Tax Credits

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

so lies are relative : those in an election campaign count for more than lies that send our boys to die in Iraq.


Clegg said he had GENUINELY changed his mind about student fees and NOT because it was a coalition. (of course not unlike Labour a few years before.)


anyway I will try to remember that lies don't count unless they are in an election campaign.

Oh dear........not convincing at all Clapton. Two wrongs dont make a right by the way. Porky daves problems are only beginning;)

Mistermeaner

Graham_Devon wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxS-Tow-Qik

Youtube won't work on my crappy tablet - when are the quotes from and is there a fuller transcript?

Also I thought these cuts were about working tax credits? The quote talks about child tax credits (or are they all the same?)

Either way the cuts are not a single issue but go hand in hand with other changes like minimum wage and free childcare - have the Lord's also rejected them?

Perhaps a good old referendum will sort it all out

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxS-Tow-Qik

The government isn't actually cutting the amount of child tax credit, the maximum amount you can claim remains the same, it is just withdrawing tax credits from people who earn more than a certain amount (and as such the proposed tax cuts do not target the "most vulnerable" as the lowest earners (in the case of CTC, those earning less than £12kpa) will still receive the full amount - it seems unlikely that someone earning £16kpa is more "vulnerable" than someone earning £0). On that basis Cameron can probably just about claim he hasn't lied without being any more disingenuous than any other politician who has ever lived.

The lords prominent in opposition of this measure in their narrow and deliberately blinkered commentary have also conveniently and disingenuously overlooked the fact that the government does have an electoral mandate to cut the welfare bill by £12 billion which it is going to find quite difficult to achieve without cutting benefits payments to people who receive benefits.

I must say I enjoyed your indignation at the frustration of democracy in the Portugal/EU thread though.

kinger101

andrewmp wrote: »

He tried to back door it through commons, had he added it to the finance bill then this wouldn't have happened.

Either way, he looks a bit daft now.

The statutory instrument was hardly a back door given needed approval by the Commons and now it would seem Lords. It's not as it it hasn't been debated endlessly in the media for the last month. He's effectively amending existing primary legislation, so an SI is suitable (though not amendable).

With hindsight, yes, he probably should have put it in the finance bill, but you can't say the SI was a backdoor given it effectively got more scrutiny that it would otherwise.

andrewmp

CLAPTON wrote: »

to whom does he look a bit daft?


to hard core labour supporters or to tories who believe that benefits are too high?

I think he'll look daft to most people, including those who want to cut welfare payments, you've got to do things properly, had he done so he'd have a much less eggy face right now.

andrewmp

kinger101 wrote: »

The statutory instrument was hardly a back door given needed approval by the Commons and now it would seem Lords. It's not as it it hasn't been debated endlessly in the media for the last month. He's effectively amending existing primary legislation, so an SI is suitable (though not amendable).

With hindsight, yes, he probably should have put it in the finance bill, but you can't say the SI was a backdoor given it effectively got more scrutiny that it would otherwise.

I believe he thought he could slip it through without much scrutiny if it was in a SI.

He seemingly played a blinder in June, the press/most people (barring a few on here) seemed to way underplay the degree of the cuts, part of that surely must be because the new Child Tax Credit threshold was never mentioned by anyone in government until the SI. Those in the know knew how the Child Tax Credit threshold was calculated, but big hitters online with their calculators, and therefore the press basing their articles on these calculators had no idea.

So yes, I think he thought he was being clever, the bloke is no mug, he does everything for a reason.

andrewmp

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The government isn't actually cutting the amount of child tax credit, the maximum amount you can claim remains the same, it is just withdrawing tax credits from people who earn more than a certain amount (and as such the proposed tax cuts do not target the "most vulnerable" as the lowest earners (in the case of CTC, those earning less than £12kpa) will still receive the full amount - it seems unlikely that someone earning £16kpa is more "vulnerable" than someone earning £0). On that basis Cameron can probably just about claim he hasn't lied without being any more disingenuous than any other politician who has ever lived.

The lords prominent in opposition of this measure in their narrow and deliberately blinkered commentary have also conveniently and disingenuously overlooked the fact that the government does have an electoral mandate to cut the welfare bill by £12 billion which it is going to find quite difficult to achieve without cutting benefits payments to people who receive benefits.

I must say I enjoyed your indignation at the frustration of democracy in the Portugal/EU thread though.

Someone on £0 per month, with a rental home will possibly have more income than someone earning £16k with a mortgage, especially if these cuts went ahead. It's not always black and white.

The government could have added in transitional protection without it costing a fortune too, every year families come out of tax credits (either due to increased wages or their kids getting older) with new claimants only being on the new rules, the long term savings would be the same.

martinsurrey

andrewmp wrote: »

I think he'll look daft to most people, including those who want to cut welfare payments, you've got to do things properly, had he done so he'd have a much less eggy face right now.

the thing is to me and most people in my office, its the lords that are coming off worse here.

The commons voted 3 times on this, and it passed 3 times. Like the measure of not, its been voted on by our elected representatives.

The lords are un elected, and by defying 100's of years of convention we'll see a weaker House of Lords as a result, as they obviously cannot self regulate.

CLAPTON

andrewmp wrote: »

I think he'll look daft to most people, including those who want to cut welfare payments, you've got to do things properly, had he done so he'd have a much less eggy face right now.

in what way is a SI 'improper'?

I would welcome an 'independent' constitutional view on the matter rather than people who oppose the change in benefits

martinsurrey

andrewmp wrote: »

Someone on £0 per month, with a rental home will possibly have more income than someone earning £16k with a mortgage, especially if these cuts went ahead. It's not always black and white.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-credits-working-out-income

net rental income is included in the income calc for WTC.