The Budget

Rinoa

A difficult balancing decision for Osborne.

Everyone agrees welfare needs sorting out. Labour were planning cuts too. And ultimately if you are going to cut benefits, those who receive the biggest handouts will obviously be the hardest hit.

Having said that it's a shame those on low incomes, who do at least try to help themselves, are losing significantly.

Thrugelmir

Rinoa wrote: »

Having said that it's a shame those on low incomes, who do at least try to help themselves, are losing significantly.

The system that's evolved since 2003 is abused by people and employers alike. Once the changes are introduced. Then there'll be plenty of opportunity to tweak.

michaels

Got to be taking a bunch of money out of the economy though - that 2.6bn plus taken out of tax credits would all be spent, the tax reductions for medium earners is much more likely to at least in part be saved. There is macro-economics at work as well as micro...

lvader

Wild_Rover wrote: »

You did look at the graph, yes? You saw the cash losses for those who already have the least?

That is why they increased the minimum wage, so that people working full time would be better off overall. The chart doesn't take the income increase into account.

cells

Should have gone with £9 for the living wage from Jan2016 and triple locked to increase like the pensions

missbiggles1

lvader wrote: »

That is why they increased the minimum wage, so that people working full time would be better off overall. The chart doesn't take the income increase into account.

30p an hour doesn't balance out with losing a grand or more a year.

Graham_Devon

lvader wrote: »

That is why they increased the minimum wage, so that people working full time would be better off overall. The chart doesn't take the income increase into account.

Many people working full time WON'T be better off.

Only those who have no children will be better off.

For someone working 37 hours a week at £7 an hour with no children, they will be better off by a whopping £80 a year.

For someone working 37 hours a week at £7 an hour with 2 children, they will be worse off by £1,646.

For a couple working 53 hours a week at £7 an hour (37 hours + 16 hours) with 2 children, they will be worse off by £952.

For a couple both working 37 hours a week at £7 an hour with 2 children, they will be worse off by £1,407.

For a couple working 53 hours a week at £7 an hour with 1 child they will be worse off by £952.

Pretty much any couple or single parent working lower paid jobs are going to be significantly worse off. They are stuffed. The only hope is a better paying job. But even then..

For a couple where one works 37 hours a week at £12 an hour, and the other works 16 hours a week for minimum wage, they will be £1,566.... yep, you guessed it....worse off.

Theres pretty much no escape. Families with kids have been absolutely hammered. I'm not sure people have quite woken up to the sheer size of the reduction in tax credits that hits families with children.

We also seem to be obsessed with this rise to the living wage. All those earning £7.50 today aren't likely to see their wage increase to £8.20. Take those in the public sector, we already know the plethora of admin staff will receive no more than a 1% rise, so they don't even benefit from this 30p increase. They simply lose tax credits.

** all according to the BBC budget calculator.

Edit: Actually, I think I have just woken up a bit more looking at the budget calculator. I'm with Michaels, this is going to hit the economy hard. Especially if landlords DO react as they suggest they will and jack up rents to cover their losses due to increased taxation.

[Deleted User]

cells wrote: »

I just put in one person with two kids working 37h x £7ph x 50wk and it says they are better off by £80 .............. and that assumes they get nil pay rise

How many folk do you know who only get 2 weeks' holiday a year?

I worked for over 30 years (I know, beaten to death, eh?) and I don't think I ever met anyone who had 10 day's leave or 2 weeks' holidays p.a.

WR

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

I just put in one person with two kids working 37h x £7ph x 50wk and it says they are better off by £80 .............. and that assumes they get nil pay rise

Well one of us is doing something wrong.

But I have to say, I can't mimmick that using the BBC calculator here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946

My result, based on your numbers states:
In 2016-17 you will be worse off by about £1,610

michaels

Wild_Rover wrote: »

How many folk do you know who only get 2 weeks' holiday a year?

I worked for over 30 years (I know, beaten to death, eh?) and I don't think I ever met anyone who had 10 day's leave or 2 weeks' holidays p.a.

WR

Um surely everyone working in a permanent job gets paid for 52 weeks per year regardless of how much leave they get under EU rules?