Tax Credits

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, even a Tory MP has stated now that if he knew the full impact of what he was voting for in the commons at the time he wouldn't have voted the way he did. So it appears he is now armed with the full information about how this will impact people and will vote differently.

Do you need some new batteries for the BS detector?

All that's happened is the the wind has shifted slightly and he's shifted with it (most politicians are like leaves and will go where the wind blows them).

I don't know who it is your talking about but he's voted in favour of the measures and when the watered down version appears he'll vote for them again.

andrewmp

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you need some new batteries for the BS detector?

All that's happened is the the wind has shifted slightly and he's shifted with it (most politicians are like leaves and will go where the wind blows them).

I don't know who it is your talking about but he's voted in favour of the measures and when the watered down version appears he'll vote for them again.

And they'll have to be sufficiently watered down or the lords will rinse repeat also surely? Presuming he plans to do it via a SI again.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

All that's happened is the the wind has shifted slightly and he's shifted with it (most politicians are like leaves and will go where the wind blows them).

He was, if I recall correctly, one of those vocal in the party before the lords thing. One of quite a few. You may remember the speech from the MP called Heidi (can't remember her second name).

On a secondary note, I'm not sure why it's those who are not effected by the tax credit cuts who seem most vocal in their "anger" or "concern" about the plans being scuppered for the minute.

There seems to be this air of false outrage that the lords have done something they can and have done. It's not a financial bill, it's a welfare bill and they have every right to do what they have done. It's simply more a "gentlemans agreement" type scenarios that they won't. However, they felt, by majority, they had no choice but to intervene in this one.

wotsthat

andrewmp wrote: »

And they'll have to be sufficiently watered down or the lords will rinse repeat also surely? Presuming he plans to do it via a SI again.

Tax credits are playing second fiddle to politics here so who knows?

Generali

andrewmp wrote: »

And they'll have to be sufficiently watered down or the lords will rinse repeat also surely? Presuming he plans to do it via a SI again.

Ultimately the Commons won't be frustrated. They'll just push through another Parliament Act.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

He was, if I recall correctly, one of those vocal in the party before the lords thing. One of quite a few. You may remember the speech from the MP called Heidi (can't remember her second name).

So one of those most vocal about the issue didn't take enough time to look at the issues?

Maybe we should invite him to contribute to this board.

martinsurrey

andrewmp wrote: »

Working couple with three kids and a mortgage (costing £550 per month rent), earning £16k per year would receive the following per month:

Salary £1,163.93
Tax Credits (if cuts went ahead) £653.40

Total : £1817.38 (plus CB)

Unemployed couple with three kids, three bed house costing £550 per month, earning £0 per year would receive the following:

JSA £500.41
Tax Credits (if cuts went ahead) £740.84
Council Tax Support : £60.60
Housing Benefit £550


Total : £1851.85 (plus CB)

So in this real world example, the unemployed couple would be better off, they'd also be pass-ported to free prescriptions, free school meals for the kids etc and have no travelling expenses to get to/from work.

Feel free to pick holes in my figures. The point of my argument is JSA+Housing Benefit is sometime more than a low salary thus working people with a mortgage can be financially worse off than those who don't work.

And I will pick holes in it.

Simply saying that their houses both cost £550 isn't enough, its a number you've picked out of thin air.

Lets assume the HB house is a private rent.

Assuming the two houses are of the same quality and an average yield on HB houses of 7% (as they are at the bottom end of the market).

The HB of £550 is enough to rent a house with a market value of £94,286

At a standard SVR of 4.5% to buy that house with a 100% mortgage would cost £353 a month in interest, not to mention the benefit of capital appreciation.

Makes the couple working better off, they also have the option of selling, and would then be entitled to housing benefit as well.

I guess it comes down to do you think home ownership is a right?

I don't, if you want to own, and benefit from the upsides, you have to pay.

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

He was, if I recall correctly, one of those vocal in the party before the lords thing. One of quite a few. You may remember the speech from the MP called Heidi (can't remember her second name).

On a secondary note, I'm not sure why it's those who are not effected by the tax credit cuts who seem most vocal in their "anger" or "concern" about the plans being scuppered for the minute.

There seems to be this air of false outrage that the lords have done something they can and have done. It's not a financial bill, it's a welfare bill and they have every right to do what they have done. It's simply more a "gentlemans agreement" type scenarios that they won't. However, they felt, by majority, they had no choice but to intervene in this one.

its also a convention that the sitting government don't flood the house of lords with new peers of their party.

Would Labour and Libdems mind if tomorrow there were 200 new conservative peers? by the same token they shouldn't mind at all as its only a "gentleman's agreement" that they wont, however, they feel, as elected majority, they have no choice but to intervene in this one, down the rabbit hole we go...

michaels

martinsurrey wrote: »

And I will pick holes in it.

Simply saying that their houses both cost £550 isn't enough, its a number you've picked out of thin air.

Lets assume the HB house is a private rent.

Assuming the two houses are of the same quality and an average yield on HB houses of 7% (as they are at the bottom end of the market).

The HB of £550 is enough to rent a house with a market value of £94,286

At a standard SVR of 4.5% to buy that house with a 100% mortgage would cost £353 a month in interest, not to mention the benefit of capital appreciation.

Makes the couple working better off, they also have the option of selling, and would then be entitled to housing benefit as well.

I guess it comes down to do you think home ownership is a right?

I don't, if you want to own, and benefit from the upsides, you have to pay.

So by your logic actually £200 of the mortgage payment is capital repayement ie saving not housing cost making the worker in fact £166 better off.

Now we need to find out if the working person gets no wtc but still earns below the free school meals cut off point as otherwise school meals cost at least £2 per child per day or £90 per month (averaged over the year) for three kids.

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

And I will pick holes in it.

Simply saying that their houses both cost £550 isn't enough, its a number you've picked out of thin air.

Lets assume the HB house is a private rent.

Assuming the two houses are of the same quality and an average yield on HB houses of 7% (as they are at the bottom end of the market).

The HB of £550 is enough to rent a house with a market value of £94,286

At a standard SVR of 4.5% to buy that house with a 100% mortgage would cost £353 a month in interest, not to mention the benefit of capital appreciation.

Makes the couple working better off, they also have the option of selling, and would then be entitled to housing benefit as well.

I guess it comes down to do you think home ownership is a right?

I don't, if you want to own, and benefit from the upsides, you have to pay.

so it would seem that the worker is 200 per month better off

assuming a 37 hour week then that make his pay rate about £1.20 an hour (approximately)


one can see why many choose idleness as a permanent lifestyle choice for themselves and their children and grandchildren