Tax Credits

CKhalvashi

In fact, I agree fully with proud dad's use the the TC system, as it's what it was designed for.

Again, I'm all for helping those on a low income with a top up, however I feel that it should be done through the minimum wage, rather than a government subsidy.

The issue with most people and TC is the ability to have a go at those on a lower income than we are, and this is where the problem was.

ProudDad

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.

Well looking at it from your point of view I pay most of my own tax credits as I pay tax and ni and taking into the consideration the other taxes we pay our family is cost neutral to an extent.

At the end of the day for many years I was in the same position as you when we were both working our childcare costs were like a second mortgage and through circumstances not of our own making we are in the situation we are in now(ie my wife being made redundant) so to say these are choices I have made isn't quite right and we are making the best of what we have. My wife can't work weekends as this would directly impact my ability to work and with her struggling to fit in a university course and night school at the same time without any childcare I think asking her to work would be unfair.

I wouldn't say you are sacrificing anything as I do exactly what you do get up every morning and go to work every hour god sends me as did my wife for your years and it is only of late that this has changed. What you do, what we both do is the norm and once my wife is qualified which I might add is just over a year away we will be back both working full time again.

I agree we can quite easily take the hit and we will without my wife taking a part time job thanks to being quite brutal with my bills and household expenses. There are others who aren't as fortunate as ourselves who will suffer and I think to say that is b":@(&*% is a bit naive as although there won't be many there will be some whom this change will push over the edge and it is for those I fear most.

In fact after the changes I will receive less in tax credits than I pay in tax so will be of no cost at all to you

martinsurrey

ProudDad wrote: »

In fact after the changes I will receive less in tax credits than I pay in tax so will be of no cost at all to you

Great so you, your wife and your kids wont be using any hospitals, police/firemen/defence/schools/doctors/street lights/pavements...

(the list goes on, but you get the point).

markharding557 wrote: »

I vociferously disagree with much of the above, having a second house is an essential tool in holding our rulers to account and in the scrutiny of legislation.

Having the second house fully elected would strengthen its remit.

If the second house was an elected one then this could only be strengthened.

A lot of the Lords are from the top of their fields, they are there as they are respected and knowledgeable about their subjects and their advice is well respected by other peers.

I can guarantee that in a 100% elected second house you would have the same set of career politicians in both houses, and what you call scrutiny would become sound bite political bickering between the houses, OR no scrutiny at all if both houses are in the same control, after all why would they, the both got elected on the same basis.

martinsurrey

Moto2 wrote: »

I dunno,
Perhaps we should elect a second house mid-term?
That would really tell the main house how the electorate were rating their performance.

Whats the point in that?

Why not just have one house and cut the terms in half, the results will be the same.

In your situation if they're doing well they'll, win the second house and wont get any meaningful scrutiny, if they lose they'll not get anything passed, so may as well not be there at all.

mayonnaise

michaels wrote: »

I very much dislike playing the man not the ball but...

...currently there is a poster who on one thread is bemoaning the 'usurping of democracy' in Portugal where it apears that an elected head of state has not actually overturned the will of the people whilst simultaneously in another thread applauding unelected placemen for overturning the the will of the democratically elected representatives.

We can only conclude that certain poster is not very smart, a bit of a hypocrite, and as a low earner, probably affected by the Tax Credit changes.

CLAPTON

ProudDad wrote: »

I agree we can quite easily take the hit and we will without my wife taking a part time job thanks to being quite brutal with my bills and household expenses. There are others who aren't as fortunate as ourselves who will suffer and I think to say that is b":@(&*% is a bit naive as although there won't be many there will be some whom this change will push over the edge and it is for those I fear most.

In fact after the changes I will receive less in tax credits than I pay in tax so will be of no cost at all to you

ah so it's the poorer people you are really concerned about and not yourself?
very worthy

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres also a poster who doesn't take issue with the portugal lack of democracy thing but takes issue with this....It's just you won't play that particular person.

So silly point to make really.

Do you still believe that article you posted by AEP?

Here is the FT's take on the election:

http://m.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d41a28ac-7972-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89.html

I think you're on a hiding to nothing with that AEP stuff. He simply got it wrong.

MFW_ASAP

What do we need an upper house for, except as a home for retired politicians and their wealthy sponsors. With devolution away from Westminster adding further layers of government, isn't it time to do some thinning out and get rid of this pointless waste of money?

ProudDad

martinsurrey wrote: »

Great so you, your wife and your kids wont be using any hospitals, police/firemen/defence/schools/doctors/street lights/pavements...

(the list goes on, but you get the point).

Here you make a valid point which I suppose I had excluded from my earlier point, problem was that people were too busy trying to tar me with the same brush as those who bleed this country dry rather than accepting the content of my message. It will not be the middle earners that will suffer but those at the bottom trying to better themselves, unless these changes are implemented properly it will not pay them to work and they would be better off on benefits. That's not the kind of society that anyone voted for and that's why I believe strongly these changes should be halted until a full review can be carried out of the effects this will have and to ensure it can be implemented properly.

At the moment the whole thing seems to have been decided on the back of a fag packet as a way to save money and wasn't thought through at all.

ProudDad

CLAPTON wrote: »

ah so it's the poorer people you are really concerned about and not yourself?
very worthy

So glad you finally seen the point of post earlier. I don't worry for myself because I may be hit harder than others but am most able to take the hit in the first place however it is those at the bottom who are struggling with low pay, zero hour contracts and a host of other things that we should be worried for.

It's those people that closest to the edge that have the furthest to fall that will feel it most. If these changes aren't implemented properly they will be picking up the pieces for years afterwards.