Just wondering what the general OCUK consensus is on the Chancellor's announcement yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29402844
Working tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit will be frozen for two years, whilst pension rises will be "protected". No attempts made to cut the pension benefit, even to the richest pensioners.
Low-income Working families stand to lose in the region of £400-£500 per year through the freeze, according to Conservative officials (a working couple with one child, with each earning £13,000 a year, would lose £44 a year in child benefit and £310 a year in tax credits. A household with a single earner and two children would lose £75 a year in child benefit and £420 in tax credits.)
It reminded me a little of the "bedroom tax". A policy which I, somewhat, felt was not unreasonable in theory (assuming, unrealistically, that smaller houses were actually available to give people the choice to downsize and avoid the "tax"), but which was undermined by the exemption give to (of course) OAPs. OAPs who, often, are living in family council houses long after their children have left.
I can understand why a Tory government might make such moves - a very large and vocal part of the Tory vote is at or near pension age, whilst the young don't vote as much, don't vote blue as much and, for under 18s, who will be hit hardest by cuts to family income, are not allowed to vote.
But I can't understand why the general public accept such regressive policies. Why do we pump so much cash into an unproductive, relatively wealthy section of society when the opportunity is there to assist current and future generations to be more productive and engaged with society?
So, GD, what do you think?
TLDR:
Is it fair and equitable to reduce income for poor working families whilst protecting income for all pensioners, a wealthier demographic?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29402844
Working tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit will be frozen for two years, whilst pension rises will be "protected". No attempts made to cut the pension benefit, even to the richest pensioners.
Low-income Working families stand to lose in the region of £400-£500 per year through the freeze, according to Conservative officials (a working couple with one child, with each earning £13,000 a year, would lose £44 a year in child benefit and £310 a year in tax credits. A household with a single earner and two children would lose £75 a year in child benefit and £420 in tax credits.)
It reminded me a little of the "bedroom tax". A policy which I, somewhat, felt was not unreasonable in theory (assuming, unrealistically, that smaller houses were actually available to give people the choice to downsize and avoid the "tax"), but which was undermined by the exemption give to (of course) OAPs. OAPs who, often, are living in family council houses long after their children have left.
I can understand why a Tory government might make such moves - a very large and vocal part of the Tory vote is at or near pension age, whilst the young don't vote as much, don't vote blue as much and, for under 18s, who will be hit hardest by cuts to family income, are not allowed to vote.
But I can't understand why the general public accept such regressive policies. Why do we pump so much cash into an unproductive, relatively wealthy section of society when the opportunity is there to assist current and future generations to be more productive and engaged with society?
So, GD, what do you think?
TLDR:
Is it fair and equitable to reduce income for poor working families whilst protecting income for all pensioners, a wealthier demographic?
