Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Osborne might have to U-turn on tax credits

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Osborne might have to U-turn on tax credits

The above clip from last night’s Question Time has been doing the rounds throughout the day and highlights the challenge facing minsters, particularly Osborne, over his budget tax credits move which is due to come into place in the next couple of months.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    1st..?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015
    There needs to be a debate (and maybe even some polling) on exactly what is proposed. The debate so far seems to be high on rhetoric and short of clear worked examples showing how people might lose out across a number of changes eg. Income tax allowance, child benefit, minimum wage increases etc.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    edited October 2015
    Wahoo! For once we are on topic.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    HOLD FIRM GEORGE
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    FPT:

    I actually agree with people who say that the taxpayer should not be subsidising her failing business. However, this actually proves one of the arguments me and other lefties have been making for years: the unemployment rate is artificially low, because there are quite literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are just like this lady claiming they are "self-employed" when actually they are doing unproductive non-jobs. There simply aren't enough proper jobs to go round, just as there never is when a government pursues a right-wing laissez-faire economic policy.

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    tlg86 said:

    Wahoo! For once we are on topic.

    Perhaps the topic was set around the discussion. Only way.

    Now, on to the Canadian elections...
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Danny565 said:

    FPT:

    I actually agree with people who say that the taxpayer should not be subsidising her failing business. However, this actually proves one of the arguments me and other lefties have been making for years: the unemployment rate is artificially low, because there are quite literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are just like this lady claiming they are "self-employed" when actually they are doing unproductive non-jobs. There simply aren't enough proper jobs to go round, just as there never is when a government pursues a right-wing laissez-faire economic policy.

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.

    FPT.

    She's a single mum with 4 kids. For decades they never went near a Jobcentre.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    edited October 2015
    Danny565 said:

    FPT:

    I actually agree with people who say that the taxpayer should not be subsidising her failing business. However, this actually proves one of the arguments me and other lefties have been making for years: the unemployment rate is artificially low, because there are quite literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are just like this lady claiming they are "self-employed" when actually they are doing unproductive non-jobs. There simply aren't enough proper jobs to go round, just as there never is when a government pursues a right-wing laissez-faire economic policy.

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.

    Yes, well I agree with half your point. There is definitely a recovery going on as wages are outstripping inflation.

    The colossal HB bill to private Landlords from the state must also be tackled along with tax credits though, and the unaffordable triple pension lock.

    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:

    I actually agree with people who say that the taxpayer should not be subsidising her failing business. However, this actually proves one of the arguments me and other lefties have been making for years: the unemployment rate is artificially low, because there are quite literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are just like this lady claiming they are "self-employed" when actually they are doing unproductive non-jobs. There simply aren't enough proper jobs to go round, just as there never is when a government pursues a right-wing laissez-faire economic policy.

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.

    Yes, well I agree with half your points. THere is definitely a recovery going on as wages are outstripping inflation.

    The collosal HB bill to private Landlords from the state must also be tackled along with tax credits though, along with the triple pension lock.

    Our current expenditure cut and should be cut alot more.
    Average HB on private property is only £15 a week higher than social housing, and the private landlord rent is taxable. Social rent pays nothing to the taxman.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    edited October 2015
    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
  • Isn't this thread a few hours too late? This seems to be falling apart already.

    Macbeth's soliloquy: If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.

    It may be best to smooth the transition but there is no point putting off the £12 billion in welfare consolidation that is needed and was voted for, for five years.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Average wages are rising though, do you have stats on self employed people earning under say £15k a year over the last 5 years to back up your claim >?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    This is nothing to do with suppressing the unemployment rate, Danny.

    It's all about avoiding the benefit cap. The woman has to come up with 16 hours work because she has had four children and no doubt has a home with rent and council tax bill to match.

    There are quite a lot of people around with bigger than average families who are in the same boat. Many do the bare minimum 16 hours work to escape the cap.
  • Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited October 2015
    A lib dem govt might not hold firm Mr Smithson, which is one good reason why I'm glad they are reduced to 8 MPs.
    When you get Ken Clarke supporting Osborne and telling him to put his tin hat on and get on with it you begin to suspect the policy might be right and the outrage more than synthetic.
    It strikes me the case this woman is putting forward is manufactured and the clever money will be on the set up behind her who put her forward.
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    What a load of rubbish
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Not sure - but has anyone actually SEEN his vote when he cast it? if not then the title is "Alleged Tory Voter ...."
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited October 2015
    Yes Pulpstar you make a fair point.... however when the govt seek to take HB (ie limit it) the left scream on about 'social cleansing' and ignore the extent to which housing benefit underpins the level of rents.
    As for landlords the budget did away with the notional allowances for repairs etc so now some properties might actually be properly maintained.
    Laughably when this came out we had the inevitable backlash the other way and we were told that Tory landlords were revolting and protesting.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    edited October 2015
    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    Does anyone know of a source for the OBR forecast NLW rates for the next 4 years? Or, failing that, OBR forecasts of median wages till 2020.

