Tax credits cut petition

NPowerUser

Supported.

I think that both the threshold and taper rates are too drastic, if they were going to cut or freeze then they should have been introduced more gradually. By say dropping the threshold by smaller amounts over the lifetime of this parliament.

The idea that the majority of those affected by the changes, are going to be better off, is a fallacy.

Employers are going to have to recoup implementing the living wage from us. We are all going to be squeezed. Shopping bills will need to rise as will anywhere we buy goods and services where they employ lots of staff on low wages.

Employers wont be the ones picking up the tab, it will be you and me.

beecher2

blondebubbles wrote: »

You say the maintenance is for the child. So is child benefit and child tax credits. Some people believe the maintenance should be counted for these benefits.

I certainly do and I'd hazard a guess that most people would assume that they are already counted. It seems crazy that maintenance is not included in the calculation.

nannytone_2

before they stopped counting maintenance as income, it was fairly straight forward to administer.
those who received any means tested benefit HAD yp make a claim through the CSA.
Benefits were unaffected until the CSA had successfully traced, and made an award against a NRP.
means tested benefits were then reduced £ for £ after a £20 disregard.
the fact that maintenance was paid cia the CSA meant that it could be proven that maintenance either was/wasnt in payment

Blue22

dizzybuff wrote: »

Sign the petition please x we need to do everything in our power to try and stop these cuts.

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/s/tory-tax-credit-cut

Oh dear! haven't got time to explain but look up Frank Fields alternative proposal before signing.

kittygirl20

beecher2 wrote: »

To be honest the threads on this subject have been a real eye opener for me and I believe there is a strong case for reform of tax credits. I think they have encouraged low pay and too many people have chosen to work only a few hours and have their wages topped up by quite eye watering levels.

Exactly! I didn't need this forum to be aware of this too, why should we be subsidising people who deliberately cut their hours to receive top ups?

zagfles

woodbine wrote: »

signed and shared
i have to say that everyone seems to think that tax credits are something entirely new,doesn't anyone remember their predecessor?F.I.S,which was an income top up for those on low income,i remember we got it for a while in the late 90s

It was probably family credit then, FIS was much earlier in the 70's.

Top-ups for low income families have been around for over 40 years, and before that child tax allowances, but they were nowhere near as generous as tax credits now. Even after these cuts tax credits will be worth far more in real terms than family credit/FIS ever was.

zagfles

beecher2 wrote: »

I certainly do and I'd hazard a guess that most people would assume that they are already counted. It seems crazy that maintenance is not included in the calculation.

It was abolished just before the 2010 election, one of the elephant traps set by the last Labour govt when they knew they'd lose the election. They expected the Tories to reverse it and then they'd be able to harp on about how the Tories were attacking single parents etc etc.

Just like the other elephant trap of raising the 40% tax rate to 50% just before the election. The Tories did fall into that one, partially, when they cut it to 45%, giving Labour a massive propaganda opportunity which they exploited to the full. Didn't do them any good though, people aren't as stupid as they thought!

The Tories are getting their own back now, they've set some elephant traps of their own, such as the overall welfare spending cap.

Pity politics comes down to these sort of stunts. But that's the price of democracy I guess.

zagfles

Blue22 wrote: »

Oh dear! haven't got time to explain but look up Frank Fields alternative proposal before signing.

I don't agree with Frank's proposal but at least it (supposedly) saves the same amount of money.

The petition is a waste of time, the Tories won the election with a manifesto promise of a £12 billion cut in welfare. Anyone opposed to the cut needs to explain what alternative cuts in welfare should be made instead. At least Frank has done that.

dizzybuff

kittygirl20 wrote: »

Exactly! I didn't need this forum to be aware of this too, why should we be subsidising people who deliberately cut their hours to receive top ups?

The thing is I dont , I work full time thats 36 hours in the public sector, I have no way of earning anymore through overtime, other than getting a second job which will impeed on my already small time with my children.

I work bloody hard.. Okay im off to stuff my face with the carrot cake thats just been brought into the office.

SkyeKnight

beecher2 wrote: »

I certainly do and I'd hazard a guess that most people would assume that they are already counted. It seems crazy that maintenance is not included in the calculation.

I would guess that most cases of child maintenance involve the children living with the main carer who earns a lower wage and the largest wage earner paying. If we swap the Tax Credits taper from the higher earner to the carer it would almost certainly represent a big cut in income for them as an extended family. Most of the earners will not qualify for Tax Credits unless they have a new family - I can see quite a lot of complaining about this - but it would save lots of money for the government!

My point being: the current system is illogical but is the most generous overall.