The Budget

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd have to strongly disagree here.

She may not need a car, but to find a job within walking distance of home and never have to use transport with 2 kids seems a little fanciful. Even in London that would be difficult.

With all due respect, the majority of people in the scenario you talk of will need some form of transport.

Look at most SOA's on the debt board and they all have transport costs, as it's completely normal.

If were going to have a debate on tax credits and then use the anomally of someone with 2 kids, who goes to work and doesn't have transport costs, we'll never come to any conclusion.

I do have 2 kids. I know that a simple kids party costs at least a tenner when you have included a gift and transported them there. A pair of school shoes, £30. A school uniform, £30. A school trip, £15. It all adds up quite significantly.

well she is a renter so she can rent close to where she works then.....

Yes those things cost money but even if she spends £80pw on food and £40pw on utilities she has £150pw to spend on school uniforms and shoes and trips.

PS get her out of london and give her £30pw more if you like, overall itll be less cost to the state

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

well she is a renter so she can rent close to where she works then.....

Easy, if she's got 2k to move tenancies in the first place.

Yes those things cost money but even if she spends £80pw on food and £40pw on utilities she has £150pw to spend on school uniforms and shoes and trips.

Well she doesn't. So far she hasn't even got a TV as she hasn't paid for her TV licence. She doesn't have any internet as she hasn't paid for a phone or broadband. She hasn't got any transport so can't shop very well.

Infact, what is she doing in your scenario which leaves her with this money? Knitting saucepans to cook in?

I'm not saying she'll be stone broke. What I'm saying is that your scenario is worlds away from most peoples circumstances. I'm also saying working should at least put her ahead of the unemployed. And now, it doesn't.

Infact, looking back, this conversation is so utterly pointless that, with respect, I'm out. What next? Stick them in a workhouse?

The key fact remains, she's lost £116 a month, and that's going to hurt anyone on these lower incomes, regardless.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Easy, if she's got 2k to move tenancies in the first place.

She will probably get a council flat but...

Agent fees will be ~£500 any deposit is from one flat to the other. Or she could stop paying her rent for a couple of months get the landlord to give her a good reference (to get her out) and use that money.

people find a way if needs must

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well she doesn't. So far she hasn't even got a TV as she hasn't paid for her TV licence. She doesn't have any internet as she hasn't paid for a phone or broadband. She hasn't got any transport so can't shop very well.

£40pw in utilities covers all that. (£25pw gas electric water. £15pw TV Broadband)

She is in London, more supermarkets within a 20 min walk than rats

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Infact, what is she doing in your scenario which leaves her with this money? Knitting saucepans to cook in?

How many saucepans do you need? I dont even recall when the last time it was I baught any. Oh actually I baught some knives about a month ago for £10 for half a dozen.


But I have already said I dont know how much a woman with two kids needs to live on (after housing and council tax is taken care of). Maybe you can tell me what you think its doable for you if you had 2 kids (say 5 and 10) and just yourself

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

She will probably get a council flat but...

Agent fees will be ~£500 any deposit is from one flat to the other.

You are being a bit ridiculous now. You don't get your deposit back before you have left.

Anyway, good point made just now on Question Time.

It's been worked out that the less money you make, the more in tax credits that you lose. The poorest 10% of working people will lose on average £800 per year.

The good news though is that if you are wealthy enough to have £1m in assets on your death, you'll pay less tax than you would have done.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not saying she'll be stone broke. What I'm saying is that your scenario is worlds away from most peoples circumstances. I'm also saying working should at least put her ahead of the unemployed. And now, it doesn't.

Infact, looking back, this conversation is so utterly pointless that, with respect, I'm out. What next? Stick them in a workhouse?

The key fact remains, she's lost £116 a month (THAT IS WRONG:CELLS EDIT), and that's going to hurt anyone on these lower incomes, regardless.

believe me better people than you and me combined have wondered and pondered how to fix the problem of an extremely high marginal tax rate for people on welfare and there is no easy solution. The current or next idea is to reduce the marginal tax from ~90% to 65% lets hope its better but we wont know until its out

The key fact remains, at £26k benefits she gets more in take home than half the country earns PRE tax.


PS: She is £66.48 a month (£15.34pw) worse off when you take into account she moves from £6.50ph income to £7.20ph.

Also the current calculators are dumb and dont look at other factors like HB or CT etc and I suspect she will get a little more help on both of those so the actual reduction once all benefits are factored will likely be less than £15.34PW less income.

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are being a bit ridiculous now. You don't get your deposit back before you have left.

Anyway, good point made just now on Question Time.

It's been worked out that the less money you make, the more in tax credits that you lose. The poorest 10% of working people will lose on average £800 per year.

The good news though is that if you are wealthy enough to have £1m in assets on your death, you'll pay less tax than you would have done.

An average earner has been screwed for too long, makes a change this time round.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are being a bit ridiculous now. You don't get your deposit back before you have left.

Dont pay your last months rent let the LL take it out the deposit

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Anyway, good point made just now on Question Time.

It's been worked out that the less money you make, the more in tax credits that you lose. The poorest 10% of working people will lose on average £800 per year.

The good news though is that if you are wealthy enough to have £1m in assets on your death, you'll pay less tax than you would have done.

Question time is live isnt it, you can say anything on there

The calculators ive seen show the more you make the more you lose, which makes sense


Either way, I am in agreement that its a big change. But lets wait and see how how HB and CTB react as I suspect that will reduce the impact somewhat (that is to say HB and CTB payments for a lot of working people will go up a bit)

Generali

cells wrote: »

in my area they get £222 of the £300pw in HB for that example woman with two kids but no council tax supports

Even after rent and council tax she is left with £293pw post yesterdays changes

That might be just enough to pay the childcare bills!:eek:

cells

Generalis_ wrote: »

That might be just enough to pay for childcare

I think there is upto 30h 'free' childcare for those that work

but I mist admit it seems fekin weird to me. State Pay £6k for 'free' childcare so the parents can go out and work so they can pay £3k in tax. Either its extremely stupid or I've missed what this free childcare schemes are about

How funny would it be if there were childminders who can only go to work if they claim the government's free childcare to have a childminder look after their kods while thwor at work looking after someone else's kids

Generali

cells wrote: »

I think there is upto 30h 'free' childcare for those that work

but I mist admit it seems fekin weird to me. State Pay £6k for 'free' childcare so the parents can go out and work so they can pay £3k in tax. Either its extremely stupid or I've missed what this free childcare schemes are about

How funny would it be if there were childminders who can only go to work if they claim the government's free childcare to have a childminder look after their kods while thwor at work looking after someone else's kids

A lot of it is so women's skills don't atrophy I think. It's a bit hopeless employing an accountant who is expert in tax law from ten years ago!