Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

Fatherof2mids

That's where the differences are, I don't have my worth tied to that of others. I would like to see everyone comfortable and with the same chance no matter class or profession of parents.

I am a professional, I receive 0 benefits and never have. I would not however, like to think that my children have an advantage over any others , other than the work they are willing to put in.

I would like to see an environment where every child receives a fair chance regardless of family circumstances and this government will not allow that

leveller2911

Weary_soul wrote: »

Oh god no. I've read more then enough of this thread to realise whatever is said is ignored, so what the bloody point?

I'll just leave you to your poor bashing and spouting right wing propaganda.

Define poor?..............Think you must be one of the champagne socialist we had back in Bliars day.

I know genuinely poor people, those who worked for 50 years in agriculture,hands deformed from arthritis and you walk into their kitchen and theres a cooker,fridge,table and 2 chairs and thats it, the heating for the whole house is a 40yr old woodburner. They don't whinge and whine about a drop in tax credits and housing benefit , they wouldn't know what TC and HB were. Its alien to them.

Being an apologist for the faux poor is so 90's.

cavework

GirlFromMars wrote: »

Err, I get that, but thanks for reiterating it as I'm sure someone on the forum hasn't got their head around it yet.

The problem is that work stopped paying, and benefits started to top up low wage employers.

A family used to be able to survive comfortably on a single salary and buy their own home. That is no longer the case. Without two parents earning a significant amount of money home ownership is impossible without government assistance, and renting is shockingly expensive.


The problem is not that benefits are too high, but that wages are much lower than before in comparison to household costs.

Work should pay, and an increase in the national minimum wage is welcomed and will reduce Tax Credits accordingly as employers pay more. Sadly the government didn't stick with just increasing the minimum wage.

So just a simple probably stupid question but here goes..
who pays for the NMW increase.. the employers?..their customers..
no ..
it will be the end user
That would be you probably?
If employers are forced to increase the wages they are paying , just WHO is going to subsidise this increase?
Please don't tell me it will just be the relief in tax credits


Please can someone help me out on this one , as I would really like to know the answer

Bogof_Babe

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

I would like to see an environment where every child receives a fair chance regardless of family circumstances and this government will not allow that

I would like to see an environment where every child receives a decent example of how families should at least attempt to support themselves!

How many times do we read on the Benefits board that someone has been told to apply for a NMW job, and being indignant that they'll be "working for £1 an hour" or some such? Er, no, they would be working for £6.50 an hour, out of which they will be expected to provide for themselves rather than holding out the eternal begging bowl.

How many times do employers who use this forum comment that they cannot get staff to do overtime as it will reduce their Tax Credits?

People should be proud to pay their way, not resentful at having to.

bloolagoon

GirlFromMars wrote: »

Err, I get that, but thanks for reiterating it as I'm sure someone on the forum hasn't got their head around it yet.

The problem is that work stopped paying, and benefits started to top up low wage employers.

A family used to be able to survive comfortably on a single salary and buy their own home. That is no longer the case. Without two parents earning a significant amount of money home ownership is impossible without government assistance, and renting is shockingly expensive.

When women entered the work place in large numbers, a two wage household became the norm and house prices increased accordingly. We've started living in smaller households but prices haven't dropped as the increased number of households means more demand and no new supply.

The problem is not that benefits are too high, but that wages are much lower than before in comparison to household costs.

Work should pay, and an increase in the national minimum wage is welcomed and will reduce Tax Credits accordingly as employers pay more. Sadly the government didn't stick with just increasing the minimum wage.

You really don't need me to show you the increase in NMW and tax credits over the last 10 years v average salary and HR tax thresholds.

Year on year it's the middle sqeezed - they can't take from us any more and all it's done is raise things further.

If you increase NMW as we have done over the years without reducing tax credits it changes nothing. The living wage just goes up. Landlords charge what they know people can pay.

GirlFromMars_2

cavework wrote: »

So just a simple probably stupid question but here goes..
who pays for the NMW increase.. the employers?..their customers..
no ..
it will be the end user
That would be you probably?
If employers are forced to increase the wages they are paying , just WHO is going to subsidise this increase?
Please don't tell me it will just be the relief in tax credits


Please can someone help me out on this one , as I would really like to know the answer

What do you think will be the consequence to business of taking nearly £2000 from many lower income families. Do you think that money is sitting in the bank? Nope, they're spending it in shops & businesses, it is going into the economy. Cutting Tax Credits will mean less money in the economy and lower profits for business.

The minimum wage should be increased/decreased yearly depending on the economy. Large employers with billions in profits & very little tax paid should not be paying minimum wage in the first place, and should have business models flexible enough to take into account small rises.

bloolagoon

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

That's where the differences are, I don't have my worth tied to that of others. I would like to see everyone comfortable and with the same chance no matter class or profession of parents.

I am a professional, I receive 0 benefits and never have. I would not however, like to think that my children have an advantage over any others , other than the work they are willing to put in.

I would like to see an environment where every child receives a fair chance regardless of family circumstances and this government will not allow that

How are they not achieving that? A family earning £15,000 with 4 children will be the same net as £45k earner.

What are we teaching school leavers. Get a low paid job to be paid the same as one you need to work for. Your children don't have any advantages. They have less advantages as they see you less.

GirlFromMars_2

bloolagoon wrote: »

You really don't need me to show you the increase in NMW and tax credits over the last 10 years v average salary and HR tax thresholds.

Year on year it's the middle sqeezed - they can't take from us any more and all it's done is raise things further.

If you increase NMW as we have done over the years without reducing tax credits it changes nothing. The living wage just goes up. Landlords charge what they know people can pay.

If you can think of a way to legislate for increased wages across the board I'd be very happy.

Business models that push for maximum profits, minimum tax, minimum expenditure & treat the workforce as a "resource" are great if you're a shareholder. Not so good for any of the rest of us. And alongside BTL Landlords & spiralling housing costs they are a tragedy.

cavework

GirlFromMars wrote: »

What do you think will be the consequence to business of taking nearly £2000 from many lower income families. Do you think that money is sitting in the bank? Nope, they're spending it in shops & businesses, it is going into the economy. Cutting Tax Credits will mean less money in the economy and lower profits for business.

The minimum wage should be increased/decreased yearly depending on the economy. Large employers with billions in profits & very little tax paid should not be paying minimum wage in the first place, and should have business models flexible enough to take into account small rises.

that's all very well and good but there are a huge amount of SMB,s that account for a large amount of employment in this country.. not all are large employers .
The large companies business models that take into account these 'small' rises usually involve squeezing their smaller suppliers

GirlFromMars_2

cavework wrote: »

that's all very well and good but there are a huge amount of SMB,s that account for a large amount of employment in this country.. not all are large employers .
The large companies business models that take into account these 'small' rises usually involve squeezing their smaller suppliers

The country does indeed need to do a lot more to support small businesses. I have no idea why the biggest companies get such cushy deals. Ok, they employ a lot of people but surely something can be done to improve things.