Tax Credits

michaels

But back to the age old question, if you try and abolish inequality of outcome you also remove any incentive and thus end up levelling down.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

How can I possibly answer that Clapton when as you said yourself we don't know their circs. These things have been argued about in one way or another for as long as people have lived in communities. All I do know is that if we become too judgemental over others it says something about us.....and I'll also say this.... that you are doing exactly what Osborne wants you to do....preoccupy yourself with the 'undeserving' poor who may be taking advantage of the 'taxpayer' who by the way does not just mean you but also me and millions of others while ignoring totally the real inequity all around us!

It's absolutely right to become judgmental about other people's behaviour as it affects others : it's the basis of any just society

in fact you have never written a non judgment post : so there is some small hope for you yet.

In many ways I envy the simplicity of your life
Tory = evil
IRA loving Corbyn = good.

Moby

michaels wrote: »

But back to the age old question, if you try and abolish inequality of outcome you also remove any incentive and thus end up levelling down.

Inequality of outcome is not the issue....It's inequality of opportunity!

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

It's absolutely right to become judgmental about
other


people's behaviour as it affects others : it's the basis of any just
society

Of course Clapton you know all about justice don't you and I totally agree that you clearly believe in your own right to judge others....that's the very problem I'm describing. Now you have to just move on to the next stage .....you know the bit that says that not even I.... 'Clapton' knows everything....do you think you can do that?;)

in fact you have never written a non judgment post : so there is some
small


hope for you yet.

What?

In many ways I envy the simplicity of your life








Tory = evil








IRA loving Corbyn = good.

[/QUOTE]

No ...not quite! now pay attention. Tory 'evil' yes that bit was right....but I'd add a 'scum' on that as well for extra effect but the Corbyn 'good' bit is wrong....because I acknowledge he is unelectable and that's not good for people like me.:(

zagfles

Moby wrote: »

The Daily Torygraph.......Puuuuurlease!:rotfl:

Yeah, I wonder who's got their facts right? But I guess I'm missing the point, why spoil a good opportunity for a sanctimonious sob story with inconvenient facts?

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Inequality of outcome is not the issue....It's inequality of opportunity!

what is inequality of opportunity caused by?

50% of UK kids can go to Uni

all UK children have more spent on them than 95% of the worlds children

it is true that some UK kids live in poor homes with parents addicted to idleness, petty crime etc.
Sadly the benefits culture fails these children.

kinger101

zagfles wrote: »

Yeah, I wonder who's got their facts right? But I guess I'm missing the point, why spoil a good opportunity for a sanctimonious sob story with inconvenient facts?

The changes only impact those who earn money. The lady on QT doesn't fall into this category by her own admission. Therefore, the Telegraph article would appear correct.

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Tax_Credits_cuts_April_2016

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

The changes only impact those who earn money. The lady on QT doesn't fall into this category by her own admission. Therefore, the Telegraph article would appear correct.

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Tax_Credits_cuts_April_2016

however, if she did get a job earning minimum wages she would, overall be better off.

zagfles

michaels wrote: »

But back to the age old question, if you try and abolish inequality of outcome you also remove any incentive and thus end up levelling down.

Which is really what tax credits do - for an average family they face a MDR of somewhere between 73% and 100%, until their income is around average, then once their income is above average, their MDR goes down to 32%. The tax system is supposedly progressive :rotfl:it's actually regressive with the poorest paying the highest marginal rates once tax credits/benefits withdrawal are taken into account.

This isn't a co-incidence. It fits with the child poverty targets, which mandate high marginal rates on the poorest. This is because the "poverty line" is defined as 60% of median household income, fiddled to account for family size.

This means policy must reduce the gap the median and the bottom, not the rich and the poor. As that defines how many children are in "poverty". If the median and poorest are close in net income, poverty is low, if the median and poorest are far apart, "poverty" levels are high. Therefore policy must keep them close, and that means high MDR's on the poorest half.

Using median rather than mean is clever. It means the income of anyone above the median can go up and it won't affect the child poverty targets at all, because it doesn't raise the median. So the rich can fill their boots, it won't put more children in "poverty". So it doesn't matter that people above average incomes have low MDRs.

zagfles

kinger101 wrote: »

The changes only impact those who earn money. The lady on QT doesn't fall into this category by her own admission. Therefore, the Telegraph article would appear correct.

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Tax_Credits_cuts_April_2016

If it's true her net income is zero, then the article is definitely right. The cuts to tax credits are massive, and there will be people who this will hit hard, but it's not those at the bottom, the more you earn the bigger the hit.