Lords defeat government over tax credits cut

[The Geezer]

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.

I can not see a legal way he could even approach it. All the Lords have asked him to do delay the cuts until the higher kick-in wages not a major ask.

I still don't understand why he wants a surplus it adds nothing in terms of our economy, it's inflated by a housing market which is out of control

 

[FoxEye]

The government has no money that it hasn't collected from current taxpayers or borrowed from future ones.

The £4.4bn is taken from net taxpayers and given back to gross taxpayers who pay nothing net overall (because tax credits aren't the only benefit received).

Simply having tax deducted doesn't make you a taxpayer if you are given more money back.

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.

I'm looking at the example there of a single mother, with two kids and a mortgage.

Well, perhaps we could do something mutually beneficial there... the government helps her with her mortgage in exchange for a stake in her house.

Otherwise it's just not at all fair on people who pay their own mortgages (and struggle). It's entirely not fair on people who don't have kids. Or people who stay together in a loveless marriage for the sake of the kids.

It's quite unfortunate that the expectation is you can be a single parent, with kids, and that the government will/should step in to replace the income of the father, whilst keeping the same life you had before.

Or in the case of people who were never together, that you can have kids from some random five-minute relationship, and let the government help you instead of being a traditional two-parent family.

Whilst I understand that social security is not necessarily about "fairness" at all, would it be nice if the government had something tangible in exchange for helping to pay their mortgage for them. A share of their house would do nicely. Might make it easier for the government to buy up housing again.

 

[Tacitus]

I can not see a legal way he could even approach it. All the Lords have asked him to do delay the cuts until the higher kick-in wages not a major ask.

I still don't understand why he wants a surplus it adds nothing in terms of our economy, it's inflated by a housing market which is out of control

As far as I can remember from studying the UK parliament and UK constitution he doesn't need to find a way around it. The Parliament Act 1911 allows the Commons to totally bypass the Lords should it please (it does not exercise this right as a convention rather than requirement, and I don't know of any modern usage of it).

But I think the Lords are being very reasonable in their requests, and to me it confirms their role as a body of experts who do not need to follow party whips or act in an accountable fashion.

We'll see now how the government reacts, probably claiming more reform is needed, despite being unable to get the backbenchers to get on board with constitutional reform in the last parliament.

I'm looking at the example there of a single mother, with two kids and a mortgage.

Well, perhaps we could do something mutually beneficial there... the government helps her with her mortgage in exchange for a stake in her house.

Otherwise it's just not at all fair on people who pay their own mortgages (and struggle). It's entirely not fair on people who don't have kids. Or people who stay together in a loveless marriage for the sake of the kids.

It's quite unfortunate that the expectation is you can be a single parent, with kids, and that the government will/should step in to replace the income of the father, whilst keeping the same life you had before.

Or in the case of people who were never together, that you can have kids from some random five-minute relationship, and let the government help you instead of being a traditional two-parent family.

Whilst I understand that social security is not necessarily about "fairness" at all, would it be nice if the government had something tangible in exchange for helping to pay their mortgage for them. A share of their house would do nicely. Might make it easier for the government to buy up housing again.

While I generally agree welfare spending is too high in the UK, I take some issue with your ideas. Firstly, the expectation the government should get a stake in the person's house is to essentially deny individuals who were perhaps not always struggling but now are complete ownership over their own house. I can see this being problematic upon death or when trying to move house or remortgage. In many cases home ownership is sensible too, my mother's paying less per month for her mortgage than I am in private rent. For the sake of discussion, say the government had to step in and help both of us, it would gain nothing by helping put money in the hands of a buy-to-let landlord, and I would not miss out on anything, but my mother's house would gradually start becoming state property.

Broken families are a shame, but does that meant the state should do nothing to support vulnerable or deprived children whose very existence is not their "fault", and who are also incapable of bettering their own position?

 

[Hitman_Leon]

It's quite unfortunate that the expectation is you can be a single parent, with kids, and that the government will/should step in to replace the income of the father, whilst keeping the same life you had before.

Leave out the sexism! single fathers exist too

Regardless, absent parents should always be held to account in respect of helping their former partners maintain financial independence from the state. That said those that are not able to earn enough to support two households cannot be expected to live on the streets so their former partner does not have to be helped by the state. I surmise it's a very difficult balance to achieve withdrawing state aid without leaving anyone in poverty.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

So rather than cutting £15bn from the most vulnerable, why aren't they chasing the £119.4bn in tax evasion?

