Tax Credits

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think the majority generally agree that tax credits should be reduced hand in hand with raising the minimum wage.

However, to receive £10 extra a week because the minimum wage has increased and to lose £50 a week from tax credits is where people take issue.

It's the sheer size of the income drop that's the issue. This isn't about "people being livid" or whatever other meme you wish to create. Even those not getting a single pound from the tax credit system can see the issue.

Maybe. I looked at that infographic and was just stunned by the amount of money being given away. You can't legislate people richer - they need to earn more or work more hours or both. Easier said than done but if it were me I'd find the potential loss of £1000 quite a motivator.

Less than two hours a week on minimum wage would make up the difference for the low income single parent or low income family.

lisyloo

Is there such an insurance product that will cover you for loss of income in the following circumstances?

I don't know, but I certainly appreciate you can't buy formal insurance for everything.
Anyone can "self-insure" for any circumstance of their choosing. If you save into a pot then the downside is that at the beginning it will be small, but if you fall on hard times after 10/20/30 years then you should have some protection and it's your own money so you are the arbiter of claims and nothing is going in costs or profits.

I don't have an issue with poor people having kids, but taking zero responsibility and expecting the tax payer to bail you out is unfair on others - poor taxpayers in particular.

Family allowance for only 2 kids is a step in the right direction.

MFW_ASAP

andrewmp wrote: »

Should there be an exemption for people who could fully afford to have children but due to a change in circumstances might be a bit worse off?

Or should you only have kids once you've saved up the money to raise them for 18 years? If so, who will pay the next generation of state pensions as very few would be having kids?

What change in circumstances? Deciding to go part time so that you can be at home with the kids, but expecting the taxpayer to subsidize your reduced income?

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The solution, as far as I can see it is to reduce tax credits at a much lower rate, while working on the wage side of things.

The overarching point from the tories is a decent one. Employers should pay the wages, not the public purse. It's just the way they are going about it that's causing so much fuss.

The solution is simple - don't cut so hard and so fast. Cut gradually.

Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with you. The Tories have come up with good ideas, but have badly implemented many of them. The last one that comes to mind was the withdrawal of child benefit from people who earn over £50k, rather than from households that earn more than £50k....

I guess the counter argument is that if you phase these things in gradually, the costs of that will have to come from somewhere else. We might have to reduce the number of bombs we drop on the Middle East in order to provide a safety net for UK low-earners. Heaven forbid.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is there such an insurance product that will cover you for loss of income in the following circumstances?

- Less hours
- Redundancy from any part time job (when looking at run of the mill jobs such as working in a high street store etc)

The insurance products I know exist cover for death and illness to protect income?

Redundancy Insurance?

andrewmp

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

What change in circumstances? Deciding to go part time so that you can be at home with the kids, but expecting the taxpayer to subsidize your reduced income?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of earning a good salary, deciding to have kids, then losing your job and taking a job on a lesser salary.

Someone suggested only having kids if you can afford it, fair enough, but nobody knows what the future holds and barring saving up for 18 years worth of child related costs then nobody would ever have kids except the rich.

This isn't really relevant to the impending changes though, more a response to the "can't afford kids don't have them rhetoric".

andrewmp

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Redundancy Insurance?

Point me to redundancy insurance that can cover you for up to 18 years until you find a job paying as well as your existing job?

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with you. The Tories have come up with good ideas, but have badly implemented many of them. The last one that comes to mind was the withdrawal of child benefit from people who earn over £50k, rather than from households that earn more than £50k....

I guess the counter argument is that if you phase these things in gradually, the costs of that will have to come from somewhere else. We might have to reduce the number of bombs we drop on the Middle East in order to provide a safety net for UK low-earners. Heaven forbid.

It would cost £4 billion to protect existing claimants from the changes. He could achieve this by delaying his surplus target by a year.

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Redundancy Insurance?

Is there such a thing that pays out your full monthly earnings?

I've looked into this before and it was pretty costly and only paid out half the monthly income.

Secondly, many seemed to limit payouts if you got a redundancy payment.

Third, if you picked up a job to keep you going (in say, my well used example, Tesco) your insurance was cut off, even if you were earning far less.

Either way, they all seemed full of holes and get out clauses. Nice to have, but certainly don't think you could rely on them to keep the same income as you had before redundancy....

And finally, none of them would pay out if you were made redundant from your full time position but then offered a part time position. If you turn down the part time position that's voluntary redundancy and the insurance is null and void.

MFW_ASAP

andrewmp wrote: »

Point me to redundancy insurance that can cover you for up to 18 years until you find a job paying as well as your existing job?

That the mentality of someone who expects the benefit system to be a lifestyle choice rather than a safety net.

If you need more than 12 months to find a job then it's plain that you need to retrain to a different career. The days of sitting on your backside and expecting taxpayers to fund you while you wait for the right job to come along (if ever) have long gone.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is there such a thing that pays out your full monthly earnings?

I've looked into this before and it was pretty costly and only paid out half the monthly income.

Secondly, many seemed to limit payouts if you got a redundancy payment.

Third, if you picked up a job to keep you going (in say, my well used example, Tesco) your insurance was cut off, even if you were earning far less.

Either way, they all seemed for of holes and get out clauses.

I'm surprised. From your post you seemed completely unaware that redundancy insurance exists and yet just a few minutes later, you're an expert on the subject!