Tax Credits

MFW_ASAP

ProudDad wrote: »

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.

Which is one of the arguments that Osborne is using to reduce/scrap tax credits (and one I agree with and have raised before in the past on this forum, long before these reforms).

It's crazy to take money off people in general taxation, pass it through the hands of civil servants and HMRC system to then give it back to them in tax credits. Much better to raise the tax free allowance and let people hold onto their own money.

ProudDad

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Which is one of the arguments that Osborne is using to reduce/scrap tax credits (and one I agree with and have raised before in the past on this forum, long before these reforms).

It's crazy to take money off people in general taxation, pass it through the hands of civil servants and HMRC system to then give it back to them in tax credits. Much better to raise the tax free allowance and let people hold onto their own money.

Totally agree with you.

martinsurrey

ProudDad wrote: »

Bluntly yes, have to admit the sarcasm made me chuckle. On the other hand we are not Greece our economy is bigger, more dynamic and more resilient. If this is times good then I would hate to think what they will be like if they get bad again. The constant talk of austerity makes it feel like we will be in recession forever. What we should do is focus on sensible deficit reduction and not the current measures of get to surplus at all costs.

Well, look at any of the economies which had a bail out, they know what true austerity feels like, look at France now, 11% unemployment, these are the nations our deficit is in the league of, (as a % of GDP) we can afford our deficit for now, as we intent to reduce it.

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/european-government-debt-graphic-of-the-day/

Our economy is more resilient as the international community believe our Government will do the necessary to ensure we don't go belly up, which means living within our means.

ProudDad wrote: »

Other things that could sensibly be cut is the amount of different benefits they are available and making the system simpler rather than introducing new benefits. Also bringing more focus to a security service that could tell you what I have had for breakfast this morning but not when someone has been radicalised and is going to some far off land to fight for some cause they believe to be just. To name but a few changes that could be made anyway.

Universal credit.

Labour and the Tories are agreed on keeping the NATO 2% of GDP military spend.

Again you are mortgaging your Children's future, we give them a deficit of 80% of GDP and when their times are tough, they cant borrow any more, what then?

cells

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Which is one of the arguments that Osborne is using to reduce/scrap tax credits (and one I agree with and have raised before in the past on this forum, long before these reforms).

It's crazy to take money off people in general taxation, pass it through the hands of civil servants and HMRC system to then give it back to them in tax credits. Much better to raise the tax free allowance and let people hold onto their own money.

the problem with that idea is that it does not discriminate as much as tax credits

increase the personal allowance by x and it helps every worker. single married young old children or not.

Tax credits can be more targeted

MFW_ASAP

cells wrote: »

the problem with that idea is that it does not discriminate as much as tax credits

increase the personal allowance by x and it helps every worker. single married young old children or not.

Tax credits can be more targeted

Nothing wrong with helping every worker, plus it helps the lower paid proportionally more than higher paid.

The issue is where you have someone who pays less tax than they claim back, but these should be covered by other benefits anyway.

bloolagoon

cells wrote: »

the problem with that idea is that it does not discriminate as much as tax credits

increase the personal allowance by x and it helps every worker. single married young old children or not.

Tax credits can be more targeted

Many recipients do not pay tax and most don't pay tax to the value they receive so I can't see how tax allowances help.

bloolagoon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Nothing wrong with helping every worker, plus it helps the lower paid proportionally more than higher paid.

The issue is where you have someone who pays less tax than they claim back, but these should be covered by other benefits anyway.

Are you aware how much people receive in TC?

wotsthat

The government could always spend less and so would have less of a problem distributing to the deserving and the overall tax burden would fall.

MFW_ASAP

bloolagoon wrote: »

Are you aware how much people receive in TC?

Well, no, not everyone. Do you know?

Sapphire

martinsurrey wrote: »

Got it.

So its to kick the can down the road.

Times are good now, so rather than fix the problems from the last recession, and get us in financial shape for the next one (which WILL happen), we should kick the can down the road and hope that the downturn doesn't come too soon... I mean its worked well for Greece.

Agree – and moreover think that child benefits, also paid for by the taxpayer, should be limited to the first two children only (or one or none). I don't see why taxpayers who choose to limit their breeding and so live within their means should pay for those who churn out offspring, then expect others to pay for them. I also think situations in which males have several wives (official/unofficial) that give birth to multiple offspring (I've heard there are sometimes 20 or more) should be dealt with.

Only those who really need benefits should receive them – like the (truly) disabled, the elderly who have contributed all their lives and didn't have the types of benefit that people do today, and soldiers who have problems readjusting to life as civilians. Otherwise, the 'deserving' 'poor' need to organise their lives in such a way that they won't need to scrounge from hard-working taxpayers – which often means limiting the amount of children they bring into the world.