MSE News: Summer Budget 2015: Millions to face benefit cuts

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

That's great then, Beccles can up her hours gradually to 24 extra hours a week, great stuff. :rotfl:

They're punishing the working low paid and aren't making work pay, sad really, no wonder IDS was so happy.

Well, quite, but I was giving a factual reply to the question asked.

But I see this thread is starting to take a DT type turn

zagfles

Urgent_advice_needed wrote: »

Why does the government feel it makes sense to attack the low paid as opposed to people who aren't working at all? I don't understand the logic, can someone explain?

It is strange particularly after billing it as a "budget for workers". I was expecting something like the base amounts of CTC to be cut, as they've increased massively in real terms over the last 12 years, but instead they froze them, increased the taper and reduced the threshold, which is a massive cut for those in low paid work but no cut at all for those out of work.

At least it'll make UC look better when people move onto it! Even before the budget, more people gained from UC than lost, now there'll be far less losers in UC.

zagfles

GirlFromMars wrote: »

I guess psychologically we're really susceptible to these kind of divide and rule tactics. It's worrying how easy it is for one disenfranchised group to blame another disenfranchised group. We're all so busy comparing our lot to everyone else, and if there's even a slight misconception that they're better off than us, clearly they're to blame & should face cuts.

Voting pensioners and their gold plated bus passes are about as far up the chain anyone is willing to vilify. I mean, who cares about the rich tax dodgers; they wear fancy suits & work exceptionally hard for the country, so obviously they need a few incentives to stick around or they'll all be off to China.

This isn't particularly in response to your post, but just a general observation, it seems that whenever people complain about "divide and rule" tactics they usually just suggest different divisions!

"It shouldn't be unemployed vs the low paid, it should be rich vs poor, or nurses vs bankers" :rotfl:

If we don't want divide and rule, then don't divide. Don't complain about the villification of one group and then go onto to villify another instead!

zagfles

backinbusiness wrote: »

Evening

I'm struggling to work out how this will impact on my income after April.

27hrs/week - £11,700 gross salary.

1 qualifying child.

Otherwise straightforward claim.

Can someone help please?

Thank you.

BiB

About £1600 cut in tax credits. If you get HB/LHA then they'll likely go up a bit to partially compensate.

Becles

zagfles wrote: »

It is strange particularly after billing it as a "budget for workers". I was expecting something like the base amounts of CTC to be cut, as they've increased massively in real terms over the last 12 years, but instead they froze them, increased the taper and reduced the threshold, which is a massive cut for those in low paid work but no cut at all for those out of work.

That's what has annoyed me the most. If it was a cut to child tax credits for all the people who claim child tax credits, I'd have been disappointed but accepted it. The plan that was announced just seems to penalise people for working, especially single parents as there is no other person to work extra hours to make up the loss.

Weary_soul

but no cut at all for those out of work.

Tell that to those in the ESA WRAG group who will loose £30 a week.

zagfles

Weary_soul wrote: »

Tell that to those in the ESA WRAG group who will loose £30 a week.

Don't play stupid games by snipping the context surrounding that. It was to do with the taper increase and threshold cut in tax credits. Those do not affect those out of work.

This thread really is going down the DT pan.

Weary_soul

Thats not playing games. I think It was a fair comment.

rogerblack

zagfles wrote: »

but no cut at all for those out of work.

Okaaay.
A) Benefit freeze for several years, decreasing the real-terms amount of benefit. (I think we're up to ~15% cut CPI by the time the current freeze ends)
Benefit cap reduction - to the point that many not be helped at all with housing costs if they have had even two weeks unemployed in the last year, to the point they may face eviction in only a few weeks.
C) Changing of SMI into loans.
D) 7 day waiting period for benefits, which disproportionally affects those with intermittent work.
E) Elimination of the work-related activity component in ESA and UC.

For those in partial work, a nasty perfect storm for UC for some.

F) Worsening of the effect of 'surplus earnings' measure due to the reduction of work allowances.
G) Increase in the minimum wage means that self-employed hours not at the minimum wage will reduce your UC as if it was. (also causes
H) Reduced work allowances.

For example, my understanding is that a single person with no housing costs (who now has a 0 work allowance) who goes into work at over 27 hours NMW/week, and comes off UC will now be expected to instead of investing in work, or bettering their condition, or paying off debts be expected to save most of their increase in earnings in case they lose their jobs.
This has obvious issues for those who are unable to find full-time work for long, due to its unavailability in an area.

zagfles

Weary_soul wrote: »

Thats not playing games. I think It was a fair comment.

Sorry maybe I was being a bit narky, it was the "Tell that to..." bit which got my goat - I'll tell anyone that the cut in the TC threshold and the taper increase won't affect them if they're out of work, because it's true.

It's a fair point to raise that other budget measures will hit some people out of work.