Lords defeat government over tax credits cut

[Tosno]

Why is there a Phoenicopteridae?

 

[cainer]

So, speculation on what Osbourne will go after now to find the money?

fuel fags & beer

 

[robfosters]

fuel fags & beer

Fuel = dont drive

Fags = dont smoke

Beer -

 

[Danthus]

A breach of constitutional convention that costs taxpayers billions, how is that something to celebrate or applaud?

Roll on reform.

Because the £119bn is a number with no relationship to reality, and certainly not a figure on tax evasion?

The tax gap including evasion and avoidance is £34bn
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48d5a518-552a-11e4-b616-00144feab7de.html

Won't cost as much as the later.

 

[McPhee]

i don't understand why anybody agrees with giving benefits to people who are working - all it does is subsidise business by allowing them to pay reduced wages.

it was a moronic idea from Brown and costs a ridiculous £30 billion.

That isn't what just happened.

People's reliance on tax credits is still being removed through wage rises and tax cuts. By 2020 the number of people claiming tax credits, and the amount being paid out, will be vastly reduced - to the same levels that they will be with the cuts. Nobody was opposing this bit.

By cutting Working Tax Credit the government was attempting to put the cart before the horse, reducing Tax Credit spending to projected 2020 levels before people's need for them has been removed. This is where they have recieved staunch opposition. People in receipt of Working Tax Credit can't afford to have their incomes reduced by, in some cases, very considerable amounts. They were attempting to make the poor pay for the transition period. That was unfair. It would have been equally to unfair to expect employers to pay a £9ph minimum wage from next year.

The Lords have simply asked the government to think again, telling them that cutting incomes in such a way is unacceptable. They are right, it isn't particularly necessary - £4.5bn over a parliament isn't much, especially given the long term problem has already been solved. By the next parliament, the tax credits issue will be massively diminished. The problem for Mr Osborne is that the Lords decision makes it very difficult for him to hit his £12bn target for welfare cuts.

 

[Danthus]

That isn't what just happened.

People's reliance on tax credits is still being removed through wage rises and tax cuts. By 2020 the number of people claiming tax credits, and the amount being paid out, will be vastly reduced - to the same levels that they will be with the cuts. Nobody was opposing this bit.

By cutting Working Tax Credit the government was attempting to put the cart before the horse, reducing Tax Credit spending to projected 2020 levels before people's need for them has been removed. This is where they have recieved staunch opposition. People in receipt of Working Tax Credit can't afford to have their incomes reduced by, in some cases, very considerable amounts. They were attempting to make the poor pay for the transition period. That was unfair. It would have been equally to unfair to expect employers to pay a £9ph minimum wage from next year.

The Lords have simply asked the government to think again, telling them that cutting incomes in such a way is unacceptable.

Under 25's would not get the new Living Wage.

 

[cainer]

Fuel = Papa Johns will charge for delivery -

Fags = Papa Johns delivery driver smokes, he'l want a bigger tip -

Beer -

fixed

can i interest you in a lil bit of Secret Santa this year rob? vv

 

[stopper]

Isn't the bigger issue the Lords overruling the government which was voted in?

No. It wouldn't be a democratic government if it/they were free to do what they wanted all the time.

 

[thep02]

It's just the lords doing the commons tories a favour by getting rid of a deeply unpopular tory move, by god those poor were being poor right and possibly even voting tory.

 

[Danthus]

How many people who lose tax credits are suddenly going to get their wages raised to cover what they have lost?

Their not, that is the problem.

 

[McPhee]

Under 25's would not get the new Living Wage.

I know. That's unfair too IMHO - it paints a picture of under 25s as having no responsibilities. Why would a 22 year old couple with kids need less money for their family than a 26 year old couple with children?

 

[robfosters]

fixed

can i interest you in a lil bit of Secret Santa this year rob? vv

Yes mate. I'll sign up now.

 

[FishFluff]

Can't believe people are whining because the HoL has delayed a bill that does something the Tories promised they wouldn't do. They should pull this kind of stunt more often quite frankly. Telling lies to get votes should have some kind of consequences

 

[Danthus]

You also have to love the irony of the Conservatives now talking about reforming the House of Lords given their resistance to reforming the House of Lords.

 

[McPhee]

It's just the lords doing the commons tories a favour by getting rid of a deeply unpopular tory move, by god those poor were being poor right and possibly even voting tory.

This TBH. I'm not sure the leadership will find much support for sanctioning the Lords - it saved the party from what was becoming an embarrassing situation. Many Tory MPs will be relieved - they don't have to choose between voting for an unpopular piece of legislation, or disobeying the whip on one of the Chancellor's key policies.

TBH the thing that has offended me most about our political system through this whole affair is that some Tory MPs have spoken out against the cuts and then proceeded to vote for them. How is that democratic?

 

[Mr Jack]

i don't understand why anybody agrees with giving benefits to people who are working - all it does is subsidise business by allowing them to pay reduced wages.

There is no evidence that tax credits have reduced wages at all. If you believe it does then why is there no change in the rise of wages that corresponds to the introduction of Tax Credits or the times they've been increased?

What's more, if you're not going to pay people benefits if they work how do you stop their being a benefits trap where people are better off not working at all? Or justify the much higher real rate of tax on their earnings?

 

[Nate75]

Can't believe people are whining because the HoL has delayed a bill that does something the Tories promised they wouldn't do. They should pull this kind of stunt more often quite frankly. Telling lies to get votes should have some kind of consequences

So true.

 

[Mr Jack]

Isn't the bigger issue the Lords overruling the government which was voted in? I can't think of other time in when the upper chamber blocked the will of parliament like this.

Fox hunting? And on that occasion they were explicitly breaking the Salisbury convention. This time it wasn't in the manifesto and Cameron flat out said he wouldn't do it before the election.

Or, if you feel that fox hunting was a bit of a trivial issue: the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Welsh Church Act 1914, the Parliament Act 1949, the War Crimes Act 1991, European Parliament Elections Act 1999 and the Sexual Offences (Homosexuality) Act 2000. And those are just the times that the parliament act has been used to force the legislation through not a remotely full list of the times the House of Lords has voted against the Commons.

In any case, the Lords aren't even forcing the government to drop the changes merely delay them.

 

[Neil79]

 

[Tunney]

A breach of constitutional convention that costs taxpayers billions, how is that something to celebrate or applaud?

Roll on reform.

The House of Lords is doing exactly what it was designed to do - rejecting poorly thought-out legislation.

And let's not forget that David Cameron ruled out tax credit cuts before the election. The electorate was duped despite what Osborne says about 'signalling'.