Tax Credits

zagfles

markharding557 wrote: »

More cross party co-operation would be needed and this would reduce idealogical decisions from who ever maybe in office, no bad thing in my view.

Thatcher had too much power in the 80's and Blair had too much in his time, both situations led to things which would not have happened if there had been more balance, a second house with the unquestioned power to say no!

A govt with too little power is probably worse than one with too much. You end up with this ridiculous situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

zagfles

markharding557 wrote: »

Fair enough! forgot about them but I think it applies for rest roughly though.

SNP? Greens? Whereas the LibDems only got 7.9% of the vote, they have a lot more than 7.9% of peers.

markharding557

zagfles wrote: »

A govt with too little power is probably worse than one with too much. You end up with this ridiculous situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

They eventually reached a compromise- democracy in action:T
I take it that you prefer one side to simply impose its will on the rest?

markharding557

zagfles wrote: »

SNP? Greens? Whereas the LibDems only got 7.9% of the vote, they have a lot more than 7.9% of peers.

OK you win the point on that one!
I'm sure most people would agree the scrutiny of a second house is important in a democracy, ours would be much better if it was elected preferably by PR.

zagfles

markharding557 wrote: »

They eventually reached a compromise- democracy in action:T
I take it that you prefer one side to simply impose its will on the rest?

I like the idea of coalitions, not of separate elected bodies playing stupid games of brinkmanship. Can you image public sector workers in the UK going to work without knowing if or when they'll be paid? It was a farce.

Governments are supposed to run the country. That's what we elect them to do. To do that they need to be able to make decisions. There needs to be an executive which has the confidence of the elected representatives. Which we have, and the US doesn't, which is why they run into difficulty getting anything done.

If the US had a system like ours, they'd almost certainly have state healthcare similar to the NHS and have proper gun controls.

Mistermeaner

ProudDad wrote: »

The vote last night shows two things;

Britain like a lot of democracies has a second House of Parliament, this parliament should be an elected senate, case closed. This would ensure they are representative of the will of people, it may be an idea to use a different voting system from FPTP such as PR. This would eliminate the conversation that is being had now where an unelected body has gone against the will of an elected one.

The second point it does highlight however is that the elected house is completely out of touch with reality at the moment, on one side we have a rather fractured conservative government who have a perverse obsession with austerity and on the other we have an even more fractured Labour opposition which doesn't know if it is coming or going. Personally I think the whole system needs a bit of a shake up and possibly the introduction of PR here would be an answer. Yes it will mean smaller majorities if at all, more parties will be able to participate, there will be more likeliness of coalitions being formed which in my eyes isn't a bad thing as it leads to compromise and policies being scrutinised before they are even put into the public domain.

I am one of those who claims tax credits, I am well educated, I have what people would see to be a reasonably good job that is paid accordingly(only starting out in my career), I am married and my wife is a student(studying to be a primary teacher) and I have two wonderful children who you might guess I love very much and very proud of. Currently we receive £453 every four weeks in tax credits. After the cuts this is anticipated to reduce to about £230 that's a cut of £2990 per year slightly over the average £1000 loss that keeps getting thrown around.

Yes I know I won't be claiming for ever and in principle I agree that they should be cut as we should be moving towards a society which is low tax/ low welfare however I feel the cuts should be implemented differently. This £220 per month I lose is just shy of 10% of our monthly household income which you would all agree is quite a bit to lose by any standard. My thoughts would be he should go for one or the other and gradually introduce the other over a period of time. This reduction will also disproportionately affect the areas of the UK which don't traditionally vote for the conservatives(ie. Scotland, Wales and the North East). So although it would harm the majority overall the conservatives probably won't lose out by implementing this policy.

Sorry rant over feel so much better now though.

Why did you have 2 kids if you couldn't afford them?

I have child of my own and receive no tax credits, why should I pay for your family?

Your wife should quit college and get a job until you are able to support her not earning

ProudDad

CLAPTON wrote: »

actually the case for two elected houses is very debatable and in by no means is 'case closed'.

a form of PR may or may not improve matters but what is undoubtedly true is that if we had only one house then it couldn't be over-ruled

because you have a personal interest is gaining undeserved benefits doesn't make it right.

you should never been given the benefits in the first place so be grateful for what you have been given at some-one else's expense.

Firstly I completely disagree with you which I am sure you find unsurprising. The idea of the second house is to hold the first to account and is a model which works well in many democracies around the world. The difference in the UK is that the second house is unelected and subject to criticism and debate as is the case at the moment.