    I'm putting together a spreadsheet that includes data on increased personal allowances, tax changes etc, and shows how tax credit cuts and pa thresholds have affected people/will affect people over the coming years. Happy to share the data when complete.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    No. There are more people in work than ever. And if some jobs are bogus jobs then are you saying they should be propped up?
    The economy is growing and real jobs are available. I do not see many Bulgarian nail emporiums being set up.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited October 2015
    chestnut said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    This is nothing to do with suppressing the unemployment rate, Danny.

    It's all about avoiding the benefit cap. The woman has to come up with 16 hours work because she has had four children and no doubt has a home with rent and council tax bill to match.

    There are quite a lot of people around with bigger than average families who are in the same boat. Many do the bare minimum 16 hours work to escape the cap.
    I'm linking to your quote to agree with it and because this illustrates why we need to get away from all the nooks and crannies of the loopholes of our benefits system.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    edited October 2015

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    No. There are more people in work than ever. And if some jobs are bogus jobs then are you saying they should be propped up?
    The economy is growing and real jobs are available. I do not see many Bulgarian nail emporiums being set up.
    Again, these are the statistics that register the nail-bar woman as "in work". Do you consider her business a proper job which should be subsidised by the taxpayer?

    You PBTories can't have it both ways, you can't claim the lady is swindling the taxpayer with her business and should get a "proper job", then the next minute start citing employment statistics which regard the lady as precisely being in a "proper job".
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 366
    blockquote class="Quote" rel="Danny565">FPT

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.
    Danny565 said:

    FPT:

    I actually agree with people who say that the taxpayer should not be subsidising her failing business. However, this actually proves one of the arguments me and other lefties have been making for years: the unemployment rate is artificially low, because there are quite literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are just like this lady claiming they are "self-employed" when actually they are doing unproductive non-jobs. There simply aren't enough proper jobs to go round, just as there never is when a government pursues a right-wing laissez-faire economic policy.

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:

    I actually agree with people who say that the taxpayer should not be subsidising her failing business. However, this actually proves one of the arguments me and other lefties have been making for years: the unemployment rate is artificially low, because there are quite literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are just like this lady claiming they are "self-employed" when actually they are doing unproductive non-jobs. There simply aren't enough proper jobs to go round, just as there never is when a government pursues a right-wing laissez-faire economic policy.

    If you say this woman is not doing a proper job (which, as I say, I would probably agree with). then the corollary of that argument is that the supposed "economic recovery" is a sham, because so much of that recovery is predicated on the supposed boom in self-employment.

    You are spot on there, Danny. I have business connections with a number of people in that position.Self employed, barely above the poverty line and without tax credits would pack up their businesses. Perfectly decent, hard working people who would love to make a decent wage without government help.
    I will be discussing the effect of the cuts with them shortly. At the moment I do not think they know what is around the corner.
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 614

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    No. There are more people in work than ever. And if some jobs are bogus jobs then are you saying they should be propped up?
    The economy is growing and real jobs are available. I do not see many Bulgarian nail emporiums being set up.
    But, in fairness, there are plenty of Romanian "Big Issue" sellers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    Danny565 said:

    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf

    Worded like that I'm not surprised. I bet the public still oppose spending the amount it costs to give tax credits to people on low incomes with children though.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    LucyJones said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    No. There are more people in work than ever. And if some jobs are bogus jobs then are you saying they should be propped up?
    The economy is growing and real jobs are available. I do not see many Bulgarian nail emporiums being set up.
    But, in fairness, there are plenty of Romanian "Big Issue" sellers.
    Are there? There are Big Issue sellers who try to hang onto their 'last' copy after supposedly selling it to you. ie bogus.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Post of the day.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    edited October 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf

    How about another poll:

    Q: Do you support or oppose paying tax credits (on top of their child benefit) to households with children with an income of £42,000?

    (NB. Top 10% of households getting tax credits have an average income of £42,000).

    If Osborne is going to make changes how about this for a simple one: No tax credits to any household with an income above £30,000. No ifs, no buts - if you earn over £30,000 and have children (however many) then you get your child benefit and that's it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf

    That's a hugely misleading question in the context of all the other changes going on.

    For the opposite answer ask "Should the government tax you less, rather than taking your money before giving some of it back via an inefficient and error-prone bureaucracy..?"

    I still can't find any reliable numbers for how people are affected by the changes as a whole. Need data!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf

    That's a hugely misleading question in the context of all the other changes going on.

    For the opposite answer ask "Should the government tax you less rather than taking your money before giving some of it back via an inefficient and error-prone bureaucracy..?"

