Assumed £19.00 a week cuts expected in benefits to those that need it the most.
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
Osborne confident poor families won’t notice losing £230 a month
THE chancellor is confident poor families will not realise that cuts to tax credits have drastically reduced their income.
Osborne has cleverly brought in the cuts straight away, but delayed increases in the minimum wage until 2019 after assuming most low-income households are too bad at maths to spot it.
He said: “It’s like a game of Find the Lady. Is your money here, under the living wage cup? Or here, under the increased personal tax allowance cup?
“They’ll be so dazzled by the street-corner showmanship they’ll have no idea their actual income has dropped by two grand a year – a sum easily covered by some simple household savings.
“Then when the other stuff comes in, they’ll be so grateful to generous Mr Osborne that they’ll insist on making me the next prime minister. Boom!”
Osborne ruled out trying the same trick when closing corporate tax loopholes, adding: “They have accountants who are even cleverer than I am.”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...wont-notice-losing-230-a-month-20151016103001
Daily Mash make an insightful point there. The huge cut comes at the start of the 5-year parliament, with the "giveaway" increase in minimum wage likely being weighted toward the end of the "by 2019" timescale. In time for the next election.
THE chancellor is confident poor families will not realise that cuts to tax credits have drastically reduced their income.
Osborne has cleverly brought in the cuts straight away, but delayed increases in the minimum wage until 2019 after assuming most low-income households are too bad at maths to spot it.
He said: “It’s like a game of Find the Lady. Is your money here, under the living wage cup? Or here, under the increased personal tax allowance cup?
“They’ll be so dazzled by the street-corner showmanship they’ll have no idea their actual income has dropped by two grand a year – a sum easily covered by some simple household savings.
“Then when the other stuff comes in, they’ll be so grateful to generous Mr Osborne that they’ll insist on making me the next prime minister. Boom!”
Osborne ruled out trying the same trick when closing corporate tax loopholes, adding: “They have accountants who are even cleverer than I am.”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...wont-notice-losing-230-a-month-20151016103001
Daily Mash make an insightful point there. The huge cut comes at the start of the 5-year parliament, with the "giveaway" increase in minimum wage likely being weighted toward the end of the "by 2019" timescale. In time for the next election.
You think policy should be based on making sure people aren't too happy, rather than any generally measurable basis?
Tory voters are properly ****ed up.
Raising minimum wage doesn't work, employers just won't pay for it. All it will do is raise the cost of living, its a false economy.
We need an attitude change starting from the top and working down. The very idea of paying people less than they need just to live should be abhorrent to everyone.
We need an attitude change starting from the top and working down. The very idea of paying people less than they need just to live should be abhorrent to everyone.
I don't think the aim it to screw you over. The aim is to move the burden of supporting your child from the state to your employer.
There is no easy or painless way to do this.
But many people believe the state shouldn't be picking up the bill incurred by low wages or high child support costs.
(Except the socialists, who believe the state should pay for everything).
Not sure I get that. If it's the minimum wage, they'll have to pay for it. Yes, in some instances that will be by increasing the price of the product, but if wages go up by 10% that will only be a portion of the total costs of the product (i.e. rent, business rates, raw materials etc) so the products won't be going up by 10%.
If 2 people work full time jobs of 35-40 hours a week at minimum wage they can afford to live, if they aren't doing that then I shouldn't be expected to pay for their life poor choices. Poor life choices include not seeking further qualifications if you haven't got any, having children/pets you can't afford and smoking/drinking when you can't afford it.
well that is why the minimum wage needs to rise...
as for 'it doesn't work' - it has been shown plenty of times that rising the minimum wage does work
Indeed. I was reading a piece about the situation in the US, where states have the power to set min wages.
They compared two states, one with a higher min wage, and the "disastrous" consequences of raising min wage were shown to be absolute crap. The state with the higher min wage didn't see employment fall, or prices rise. It's just FUD.
The opening post is months old. This thread was revived on the subject of tax credit cuts. Out of work benefits and in work benefits are very different debates.
so she is actually a near perfect example of why these cuts to tax credits need to happen - she's on low rent or having her rent covered as it is, she'll be getting child benefit, yet because she is self employed and doesn't earn much (or at least what she declares from her cash in hand business shows she doesn't earn much) then the taxpayer is supposed to top up her income?
She needs a reality check, if the business isn't profitable then it is time to get a job and provide for the kids, there are other places where she can paint nails etc... it doesn't have to be done in her subsidised flat with apparently not sufficient customers to make it worthwhile.
Two people, 40 hours per week on the minimum wage is £25127.36 after tax.
Happiness shouldn't really come into it. The government doesn't, unless I'm wrong, hand out benefits based on how happy or unhappy people are? There are plenty of well off unhappy people - yeah, I know they can be unhappy in comfort......
I think people like my brother-in-law who have never worked, won't work etc should be made to work and certainly shouldn't be a drain on everyone else. Personally I'd put him on a chain gang Mon - Fri and the Stocks on Saturday.
If it means that the government reduces benefits to such an extent that the lazy **** has to find a job all well and good.
Surely the view that work should pay better than benefits is sound.
Punish the many to combat the few?
Do you understand that:
(a) The tax credits that are being cut primarily go to people who are working; and (b) that reducing the tax credits means that reward for working over not working is reduced?
That's a short sighted view.
Firstly, two people working full-time and supporting a family can't necessarily afford to have a decent standard of living. That's what this debate is about; do we want jobs that pay enough for people to live without state aid, or do we want the state to subsidise low wages through tax credits and in work benefits? Unfortunately the Chancellor has chosen to take two steps forward and three steps back on this, bringing forward cuts on in work benefits while pushing back the wage increase needed to offset that. People who are set to lose in work benefits in April won't see their financial situation return to 2015 levels until the end of the decade, if not later.
Secondly, while making better life choices may improve living standards for the individual, it isn't a solution for society as a whole. Everybody cannot improve their living standards through better life choices. We need millions of low paid workers regardless of the life choices they make. Nothing will ever change that. No amount of planning, no amount of education. New Labour's silly 50% of school leavers to University policy is a fantastic example if this in play. It was at best naive to believe we could place 50% of school leavers in to graduate jobs down the line. Our country simply doesn't have the demand for that number,even if the distribution of students across subject areas perfectly mirrored industry demand (which it doesn't, compounding the issue).
Last edited: