The Budget

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

They would get a 20p a hour rise which would give them £296 a year after tax.

Graham_Devon

Plus, to add salt to the wounds, this is what Cameron stated on the leaders Question Time running up to the elections...

Remember when Danny Alexander let slip regarding the child tax credits and their plan to reduce them?

Well Camerons response on live TV was:

Mr Cameron said: "I don't want to do that. This report that was out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject again today."


Asked if this was an "absolute guarantee" not to cut child benefit or child tax credit, the Conservative leader said: "Child tax credit we increased by £450. That's not going to fall. Child benefit, to me is one of the most important benefits there is. It goes directly to the family - normally to the mother - £20 for the first child, £14 for the second.

There really should be something done when all out lies are stated in the run up to an election. Especially when it turns out they didn't just fall, they were drastically cut.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

They would get a 20p a hour rise which would give them £296 a year after tax.

Still leaves them £1,600 worse off.

The budget calculator does include the increase in wages!!! Wouldn't be a budget calculator otherwise!

If I give you £10, and you give me £54 in return, will you turn around and say "oh, lovely, I'm £10 better off"?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

My mistake on the last post, when I put the numbers into another calc for a single person with two kids getting paid £12,950 per year it shows up as -£1,563


Although quite substantial decrease in benifits such a person still has a take home of £20327.00 = £390.90 per week take home pay


Also they probably get some/all of their rent and council tax paid too?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

My mistake on the last post, when I put the numbers into another calc for a single person with two kids getting paid £12,950 per year it shows up as -£1,563


Although quite substantial decrease in benifits such a person still has a take home of £20327.00 = £390.90 per week take home pay


Also they probably get some/all of their rent and council tax paid too?

Firstly, on that amount, no, they most certainly WON'T get all of their rent and council tax paid.

Secondly, increasing the size of the font and underlining it doesn't take away from the fact that regardless of what you say, they are still £1,563 worse off a year.

I mean, I know people like to wear the rose tints from time to time, but come on now!

And in any case, how can someone earning £12,950 have a take home pay of £20,327?

cells

One of the worst things about the system we have is that if you do go out and get a better paying job or work more hours you get almost no improvement in your life

A single mother on £20k (working 60h a week) gets a take home of £2.2k more than a single mother on £10k (working 30 hours a week)

Or they get to take home just £1.47p an hour for each extra hour they work

With such a system I too would work as few hours and as easy a job as I could find

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Plus, to add salt to the wounds, this is what Cameron stated on the leaders Question Time running up to the elections...

Remember when Danny Alexander let slip regarding the child tax credits and their plan to reduce them?

Well Camerons response on live TV was:



There really should be something done when all out lies are stated in the run up to an election. Especially when it turns out they didn't just fall, they were drastically cut.

Come on, the amount of ctc has not been cut - merely the threshold reduced and the withdrawal rate increased

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Increasing the size of the font and underlining it doesn't take away from the fact that regardless of what you say, they are still £1,563 worse off a year.

I mean, I know people like to wear the rose tints from time to time, but come on now!

And in any case, how can someone earning £12,950 have a take home pay of £20,327?

According to the calculator a single parent with two kids on £12,950 annual income for next year...

Gets £12,950 wage

Pays
£391.80 in income tax
£539.88 in NI

Is given
£6512.68 in Tax Credits
£1788.80 in Child Benifits

= £20,328.80 per year take home (£390.94 per week)


Sure they may be getting less than this year but seriously £390.94 per week take home is quite good money esp as some or all of the rent will also be paid for

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Still leaves them £1,600 worse off.

The budget calculator does include the increase in wages!!! Wouldn't be a budget calculator otherwise!

If I give you £10, and you give me £54 in return, will you turn around and say "oh, lovely, I'm £10 better off"?

I don't think it does as NI is same for both years indicating earnings are still the same but as you say still nearly £1600 a year worse off.

cells

A single parent with two baba working for an annual wage of £8k will be £1344.20 worse off the poor darlin

She will have to somehow survive on her new take home pay of £359.26 per week with no? council tax or rent to pay that seems quite doable