Tax Credits

kinger101

zagfles wrote: »

Politically it could be brilliant. I'm starting to think they're playing this in the same way as the child benefit cut for high earners.

That was a hugely popular policy with the general public - something like 80%+ support. It had unfair anomilies, such as 2 earners on £50k each ie £100k between them got no cut but a single earner on £60k got their entire child ben cut. But even these anomilies were politically brilliant, as it kept a popular policy in the headlines, and all the typical Sun reader would take in is "the rich complaining about losing benefits".

The tax credits cut is similar in that the biggest losers are those with the highest incomes. Some families will lose £3000 - yes those on £32k. This then highlights the fact that some people on £32k are getting £3k+ in tax credits. The reaction of your typical Sun reader who's probably never had a job paying above £20k is likely to be the same as when he hears people whinging about the child ben cut. Diddums, the "rich" complaining about benefits cuts.

The reality is most voters have a tiny attention span and aren't going to pay attention to the detail unless they're personally affected.

On the child benefit one, I remember there was an article in the Guardian by someone complaining that they were no longer able to buy their wine from Waitrose as a result, or send her daughter to ballet classes. They were also struggling because her GP husband had to commute form Cambridge to Ipswich everyday.

I wish I can find it. It could have almost been written as a spoof.

beecher2

kinger101 wrote: »

On the child benefit one, I remember there was an article in the Guardian by someone complaining that they were no longer able to buy their wine from Waitrose as a result, or send her daughter to ballet classes. They were also struggling because her GP husband had to commute form Cambridge to Ipswich everyday.

I wish I can find it. It could have almost been written as a spoof.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/oct/09/child-benefit-stay-home-mother

Think this must be it :rotfl:

zagfles

beecher2 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/oct/09/child-benefit-stay-home-mother

Think this must be it :rotfl:

This was just after the policy was announced - you can just imagine the Guardian journalist looking for someone who'd be affected and getting their story and actually thinking it would be good anti-govt propaganda :rotfl:

Just like the dimwits at the Mirror who seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for Mrs Damp Eyes on QT when it appears she won't be affected at all!

With enemies like these, who need friends!

Moby

leveller2911 wrote: »

Oh an article from the Guardian. How about we have some facts that the Guardian just don't seem to be interested in...........

The NMW will be rising considerably over the next few years so working will pay . Lets just remind ourselves why the changes are happening Moby. People were choosing to working the minimum number of hrs a week (16) to maximise their tax credit entitlement.

We then had a deluge of start up self employed "businesses" such as Avon collectors and Betterware when the rules changed previosuly with regards to needing to work more hours which was a complete sham. People supposedly doing 32hrs a week of self employed work but earning £1.10hr and getting £10,000's in benefits for doing naff all. It was, again an complete sham , people using the system to minimise their working hours to maximise benefits.

Just to remind you Moby someone who is genuinely working full time (in a proper job) needed to earn a gross wage of £35k to have the same income as families received tax credits and who worked 16hrs a week. Fair?

Which party was it that thought tax credits were a great idea?.......

Oh yes , thats right ,it was Labour . All they wanted to do was bribe the electorate and make the working class rely on Labour, Labour bought the working class vote but luckily common sense prevailed and the party that spent money like a sex addict in a !!!!!! house got what they deserved and with their current leadership won't see power for a decade..

You make some big claims here about the change in behaviour the tax credit system encouraged. Can you link me to your sources...... You make some points which Im not sure are reality or based on prejudice?

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

You make some big claims here about the change in behaviour the tax credit system encouraged. Can you link me to your sources...... You make some points which Im not sure are reality or based on prejudice?

you could do well and learn a lot by playing with
http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

and see the level of benefits people can get from the taxpayer by being 'self employed' earning virtually nothing.

WHA

Moby wrote: »

You make some big claims here about the change in behaviour the tax credit system encouraged. Can you link me to your sources...... You make some points which Im not sure are reality or based on prejudice?

As a practising accountant, I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of artificial self employment where the motivation was solely to pretend to be working so as to be entitled to tax credits.

Avon and Ebay are the obvious ones, but I've also seen people rent tiny run-down empty corner shops or market stalls and just work long enough to hit the hours worked target and make just enough money to cover their costs, resulting in break-even. Funny how they never made a loss, but also funny that they never expanded their range of stock or worked longer hours to actually make a profit.

Why do you think there are so many sunday market stalls selling sweets? It's probably the simplest and cheapest business to start - just go to the local cash & carry, spend £50 or so on sweets, pay a tenner for the stall, and you've got a business that hasn't a hope in hell's chance of making a living wage, but likewise won't lose you money. All it costs is the person's time, which is ideal as it ticks the box for tax credits. Kerching!

When I had my usual year end meeting, and I was trying to engage with them as to how to improve their business (like I do with all clients), at first I couldn't understand why so many of them were just not interested. Then I twigged and it all made complete sense!

When the new rules are in force, I would bet good money on sunday markets and car boot sales having a lot less (if any) of that kind of stall, and others like it. In fact, it will probably make a lot of them unviable leading to them closing down, and we shall certainly see a lot fewer amateur ebayers and "party" businesses such as Avon, Pampered Chef, etc.

Mistermeaner

And due to reduction in supply saturation those that remain may well become profitable

setmefree2

kinger101 wrote: »

She's "earning" nothing, because she's running a loss making nail bar in her front room. A ridiculous business proposition if ever I heard one. That's partly why she's so dependent on the state.

GTFOOH - now it's me that feels really angry :mad:

What a cheeky cow - the tax payer's supposed to look after her and her kids while she thinks painting nails in her front room is working hard "I work bloody hard for my money" I quote from QT.

So let me get this straight, as I know nothing about tax credits - I can set up a business in my front room, make a loss and the government will give me money?

You couldn't make it up.

Graham_Devon

WHA wrote: »

Avon and Ebay are the obvious ones

Along with the new fan dangled craze called "Forever Living" which is basically a pyramid scheme selling beauty and dietary products. People apparently make a living selling 20 products a week.

Graham_Devon

setmefree2 wrote: »

So let me get this straight, as I know nothing about tax credits - I can set up a business in my front room, make a loss and the government will give me money?

You couldn't make it up.

Keeps you off the unemployment stats though....