    I still can't find any reliable numbers for how people are affected by the changes as a whole. Need data!
    I'm so fed up of the arguments that I'm trying to create the data. Watch this space.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf

    That's a hugely misleading question in the context of all the other changes going on.

    For the opposite answer ask "Should the government tax you less rather than taking your money before giving some of it back via an inefficient and error-prone bureaucracy..?"

    I still can't find any reliable numbers for how people are affected by the changes as a whole. Need data!
    I'm so fed up of the arguments that I'm trying to create the data. Watch this space.
    :+1:
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited October 2015

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Do you have advice for this single mother with 4 children? I'm not sure I have to be honest. Do we know how many fathers? Do we know if they can support their children?
    I wish her well, and admire her for voting Tory when it was well publicised that Tory policy was to cut the deficit and cut £12bn from the welfare bill. For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is limiting the child benefit to two children. What will you or anyone of us then say to women who go ahead and have 4 or more children?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is limiting the child benefit to two children.
    I must say that is one change I've not heard anyone comment upon negatively, even among the non-Tories - I know there will be much gnashing of teeth and political hay will be made with it, but my gut says that one will be easier to sell.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Do you have advice for this single mother with 4 children? I'm not sure I have to be honest. Do we know how many fathers? Do we know if they can support their children?
    I wish her well, and admire her for voting Tory when it was well publicised that Tory policy was to cut the deficit and cut £12bn from the welfare bill. For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is li iting the child benefit to two children. What will you or anyone of us then say to women who go ahead and have 4 or more children?
    The number of fathers is utterly irrelevant. Even if there are four different fathers, the fact she might be trying to improve herself now, regardless of any mistakes she may or may not have made in the past, should be lauded.

    If she is genuine, that is. Until I know otherwise, I would prefer to treat her as being genuine.

    Your post does read, intentionally or not, as slightly nasty.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Do you have advice for this single mother with 4 children? I'm not sure I have to be honest. Do we know how many fathers? Do we know if they can support their children?
    I wish her well, and admire her for voting Tory when it was well publicised that Tory policy was to cut the deficit and cut £12bn from the welfare bill. For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is li iting the child benefit to two children. What will you or anyone of us then say to women who go ahead and have 4 or more children?
    The number of fathers is utterly irrelevant. Even if there are four different fathers, the fact she might be trying to improve herself now, regardless of any mistakes she may or may not have made in the past, should be lauded.

    If she is genuine, that is. Until I know otherwise, I would prefer to treat her as being genuine.

    Your post does read, intentionally or not, as slightly nasty.
    Actually, it might be relevant. The more fathers the more chance at least one of them should be paying child maintenance - though I guess only for their child.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,751
    Danny565 said:

    Sky Poll

    Do you oppose or support cutting tax credits for people on low incomes with children?

    All voters
    Support: 22%
    Oppose: 63%

    2015 Tory voters
    Support: 32%
    Oppose: 50%

    http://interactive.news.sky.com/2015/PDFs/summerbudget2015skydata.pdf

    Talk about push poll.

    If I asked - "Do you support or oppose changing the tax system so that people on low incomes keep more of their own money?" I would get a similar response, despite both questions being basically the same.
  • Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    Nonsense!

    We are nearly at full employment because that's the default rate for a healthy economy to be at. If every non-job was abolished overnight we'd revert back to full employment ultimately as we always will when growing trend towards full employment unless welfare or something else prevents it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    kle4 said:

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is limiting the child benefit to two children.
    I must say that is one change I've not heard anyone comment upon negatively, even among the non-Tories - I know there will be much gnashing of teeth and political hay will be made with it, but my gut says that one will be easier to sell.
    Mrs J is exceptionally unhappy about it, for reasons I don't quite understand. This despite us not being remotely in that situation.

    She did not complain in any way about the child benefit changes over £50,000, which does affect us.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2015
    Has anyone worked out how a woman who claims to have no income will actually be subject to a cut?

    As far as I can see, any income under £3850 results in zero change.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584

    kle4 said:

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is limiting the child benefit to two children.
    I must say that is one change I've not heard anyone comment upon negatively, even among the non-Tories - I know there will be much gnashing of teeth and political hay will be made with it, but my gut says that one will be easier to sell.
    Mrs J is exceptionally unhappy about it, for reasons I don't quite understand. This despite us not being remotely in that situation.

    She did not complain in any way about the child benefit changes over £50,000, which does affect us.
    I suspect any qualms about it are due to it feeling a little bit like an anit-population policy like China's one child policy. It's nothing of the sort but it won't stop people making claims about preventing poor people from having children. Of course, the counter argument would be that the current set up could be seen as a pro-population policy and they don't have a great record (see Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu).
  • It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Do you have advice for this single mother with 4 children? I'm not sure I have to be honest. Do we know how many fathers? Do we know if they can support their children?
    I wish her well, and admire her for voting Tory when it was well publicised that Tory policy was to cut the deficit and cut £12bn from the welfare bill. For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is limiting the child benefit to two children. What will you or anyone of us then say to women who go ahead and have 4 or more children?
    I would suggest: Good for you, support the children you choose to have however you choose.

