Tax Credits

Thrugelmir

dktreesea wrote: »

His handling of anything with figures involved makes me think he doesn't really understand accounting, let alone economics.

Given the challenging task he inherited. He appears to be approaching the matter in a pragmatic fashion. As there's no easy answers just difficult decisions. A better chancellor than I thought he would be.

What do you think of the opposition party contenders for Chancellor? If you are that dismissive of GO.

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

when the minimum wage rises to £ 9 per hour, our friend with 3 kids and doing 24hr per we will see a rise in earning of 2,500 per annum approximately
to maintain his current take home of about £30,000 the taxpayer will still be contributing about £19,000

do you think that is appropriate?

I don't know who you are referrng to with "our friend". If it's a single parent and the children are all young, then 24 hours a week might be all they can manage. Though I'd expect some contribution from the other parent.

If it's a two parent family, I'd expect one parent to work full time, and the other to work part time at least (depending on the childrens' ages).

It's not an ideal situation if people are raising children and are dependent on the state, but I don't think it's fair pushing children into poverty through no fault of their own.

I've no idea how much it costs to raise three children, but they need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and clothing. Perhaps a little extra so they are not socially excluded.

The main problem at the moment as I see it as many claimants are saying it's not worth working extra hours. This is largely a cultural problem, with more people having a sense of entitlement. Why isn't there any pride in supporting you own family with your own money.

I think there ought to be a set minimum ours each parent or couple should work, and if they don't do this through employment, their entitlement to benefits should be linked to community service.

As for self employment, I'd want every claimant to show that their business was capable of generating an income equivalent to minimum wage. Perhaps the benefits office should just assume that at the very minimum it does when calculating entitlement to benefits. I bet if this happened, QT lady would miraculously find paid work very quickly.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't know who you are referrng to with "our friend". If it's a single parent and the children are all young, then 24 hours a week might be all they can manage. Though I'd expect some contribution from the other parent.

If it's a two parent family, I'd expect one parent to work full time, and the other to work part time at least (depending on the childrens' ages).

It's not an ideal situation if people are raising children and are dependent on the state, but I don't think it's fair pushing children into poverty through no fault of their own.

I've no idea how much it costs to raise three children, but they need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and clothing. Perhaps a little extra so they are not socially excluded.

The main problem at the moment as I see it as many claimants are saying it's not worth working extra hours. This is largely a cultural problem, with more people having a sense of entitlement. Why isn't there any pride in supporting you own family with your own money.

I think there ought to be a set minimum ours each parent or couple should work, and if they don't do this through employment, their entitlement to benefits should be linked to community service.

As for self employment, I'd want every claimant to show that their business was capable of generating an income equivalent to minimum wage. Perhaps the benefits office should just assume that at the very minimum it does when calculating entitlement to benefits. I bet if this happened, QT lady would miraculously find paid work very quickly.

on other threads we have discussed a person in the following situation

couple with 3 school age children
-one a stay at home person
-the other chooses to work 24 hours and has a minimum wage job
-their rent is 500 per month
-their council tax is 30 per month

based on £7 per hour their earned income is 8,736 but with benefits added they get about 30,000 take home i.e. taxpayer support of about 21,000

after minimum wage goes up to £9 per hour the taxpayer handout will be about 19k if their overall take home pay stays at 30,000pa

so in the context of your comment

Even though former Labour chancellors have acknowledged the tax credit system isn't fit for purpose. All that was needed was a few tweeks to ensure that the reductions in tax credits overlapped more with the increase in the minimum wage.

Is it reasonable to provide such a high subsidy for a family of two abled bodied people, one of whom chooses to work 24 hours.
Will a few tweeks solve the problem?

If not then what to do?
To ensure children don't grow up in 'poverty' do we just accept this as reasonable?

kinger101

The tweeks referred to all he needed to get his proposals through. Which would have made some savings.

I'm not saying it's right for people capable of work to opt for tax credits as a lifestyle choice. The benefits officer definitely needs a bigger stick.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

A good Govmt doesn't set one section of the population against another

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:This from someone who supports Corbyn and his nutters who are all about class war.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

The tweeks referred to all he needed to get his proposals through. Which would have made some savings.

I'm not saying it's right for people capable of work to opt for tax credits as a lifestyle choice. The benefits officer definitely needs a bigger stick.

does that mean you would support lower benefit rates ?
or be willing to cast children into 'poverty' if the parents didn't play ball?

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

We all suffer in the end because this country becomes a seedier place to live when the political language and climate becomes harsher.

Again - this is exactly what your party under its current leadership is doing - class war. Your party's leadership are currently a bunch of haters.

setmefree2

mforr64 wrote: »

The thing is with us - we've been up there and after a redundancy we now know what it's like down there. Eight years on we accept we will never get back to where we once were monetarily but we have become more compassionate humanitarians and it has now stirred a passion for politics within me but not the media right wing selected bias or the New Labour drivel but Jeremy Corbyn. Come on now - throw the "book" at me!

And because you have only just started to be interested in politics, I put it to you that you don't actually understand what you are supporting....

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

does that mean you would support lower benefit rates ?
or be willing to cast children into 'poverty' if the parents didn't play ball?

The state should provide a safety net. Entitlement to benefits should be withdrawn if the claimants are not actively seeking a set number of hours work determined by their personal circumstances.

The overwhelming majority of people will find work in these circumstances to provide for their family. Personally, I think it becomes child abuse if you point blank refuse to work to provide for your children.

There isn't an easy answer in these circumstances as taking children into care is usually very bad for them. Sadly, crap parents have always existed, and I don't envy the choices those working in child protection have to make. In reality, it probably becomes necessary to provide benefits to keep the child out of absolute poverty but in the care of their parents, because the alternative is even less palatable.

Rather than constantly misrepresenting what I have written, why don't you explain your solution to this problem.

mforr64

setmefree2 wrote: »

And because you have only just started to be interested in politics, I put it to you that you don't actually understand what you are supporting....

Actually I have been interested in Politics for the last 32 years. Please tell me in layman's terms what it is that I am supporting since you raise the subject.