Lords defeat government over tax credits cut

[Dolph]

Maybe their employers should pay them more "their own making" is such a narrow minded thing to say, I'd expect better from you, but wait no, no I wouldn't. Your an A typical child of thatcher, selfish to the core

I see you read the linked article well. The self employed musician who refuses to do anything else to increase their earnings, the PhD student doing a subject with no prospects and working the minimum to qualify for tax credits supporting her studies, and the teacher who is quoting figures that are either made up or suggest she is not a teacher given the starting pay all support the idea that the employer is the problem

 

[FTM]

the Lords may have exceeded their remit here...but at least they are in tune with what every other institution seems to be saying..unlike the government who just wanted to bludgeon it through and damn the consequences

 

[doodah]

Why/how to the Government think the Lords have exceeded their remit in this instance?

 

[GAC]

I see you read the linked article well. The self employed musician who refuses to do anything else to increase their earnings, the PhD student doing a subject with no prospects and working the minimum to qualify for tax credits supporting her studies, and the teacher who is quoting figures that are either made up or suggest she is not a teacher given the starting pay all support the idea that the employer is the problem

i see this at work as well, working with homeless 16-25 year olds in supported living and one of them is working 16 hours a week as "thats all i can handle" also thats all that he can do before his benefits get altered even though he agree's he'd be better off

 

[Hitman_Leon]

Because that's not what's happening, tax credits are not wages they are a top up for low earners, those earners are already being paid properly by the private companies, the credits just improve the standard of living for those at the bottom of the jobs ladder.

In essence tax credits are the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is why Labour liked the idea and the Tories detest it.

What a numb-skull Brown was ,

Conservatives introduce: Family Income Supplement (1970?), replaced by: Family Credit (1986), replaced by: Working Families Tax Credit (1999), replaced by : Working Tax Credit (2003).

All the same benefit, renamed but still the same effect, subsidise low wages.

It was a conservative government that initiated this benefit albeit in a different way and under a different name but to achieve the same ends. It has changed names and rules over the years but essentially has the same ends, to top-up low earners and has been with us for around 45 years.

 

[ubersonic]

Why/how to the Government think the Lords have exceeded their remit in this instance?

They haven't, but there has always been a handshake agreement between the commons/lords that the lords will not meddle in financial matters, this has now been voided so you can bet Camoron and co will be working on a way to lock out the lords in future.

 

[ubersonic]

I think like others have you missed the point that -

You misread my post, I wasn't saying Labour started it, I was saying they like the concept of WTC whereas the current Tory party dislike the very concept of it.

 

[wildman]

what cracks me up is the hypocrisy of all these people. Those who are praising the lords are the very scroungers who want to see them done away with, but its ok now because those nonce, prostitute using, nazi cross dressers just saved your free taxpayer handouts. If Corbyn had anything about him he should be able to cash in heavily on this and then we can really see this country to hell in a handbasket

 

[chrcoluk]

child tax credits were a bad idea to begin with the problem is now people got given them they dont want to let go, they dont see the bigger picture that is tax credits are actually a business subsidy allowing low wages to keep been paid.

Also the government will now cut somewhere else instead, and I fear they will target the sick and disabled since they have been proven in the past to be a much easier target.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

You misread my post, I wasn't saying Labour started it, I was saying they like the concept of WTC whereas the current Tory party dislike the very concept of it.

Ah point taken, the detest you say the conservatives have over this benefit essentially points to self-loathing which is rather humorous given the miserable dead in the eyes looking chancellor

 

[FoxEye]

Very functional, just like the governments we've had for the last 30+ years who have run deficits

Very sustainable, in fact a lot of economic theory would deem it preferable

So you're saying a country like ours never has to balance the books, then? Can run a deficit indefinitely?

So why didn't Greece get away with it then?

And what about Labour's famous "there's no money left" note? Surely that's not a problem if you can just borrow more money without penalty?

 

[haz_pro]

How the hell are you getting £2080 tax credits a year? Im on £28k per year and get nothing. I use the government calculator which told me im eligible for £0.00 of tax credits per year. I have my own house, married with one kid

I think he'll be paying the tax man back soon

I'm renting, not married, 3 kids. Up until this July I was earning 25k a year. HMRC have been updated and my credits adjusted, so I'm assuming this time next year I won't be in receipt of any.