    Children should not be an ATM.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    I think the damage to the Tories is pretty much done so there's little to be gained by a U turn at this point. Whatever the result they have handed Labour a rich seem of potential attack ads - Cameron and Osbo snatching food off struggling families tables with a Fagan like video etc. An early foretaste:



    From memory Cameron tried to pin this idea on Danny. The Tories honeymoon period well and truly over, with their nasty party credentials renewed and the EU civil war hasn't even got beyond the skirmish point !!
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,211

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Do you have advice for this single mother with 4 children? I'm not sure I have to be honest. Do we know how many fathers? Do we know if they can support their children?
    I wish her well, and admire her for voting Tory when it was well publicised that Tory policy was to cut the deficit and cut £12bn from the welfare bill. For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is li iting the child benefit to two children. What will you or anyone of us then say to women who go ahead and have 4 or more children?
    The number of fathers is utterly irrelevant. Even if there are four different fathers, the fact she might be trying to improve herself now, regardless of any mistakes she may or may not have made in the past, should be lauded.

    If she is genuine, that is. Until I know otherwise, I would prefer to treat her as being genuine.

    Your post does read, intentionally or not, as slightly nasty.
    I agree about assuming best intentions. People can only do their best within what the system allows. Trying to remove perverse incentives is laudable, but it doesn't mean that people who responded to those perverse incentives were doing what wasn't laudable.

    One question: what benefits would the state have been liable for, had someone in this lady's position had not gone into self-employment?
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    It seems many on the lunatic side of Labour are attacking the lady for having voted Conservative ...

    But Conservatives should not attack her either. After all, without knowing her exact circumstances, she may well be trying to improve her life by running a small business. Perhaps she is finding it difficult; perhaps she wants to expand but is running into problems.

    Instead of attacking her, the government should be love-bombing her. They should be stressing the things they do to improve the lot of the small businessperson, and ask her what they can do to help her, and other strivers such as her.

    If her story is not genuine, then it should become known. Until then, she may well be one of the tens of thousands who wants to improve her life by running a small business. True conservatives should be helping her, not screaming at her.

    Do you have advice for this single mother with 4 children? I'm not sure I have to be honest. Do we know how many fathers? Do we know if they can support their children?
    I wish her well, and admire her for voting Tory when it was well publicised that Tory policy was to cut the deficit and cut £12bn from the welfare bill. For future people like her however, and no matter how she is inclined to vote, the next controversy is li iting the child benefit to two children. What will you or anyone of us then say to women who go ahead and have 4 or more children?
    The number of fathers is utterly irrelevant. Even if there are four different fathers, the fact she might be trying to improve herself now, regardless of any mistakes she may or may not have made in the past, should be lauded.

    If she is genuine, that is. Until I know otherwise, I would prefer to treat her as being genuine.

    Your post does read, intentionally or not, as slightly nasty.
    This woman has every right to try to work to improve herself. How does she do that with 4 children? The best way she can work is on a productive job - here she would get the advantage of higher tax allowances and the living wage (at least). The new job then created is one for child minders and nursery workers whils she works.
    A single mother with 4 children is in an impossible position. It strikes me that self employment in a loss making enterprise is not a way forward and is not what tax credits were meant for. Perhaps a rational welfare system would support her and her children in a more transparent way. You can think what you like about me but sadly a life beholden to welfare is always going to be rotten, but by the time someone qualifies for the payments the damage is done.
  • I guess the Labour Party spinners are trying to coin the phrase Working Penalty like the BS of a Bedroom Tax.

    I'll say what a working penalty is ... telling people that they should not work more than 16 hours a week or they'll be worse off and should be content with whatever the government is giving them and no more, that is a true working penalty and a devastating blow against social mobility.

    The sooner the notion of working 16 hours a week and no more "as the jobcentre won't let me work more than 16" is history the better.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2015
    AnneJGP said:

    One question: what benefits would the state have been liable for, had someone in this lady's position had not gone into self-employment?

    She can basically earn £120 a week and keep all the tax credits of someone who is unemployed and on £73 a week.

    re: Working Penalty = Income Tax

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584

    This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.

    What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    edited October 2015
    tlg86 said:

    This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.

    What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.</blockquote





    Quite simple, you must never oppose a giveaway you'll be called heartless and cruel.

    Come on Tory boys, lovers of the free market and anti nanny state - justify help to buy.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    I guess the Labour Party spinners are trying to coin the phrase Working Penalty like the BS of a Bedroom Tax.

    I'll say what a working penalty is ... telling people that they should not work more than 16 hours a week or they'll be worse off and should be content with whatever the government is giving them and no more, that is a true working penalty and a devastating blow against social mobility.

