Mr Smith and his young family lose thousands per year?