Thinking about it, we were overpaid last year so what we are receiving now is actually less than what we would be getting if we hadn't have been overpaid.

It's quite confusing, the payment amount seems to change on a monthly basis. I didn't think i'd be getting any at this point (don't need them), but there we go.

 

[Freakbro]

So you're saying a country like ours never has to balance the books, then? Can run a deficit indefinitely?

Pretty much yes, of course this has to be within reason.

Mr Jack explained it well

The target should be to run a deficit which is lower than growth+inflation so that the %Debt-to-GDP falls. Government's don't pay off debts they grow and inflate them in to irrelevance.

Which is why the very low inflation levels we have right now are a very bad thing.

So why didn't Greece get away with it then?

That is the whole point you are missing. We are nothing like Greece on a multitude of levels and the comparison made in 2010 by Cameron was disingenuous at best.

For one we have our own currency and central bank and can control our own monetary policy, which Greece being in the Euro cannot do.

We have a self sustaining and broad economy and, generally, pay our taxes whereas Greece has little apart from Tourism & Olive Oil, and had systemic failures in their governance.

And what about Labour's famous "there's no money left" note? Surely that's not a problem if you can just borrow more money without penalty?

A stupid soundbite that has resonated well beyond it's facile meaning and detracts from the reality of the situation.

I'm not saying a country can run an unlimited deficit, of course not, but a limited managed one, yes.

 

[chrcoluk]

So you're saying a country like ours never has to balance the books, then? Can run a deficit indefinitely?

So why didn't Greece get away with it then?

And what about Labour's famous "there's no money left" note? Surely that's not a problem if you can just borrow more money without penalty?

historical data over the last century or so shows governments run in a deficit for about 90% of the time, its normal. There has been periods of surplus but its always been shortlived, this goes for other countries like america also.

Greece had a different problem where there GDP is very low per populace, so they were unable to maintain payments to creditors.

 

[deuse]

Funny how this and other governments will give billions to other countries to buy nice things but do sod all for the people here.

 

[platypus]

It can only be a good thing to have the figures investigated properly.

Funny how this and other governments will give billions to other countries to buy nice things but do sod all for the people here.

You really are terribly simple-minded.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

and the teacher who is quoting figures that are either made up or suggest she is not a teacher given the starting pay all support the idea that the employer is the problem

Reading between the lines ("which will put me on less money than a newly qualified teacher"), probably at an academy and not a qualified teacher.

 

[platypus]

Of course I assume that Osborne will now just try and work out a way of making these cuts without having to do it through a statutory instrument/bill.

 

[McPhee]

child tax credits were a bad idea to begin with the problem is now people got given them they dont want to let go, they dont see the bigger picture that is tax credits are actually a business subsidy allowing low wages to keep been paid.

No. Pay attention.

It's not that people don't want to let go of tax credits. If tax credits are a 'business subsidy' as you put it, then businesses need to pay higher wages to remove the need for the subsidy.

The government was attempting to put the cart before the horse, reducing the subsidy before wages rise. That has been the basis for the complaint. If a household has an income, including tax credits, of £20,000 this year, then they should have an income of at least £20,000 next year, not £18,000.

 

[Muz333]

For some great examples of the flaws of tax credits, see this own goal article from the Guardian.


'Frankly I’m terrified': meet those set to be hit by tax credit cuts

http://gu.com/p/4dezf

Full of people expecting tax credits to fill gaps in their earnings that are entirely of their own making.

Any loss of tax credits is very hard to assess, but I think it will be £100 a month. It will mean more debt and almost no disposable income. It will mean no holidays ever

I can't sympathise here. Doing a PhD I get paid a bare minimum stipend, have next to no disposable income and haven't had a holiday in forever (in fact I'm not allowed time off at all now I'm in the last 18 months of my PhD and I can work up to 100 hours a week during peak of research).

Yet rather than expect taxpayers to boost my disposable income I just get on with it. She later goes onto say this this:

If I was offered full-time hours I would take them as I hate the uncertainty of the benefits situation, though my health would suffer and I would not spend much time with my daughter. This doesn’t seem fair; I’m her only parent.

I don't see why she deems it fair to helped out by other tax payers so she can spend more time with her daughter but it isn't fair to have to work for money.

With all this said perhaps I'm a bit of a hypocrite as well. At the moment I get a stipend which means I don't pay into the system until I get a real job at the end of my studies.