    The sooner the notion of working 16 hours a week and no more "as the jobcentre won't let me work more than 16" is history the better.

    This is the root of the problem. 16 hours is a magic number of hours to work, it is both a minimum and a maximum for a whole load of benefits and allowances.

    Anecdotal evidence, I was once told by an employee that she could only work 16 hrs as her husband became unemployed. If she had worked 17 then he couldn't sign on and they couldn't claim housing benefit. They were literally hundreds of pounds a week better off by her working fewer hours. It's complete madness!!!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857
    edited October 2015

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.
    They said that about the bedroom tax too. I expect a u-turn too, but really not much seems different except this one may have cut through a little better.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    No. There are more people in work than ever. And if some jobs are bogus jobs then are you saying they should be propped up?
    The economy is growing and real jobs are available.

    snip
    There are, but why bother when it's easier to set up a 'business' which doesn't have to achieve much, and let the Benefits System and Tax Credits pay out. The whole thing's a giant racket, and a huge axe should be taken to it.

    An eager Eastern European will be happy to take up the slack, and the job.

    There are many who wish to work more than 16 hours, and should be allowed to do so without losing out, but there are also those wantonly milking the system whilst using this as an excuse.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    Captain Kirk believes in ghosts...

    @paulhutcheon: Alex Salmond Claims He Has Seen Evidence That Ghosts Exist http://t.co/q0ugUUubqB via @JamieRoss7 @BuzzFeedUK
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    tlg86 said:

    This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.

    What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
    From what I remember reading, the state makes money from the fees it charged for help to buy. I understand that when a house is sold the govt take 20% of the profit. Assuming housebuilders make profits and hopefully pay tax then the govt get tax revenue. There are some no doubt fanciful figures being bandied around and based on various suppositions, but the FT I think has said if its all extrapolated out then by 2020 the govt ... us the taxpayer ... will have made 4.5 billion.
    It is a shame I grant you that labour's inheritance left the housing market in ruins.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Looks like BBC Scotland might be reviewing their position as the Broadcast Wing of SLAB.

  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,338
    edited October 2015
    Scott_P said:

    Captain Kirk believes in ghosts...

    @paulhutcheon: Alex Salmond Claims He Has Seen Evidence That Ghosts Exist http://t.co/q0ugUUubqB via @JamieRoss7 @BuzzFeedUK

    It may be people stuck in the transporter beam and unable to rematerialize
  • Sandpit said:

    I guess the Labour Party spinners are trying to coin the phrase Working Penalty like the BS of a Bedroom Tax.

    I'll say what a working penalty is ... telling people that they should not work more than 16 hours a week or they'll be worse off and should be content with whatever the government is giving them and no more, that is a true working penalty and a devastating blow against social mobility.

    The sooner the notion of working 16 hours a week and no more "as the jobcentre won't let me work more than 16" is history the better.

    This is the root of the problem. 16 hours is a magic number of hours to work, it is both a minimum and a maximum for a whole load of benefits and allowances.

    Anecdotal evidence, I was once told by an employee that she could only work 16 hrs as her husband became unemployed. If she had worked 17 then he couldn't sign on and they couldn't claim housing benefit. They were literally hundreds of pounds a week better off by her working fewer hours. It's complete madness!!!
    Quite.

    Politicians of various hues have created a tangled mess of interlocking benefits, credits, taxes, student welfare and goodness knows what else. Their interactions are complex and unpredictable, and in many cases totally capricious when you cross one threshold or another. The situation is made far worse by some things being assessed on a personal level, others on a total household level, some with regard to the presence of a certain type of person in the household (e.g. if you have a granny in your annexe, the whole lot of you avoid the licence fee), and some with regard to partner's earnings. You'd have to model a couple of hundred - perhaps even a few thousand - "feasible household scenarios" to see all the plausible permutations.

    At least for its intellectual and bureaucratic parsimony and obvious "fairness", there's something very strong to be said for the universal basic income.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857
    kle4 said:

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.
    They said that about the bedroom tax too. I expect a u-turn too, but really not much seems different except this one may have cut through a little better.
    Much bigger sums involved and this only effects strivers.

    Completely different kettle of fish to B Tax when you are pretending to be the new party for said strivers IMO
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    @BethRigby: It's been a fiery week 4 Yentob Coming up in @thetimes - more revelations abt his perceived meddling at #BBC over #kidsCo with @billykenber

    @BethRigby: Verbal complaint made after Mr Yentob personally called Ed Stourton of #wato to discuss the report on #KidsCo shortly before broadcast.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    watford30 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    Our current expenditure can and should be cut alot more to "pay down the deficit".

