Tax credit calculators for new budget 2016/17

andrewmp

blondebubbles wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but does this apply to all the tax credit changes from the budget? So does it also include the changes to the number of children rule due in 2017? Or only the 2016 changes?

The only bit they have knocked back is:

Citation, commencement and effect

1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and come into force on 6th April 2016.

(2) These Regulations have effect in relation to awards of tax credits for the tax year beginning on 6th April 2016 and subsequent tax years.

Amendment of the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) Regulations 2002

2.—(1) The Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) Regulations 2002(3) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 3 (manner in which amounts to be determined for the purposes of section 7(1)(a) of the Act)—

(a)in paragraph (2), for “£6,420” substitute “£3,850”; and

(b)in paragraph (3), for “£16,105” substitute “£12,125”.

(3) In paragraph (a) of regulation 5 (amounts prescribed for the purposes of section 7(3) of the Act) for “£5,000” substitute “£2,500”.

(4) In regulation 7(3) (determination of rate of working tax credit)—

(a)in Step 4, for “£6,420” substitute “£3,850”; and

(b)in Step 5, for “41%” substitute “48%”.

(5) In regulation 8(3) (determination of rate of child tax credit)—

(a)in Step 4, for “£16,105” substitute “£12,125”; and

(b)in Step 5, for “41%” substitute “48%”.

So the rest can stand if they still want it to.

Rebecca01

So is this for three years or will it be tapered until its completed in three years?

andrewmp

Rebecca01 wrote: »

So is this for three years or will it be tapered until its completed in three years?

I don't think anyone knows for sure yet. The lords motion called for transitional protection for at least three years. I'd expect Osborne will try to tinker now to minimize those impacted although I'm not sure if there will have to be transitional protection for those still effected in that case.

zagfles

andrewmp wrote: »

I don't think anyone knows for sure yet. The lords motion called for transitional protection for at least three years. I'd expect Osborne will try to tinker now to minimize those impacted although I'm not sure if there will have to be transitional protection for those still effected in that case.

I suppose what they might do is do a "reverse" UC transitional protection - eg work out what they'd get under UC and pay a top-up of that amount until the transition to UC. Would usually be quite easy to work out if done on an annual basis. With the changes - most people will now be significantly better off on UC.

And maybe fast-track those with the biggest differences onto UC - if they can get the IT working.

mel48rose

zagfles wrote: »

I suppose what they might do is do a "reverse" UC transitional protection - eg work out what they'd get under UC and pay a top-up of that amount until the transition to UC. Would usually be quite easy to work out if done on an annual basis. With the changes - most people will now be significantly better off on UC.

And maybe fast-track those with the biggest differences onto UC - if they can get the IT working.

That would make a lot of sense.

andrewmp

mel48rose wrote: »

That would make a lot of sense.

People would still lose out though, substantially in some cases. As it stands, UC still comes with transitional protection, obviously that was worthless had these cuts gone ahead.

The way it's going, I think we're a long way off any kind of transition to UC, or they'd have simply changed UC (which hardly anyone claims) and removed transitional protection and avoided all the drama.

mel48rose

andrewmp wrote: »

People would still lose out though, substantially in some cases. As it stands, UC still comes with transitional protection, obviously that was worthless had these cuts gone ahead.

The way it's going, I think we're a long way off any kind of transition to UC, or they'd have simply changed UC (which hardly anyone claims) and removed transitional protection and avoided all the drama.

Looks like another few weeks of worrying and waiting then.

andrewmp

mel48rose wrote: »

Looks like another few weeks of worrying and waiting then.

As far as I can tell, he's got no choice but to offer three years worth of transitional protection for existing claimants?

George Osborne has started addressing last night's defeat.
"We will continue to reform tax credits," he says.
He warns that they are "determined as ever" to follow through with their plans.
He says: "We need to have a welfare system that works."

Of course he could do a whole new bill, but that would have to be voted through commons, surely to get it through it would have to be watered down now though ?

bloolagoon

andrewmp wrote: »

As far as I can tell, he's got no choice but to offer three years worth of transitional protection for existing claimants?

George Osborne has started addressing last night's defeat.
"We will continue to reform tax credits," he says.
He warns that they are "determined as ever" to follow through with their plans.
He says: "We need to have a welfare system that works."

Of course he could do a whole new bill, but that would have to be voted through commons, surely to get it through it would have to be watered down now though ?

He could go with Frank fields suggestion

staffsuk

I can't see them bringing forward the transition to UC - it's already a mess and can still only deal with fairly simple cases. UC is nowhere near ready for the huge number & diversity of claimants.

Of more concern is the frankly awful possibility that Blondebubbles might be in a position to do all of those calculations again if GO comes up with some other weird equation!!!!