Yes I do have an interest in tax credits and however I think for you to say they are undeserved in my case is naive. Other than what I have written you know absolutely nothing of my circumstances so to stamp me as undeserving is a tad rich. I do agree they should be cut but not because they are too much or because I don't deserve them but because everything is being cut as we head towards a budget surplus so see this as only fair that I pay my way too. It's the means by which they are being cut that I disagree with. The reason I get tax credits in the first place is because the income I receive from my work is not deemed by the government to be enough so is topped up in the form of tax credits, my wife is currently unavailable for work due to studying and looking after our children. I might like to add also that if she was working at say minimum wage and had the children in a nursery the amount we received would be much higher. That's a seperate issue though. Instead though she is studying and trying to better herself. You don't know you might benefit from her studies one day and then you might be thankful for her receiving tax credits as it actually allowed her to study in the first place.

ProudDad

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Why did you have 2 kids if you couldn't afford them?

I have child of my own and receive no tax credits, why should I pay for your family?

Your wife should quit college and get a job until you are able to support her not earning

Well as I explained to my four year old we loved each other very much and thought it was time to have children. As the whether or not we can afford them the answer is we could and still can, the drop in income is due to circumstance and tax credits are there to support people in that case. I might like to repeat I do in principle agree with these cuts - not surprised a few witch hunting comments have come up though as I receive them - it's the means by which they are being achieved that I don't agree with. Proportionately I won't be that badly affected and have prepared for the anticipated cuts in advance so should be okay it is those further down the ladder I am concerned for as it will undoubtedly be their children that suffer(not necessarily through the choice of their parents).

I am glad to hear you have children. At least we must agree in the joy they bring to our lives. Now I would like to ask, if your income dropped due to circumstances and you became eligible for tax credits should we arrange for your children to be removed from you or should we allow you to claim. I know their would be some hypocrisy in the latter however you must see my point. We are claiming as my wife is studying and to be fair you probably dont pay for my children. With the amount of tax I pay and we pay as a family combined(all forms) I most probably pay my own. This is the issue the current government is trying to address in cutting tax credits while implementing other measures to support low income families(which we are currently classed as). However these other measures will not take affect when the cuts do so in the interim people will suffer and this issue must be addressed. It is this suffering which the House of Lords has highlighted to the government and therefore why Monday played out as it did.

My wife would work however in order for her to carry out her studies(which as I have highlighted you might even benefit from one day) this just wasn't practical. She took to studying as she lost her job. The field she worked in had also changed since she got her job as had the jobs which are now lesser paid, zero hours or seasonal. None of which were of any use so she decided to retrain(rather than becoming idle). Other jobs were also low paid and with the cost of childcare(a seperate issue) would have resulted in a much higher amount of tax credits than we get now.

Thank you for your concern but as to whether you pay for my children - I doubt it and if you do you're more than welcome to keep your contribution.

However after your attack on my circumstances I hope we can agree on one thing that there is more than just tax credits in need of reform. The cost of childcare and what people actually earn from their work and how this is taxed overall need reviewed as part of any review of tax credits as these are what tax credits are designed to supplement. Or we can agree to disagree and shake hands on it?
:beer:

Mistermeaner

If I pay tax and you take money from the government indirectly I am paying for your children

I pay for childcare as I am not able to leave work and pick up my son.

In effect my work and tax and sacrifice of my hours away from my child and the fact I pay for care for my child so I can work the hours I do helps you afford to be able to have more children than me and a wife who doesn't work

Don't get me wrong I'm not personally bitter and I use 'me' as a general example but the point holds Valid that someone out there is making sacrifices so you don't have to and is paying for your lifestyle choices.

You have made your choices based on the system that was presented to you and we do agree the system needs to change.

In my experience the 100 a month the lowest earners will lose can easily be swallowed, quite frankly the stuff about starving kids is bullshi t. People only end up in that position if they waste money on stuff they don't need.

You could easily take the tax credit hit, either your wife works weekends to make up the loss or you cut back spending.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If I pay tax and you take money from the government indirectly I am paying for your children

I pay for childcare as I am not able to leave work and pick up my son.

In effect my work and tax and sacrifice of my hours away from my child and the fact I pay for care for my child so I can work the hours I do helps you afford to be able to have more children than me and a wife who doesn't work

Don't get me wrong I'm not personally bitter and I use 'me' as a general example but the point holds Valid that someone out there is making sacrifices so you don't have to and is paying for your lifestyle choices.

You have made your choices based on the system that was presented to you and we do agree the system needs to change.

In my experience the 100 a month the lowest earners will lose can easily be swallowed, quite frankly the stuff about starving kids is bullshi t. People only end up in that position if they waste money on stuff they don't need.

You could easily take the tax credit hit, either your wife works weekends to make up the loss or you cut back spending.

I'm currently doing an online course run by Jeffrey Sachs the Nobel Prize winner on sustainable development. It makes me sad that people seem to genuinely think that a fall in a very heavily subsidised income from £25,000 to £22,000 is going to put them into poverty.

There are, at a very well informed guess, about 3,000,000,000 in the world whose income it would be impossible to cut by £3,000. The reason? They don't make £3,000 a year in income.

Even in China, a fairly prosperous country, GDP per head is only £4,000 odd.