    But that raises the question of what you think this woman and others like her should actually do employment-wise. Since the austerity policies started, especially with public-sector jobs being culled, there have simply not been enough real jobs in the economy, and the only reason the unemployment rate started falling was precisely because people started cottoning onto the "self-employment" wheeze.
    Get a real job. There's plenty available we're almost at Full Employment rates and there are plenty of unfilled vacancies out there. So if people are taking advantages of loopholes and maximising extorting the taxpayer for every penny they can get for the minimal amount of work they can get away with then that's not due to a lack of work availability.
    This is the whole point: we are only notionally at near "full employment" because so many people are "self-employed" but making a loss, like this woman.

    The amount of vacancies in the real economy (which are not THAT plentiful) will be snatched up long before the fake self-employeds have all got one.
    No. There are more people in work than ever. And if some jobs are bogus jobs then are you saying they should be propped up?
    The economy is growing and real jobs are available.

    snip
    There are, but why bother when it's easier to set up a 'business' which doesn't have to achieve much, and let the Benefits System and Tax Credits pay out. The whole thing's a giant racket, and a huge axe should be taken to it.

    An eager Eastern European will be happy to take up the slack, and the job.

    There are many who wish to work more than 16 hours, and should be allowed to do so without losing out, but there are also those wantonly milking the system whilst using this as an excuse.
    I too get a sense that it is a racket. I am not sure of the scale, but this particular issue does lift a bit of a lid.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    What losses?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,751
    The reason I don't think there will be a u-turn is because it is so early in the Parliament and there are 5 years left until the next election. Most people will have forgotten this stuff by then, and of the people who lose out initially, most will be better off by 2020, and those who aren't will be too small in number to worry Osborne. A harsh but sound political calculation. Also, those who are still worse of in 2020 because of these changes probably need to look in the mirror rather than at the government for who is at fault for their poverty.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637
    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    If I was George, I'd have anticipated a negative response and built some flex into the budget for a slower taper / targetted help for the worst losers.

    You hold that back & announce it at the Autumn Statement - should lance the boil of opposition.

    Easy to do - regardless of what his reforms were there was going to be an intensively negative response, so you can anticipate and plan accordingly
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,589
    Setting aside the rights and wrongs, I have a sneaking suspicion the Tories will ride this out, thanks to the extremism of Corbyn.

    The public will see a choice between nasty but probably sensible Tories and caring but certifiably insane Labour, and reluctantly conclude that The Pain Must Be Endured.


  • SeanT said:

    Setting aside the rights and wrongs, I have a sneaking suspicion the Tories will ride this out, thanks to the extremism of Corbyn.

    The public will see a choice between nasty but probably sensible Tories and caring but certifiably insane Labour, and reluctantly conclude that The Pain Must Be Endured.


    Very tough to gauge, really. Social media full of the usual outrage but can't quite fathom what overall public opinion is.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    With any change to taxes and benefits the losers are more visible than the winners. But just as people who shout louder are not winning the argument, it does not mean that a change of tune is in the offing. That would just create further losers without regaining the first lot of losers. Best to stick to your guns.

    There is not much unemployment (only 7000 in Leicester for example) but there is a lot of underemployment. This at least makes it easier to move to other employment. If this person is working full time yet taking home only £150 per week then her small business is one of the many that are not viable. Her skills may well be transferrable though and even on minimum wage she should do better working for someone else. Grafters are always employable, bludgers less so.



  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    What losses?
    Average £1000 per annum in year 1. IE from April.

    IFS seem to agree with this scale of losses.

    In a way I hope it goes through in the same way as I felt about Poll Tax.

    Anyway early to bed for me off for a ride up Serrle Carlisle and round Cumbrian Coast on class 37 from 5.30am

  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited October 2015
    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    Removing the tax payer subsidy will lead to greater productivity and like for like fewer jobs but better paid ones. There will be more willingness to work longer hours in a none disrupted market which will affect employment numbers.
    Equally there should be a wider economic benefit to an economy that is living within its means and able to properly spend on the investment we need and allow more money to remain in workers pockets in after tax.
    The whole issue of this thread header is about weaning people off bogus benefits and into real jobs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015

    Sandpit said:

    I guess the Labour Party spinners are trying to coin the phrase Working Penalty like the BS of a Bedroom Tax.

    The sooner the notion of working 16 hours a week and no more "as the jobcentre won't let me work more than 16" is history the better.

    This is the root of the problem. 16 hours is a magic number of hours to work, it is both a minimum and a maximum for a whole load of benefits and allowances.

    Anecdotal evidence, I was once told by an employee that she could only work 16 hrs as her husband became unemployed. If she had worked 17 then he couldn't sign on and they couldn't claim housing benefit. They were literally hundreds of pounds a week better off by her working fewer hours. It's complete madness!!!
    Quite.

    Politicians of various hues have created a tangled mess of interlocking benefits, credits, taxes, student welfare and goodness knows what else. Their interactions are complex and unpredictable, and in many cases totally capricious when you cross one threshold or another. The situation is made far worse by some things being assessed on a personal level, others on a total household level, some with regard to the presence of a certain type of person in the household (e.g. if you have a granny in your annexe, the whole lot of you avoid the licence fee), and some with regard to partner's earnings. You'd have to model a couple of hundred - perhaps even a few thousand - "feasible household scenarios" to see all the plausible permutations.

    At least for its intellectual and bureaucratic parsimony and obvious "fairness", there's something very strong to be said for the universal basic income.
    I just remembered that the reason this lady was working in the first place (in a restaurant) was that if she took a part time job (of, you guessed it, 16 hours a week) then she could get free childcare vouchers. So when her husband was made redundant she couldn't work 15 hours and couldn't work 17. This was a decade ago and it's only with the UC rollout that this mess is finally changing. It was a nightmare as an employer to have to deal with that kind of crap.

    The Universal Basic Income is a sound idea, it would eliminate massive bureaucracy and be roughly cost neutral at say £1,000 a month for everyone over 18 (c. £500bn) or a bit less. I did suggest on the previous thread though that it can't work for an EU country if 300m people could claim it! The other danger is that the annual increase in it becomes more political than anything right now, as at election time the politician promising to raise it the most appeals to literally everyone. Imagine how 2005 Gordon Brown would have reacted under that system!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Oliver_PB said:

    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people getting hurt. They don't see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable outcome, not least because it helps entrenches a servile underclass. There's a reason there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions that involves.
    Hillarious rubbish. Well actually sickening rubbish.
    The greatest shame that the last labour govt inflicted was to park people on benefits, losing interest in them other than as voter fodder, whilst funnelling hundreds of thousands of new EU entrants into the very jobs they the claimants needed to be occupying.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,211
    SeanT said:

    Setting aside the rights and wrongs, I have a sneaking suspicion the Tories will ride this out, thanks to the extremism of Corbyn.

    The public will see a choice between nasty but probably sensible Tories and caring but certifiably insane Labour, and reluctantly conclude that The Pain Must Be Endured.


    I was very disappointed that the Labour government didn't push through major reforms to the benefits system when they had their huge majority and the Conservatives were in disarray.

    It would be really strange if those reforms actually do get pushed through by a Conservative government with a tiny majority. Obviously they'll be different reforms, but it'll still be a considerable achievement.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,589
    Oliver_PB said:

    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
    HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    Removing the tax payer subsidy will lead to greater productivity and like for like fewer jobs but better paid ones. There will be more willingness to work longer hours in a none disrupted market which will affect employment numbers.
    Equally there should be a wider economic benefit to an economy that is living within its means and able to properly spend on the investment we need and allow more money to remain in workers pockets in after tax.
    The whole issue of this thread header is about weaning people off bogus benefits and into real jobs.
    Well there is a first for everything I agree with most of your post.

    It is important that higher wages and less tax credits are introduced at the same time with a neutral impact (especially for the worst off)

    If not its toxic.

    Off to dream of class 37s
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Speedy said:

    Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.

    Carry on believing that down your particular rabbit hole.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    Totally off topic, I was reviewing an old story I had written about 5 years ago, and edited out fully 1/3 of its words as adding nothing of value, and that without revising the structure or content of the story as a next step. I thought I'd learned nothing of the worth of brevity, but I guess I have improved slightly over time!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Speedy said:

    Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.

    Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.

    Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.

    Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    SeanT said:

    Oliver_PB said:

    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
    HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
    I don't doubt it, and thanks to this government, in a few years you'll be able to afford that live-in Thai prostitute that you've always wanted. I guess that counts as "job creation", right?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    What losses?
    Average £1000 per annum in year 1. IE from April.

    IFS seem to agree with this scale of losses.

    In a way I hope it goes through in the same way as I felt about Poll Tax.

    Anyway early to bed for me off for a ride up Serrle Carlisle and round Cumbrian Coast on class 37 from 5.30am

    Ah. I thought you meant political losses.

    Enjoy your ride. Lovely day for it.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857
    SeanT said:

    Oliver_PB said:

    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
    HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
    Only in monetary terms
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020

    Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will.

    Maybe - they have a slim majority, and were it not for them being confident in the opposition not being credible, I'd be much more confident they would cave, as I feel like they have very weak constitutions for certain fights (it's hard to guess which ones).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637

    tlg86 said:

    This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.

    What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
    The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.

    But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.

    Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    Oliver_PB said:

    SeanT said:

    Oliver_PB said:

    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
    HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
    I don't doubt it, and thanks to this government, in a few years you'll be able to afford that live-in Thai prostitute that you've always wanted. I guess that counts as "job creation", right?
    Judging by the way his books are selling he could afford two and a ménage a trois Ou quatre perhaps.. SO what?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Sandpit said:


    I just remembered that the reason this lady was working in the first place (in a restaurant) was that if she took a part time job (of, you guessed it, 16 hours a week) then she could get free childcare vouchers. So when her husband was made redundant she couldn't work 15 hours and couldn't work 17. This was a decade ago and it's only with the UC rollout that this mess is finally changing. It was a nightmare as an employer to have to deal with that kind of crap.

    The Universal Basic Income is a sound idea, it would eliminate massive bureaucracy and be roughly cost neutral at say £1,000 a month for everyone over 18 (c. £500bn) or a bit less. I did suggest on the previous thread though that it can't work for an EU country if 300m people could claim it! The other danger is that the annual increase in it becomes more political than anything right now, as at election time the politician promising to raise it the most appeals to literally everyone. Imagine how 2005 Gordon Brown would have reacted under that system!

    A guaranteed income for doing nothing would guarantee a large number of creative wannabes would never work again.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    Removing the tax payer subsidy will lead to greater productivity and like for like fewer jobs but better paid ones. There will be more willingness to work longer hours in a none disrupted market which will affect employment numbers.
    Equally there should be a wider economic benefit to an economy that is living within its means and able to properly spend on the investment we need and allow more money to remain in workers pockets in after tax.
    The whole issue of this thread header is about weaning people off bogus benefits and into real jobs.
    Well there is a first for everything I agree with most of your post.

    It is important that higher wages and less tax credits are introduced at the same time with a neutral impact (especially for the worst off)

    If not its toxic.

    Off to dream of class 37s
    There's a surprisingly wide consensus on here that the system is a mess and the end result of UC is much more desirable, if only people don't really lose out during the transition.

    And with that, time to close eyes. Past midnight here and getting up early to go and watch the final day of the most boring test match in living memory!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,751

    SeanT said:

    Setting aside the rights and wrongs, I have a sneaking suspicion the Tories will ride this out, thanks to the extremism of Corbyn.

    The public will see a choice between nasty but probably sensible Tories and caring but certifiably insane Labour, and reluctantly conclude that The Pain Must Be Endured.


    Very tough to gauge, really. Social media full of the usual outrage but can't quite fathom what overall public opinion is.
    People who work hard and play by the rules saw some lady whining last night about the poor choices she made in life and that the government are no longer going to give her money for making bad choices. I find it hard to believe that someone who goes out to work for 40 hours a week, has one child and struggles to pay the ridiculous private rent has very much sympathy for this woman. If anything, they are probably incensed that someone who doesn't do very much work, has a home "business" is currently getting more money from the government for not really working than they get for going out to work because they were responsible and didn't have more children than was affordable. This is the silent majority of the working poor IMO. They want to be able to buy their own home and have security of housing, work and a good education for their kid(s). Not paying tax the getting it back, having to claim housing benefit and end up sending their kids to a school where they may or may not fall in with the wrong crowd and end up in a gang.

    I honestly believe in the goodness of people and that people who are responsible are able to see these irresponsible people and make up their own minds about them rather than having an agenda spoonfed to them by the BBC.

    Finally, from reading a bit more about this woman, she doesn't stand to lose directly from the changes since her business makes no money, apparently she is going to lose because the WTC changes will affect other mothers in her area who will no longer spend money on having their nails done. Sounds to me like she does a lot of under the table cash trade.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857

    Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.

    They will tweak it IMO and pretend its not a U Turn.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,589

    SeanT said:

    Oliver_PB said:

    Dair said:

    kle4 said:

    I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.

    There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
    Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.

    Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.

    Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
    HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
    Only in monetary terms
    No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.

    And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.

    What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
    The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.

    But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.

    Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
    The only way to deal with the housing crisis is via both supply and demand.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.

    You are out of touch IMO.

    I expect a U Turn to limit the losses in first couple of years.

    Incidently I agree long term that it is the right thing to do to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy to shite employers
    Removing the tax payer subsidy will lead to greater productivity and like for like fewer jobs but better paid ones. There will be more willingness to work longer hours in a none disrupted market which will affect employment numbers.
    Equally there should be a wider economic benefit to an economy that is living within its means and able to properly spend on the investment we need and allow more money to remain in workers pockets in after tax.
    The whole issue of this thread header is about weaning people off bogus benefits and into real jobs.
    Well there is a first for everything I agree with most of your post.

    It is important that higher wages and less tax credits are introduced at the same time with a neutral impact (especially for the worst off)

    If not its toxic.

    Off to dream of class 37s
    There's a surprisingly wide consensus on here that the system is a mess and the end result of UC is much more desirable, if only people don't really lose out during the transition.

    And with that, time to close eyes. Past midnight here and getting up early to go and watch the final day of the most boring test match in living memory!
    Not even the prospect of a record breaking innings to look forward to now, either.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    SeanT said:

    HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.

    Sean: you have accidentally left the Caps Lock on.
    And you it's terribly gauche to boast about your wealth.
Sign In or Register to comment.