It's an ideologically driven assault on the poor and it's easier to take from those who are less likely to fight back.

Don't let that take away from a good old poor people circle jerk that this forum loves to engage in.

Forget facebook paying 4 grand in corporation tax in the UK last year....

Oh yeah the minimum wage devils are to blame.

Seriously.

Good news.

And some of you lot in here are pathetic.

Long as I get mine I don't give a **** about anyone else.

Yeah great progressive mindset some people seem to have.

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.

Agree fully. This is what needs to change long term.

 

[Danthus]

At least Andrew Lloyd Webber got his £300 quid.

 

[FoxEye]

For the sake of discussion, say the government had to step in and help both of us, it would gain nothing by helping put money in the hands of a buy-to-let landlord, and I would not miss out on anything, but my mother's house would gradually start becoming state property.

Broken families are a shame, but does that meant the state should do nothing to support vulnerable or deprived children whose very existence is not their "fault", and who are also incapable of bettering their own position?

Yes I'm not fan of BTL landlords, and a mortgage is the lesser of two evils, no doubt.

But too many people take state aid for-granted. It should be safety net, not a career choice. It should entail some hardship, and there should be reward for getting off state aid.

Perhaps these payments could be changed into a loan, like they did with student loans. You still own your house, or you pay your rent, but you now owe the government some money in return.

So maybe you don't buy a new TV or go on holiday this year, until you sort yourself out.

Again, some would probably say that this is punishing the children. "Why should the children not go on holiday, or not get an XBox? It's their parents' fault, not theirs."

I think we've lost touch of how hard previous generations had to work just to get by. We now expect the state not just to keep us alive, but provide a certain quality of life we've become accustomed to.

 

[StriderX]

I've never been on holiday abroad with any family member, why people think it's justified especially when poor is just a sign of negatively impacting priorities.

Simple fact is, that life has been artificially disingenuous more recently by lying to ourselves that what we have now is normal... We still live FAR beyond our means and we have not even scratched the surface of the consequence of not acting hard enough.

Apologies for bad syntax.

 

[TwsT]

Why can't we just give businesses that pay people properly a tax break.

As in if your employees don't need state help you get a a tax break.

Also making amazon pay tax would be a great start and the owner of the daily fail he can pay something too the git

 

[chrcoluk]

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.

I agree on the point they should push through the higher wages first, its sort of like the bedroom tax where they started it yet those people had nowhere to move to due to a lack of one bed properties.

However I think this will just lead to the policy been canned or weakened altogether, the tories wont have the patience to wait X amount of years for wages to rise.

 

[Nix]

Yes I'm not fan of BTL landlords, and a mortgage is the lesser of two evils, no doubt.

But too many people take state aid for-granted. It should be safety net, not a career choice. It should entail some hardship, and there should be reward for getting off state aid.

Perhaps these payments could be changed into a loan, like they did with student loans. You still own your house, or you pay your rent, but you now owe the government some money in return.

So maybe you don't buy a new TV or go on holiday this year, until you sort yourself out.

Again, some would probably say that this is punishing the children. "Why should the children not go on holiday, or not get an XBox? It's their parents' fault, not theirs."

I think we've lost touch of how hard previous generations had to work just to get by. We now expect the state not just to keep us alive, but provide a certain quality of life we've become accustomed to.

1. You are being very naive. I have no doubt that your tune would soon change if something bad or unexpected ever happened in your life putting you in a position to need state help.

Please show the proof that most people are using the state as an easy ride? You've bought in to a pernicious lie. People, by and large, want to work and be self-sufficient. The myth of most people on welfare going on holidays and abusing the system is just that; it's a myth. These people of course do exist, but they are the extremes. They are outliers and not representative of the whole. Stop buying in to the lie.

2. You've completely washed over just how hard the modern generation have it. Just because you've found a nice little cushy job in the council and managed to save up at home on a whim, does not for a second mean that it's that simple for everyone else. Your outlook is solipsist and a fallacy. Not everyone has a good job. Not everyone has supportive families. Not everyone has ideal circumstances because life is just like that!

Past generations such as the baby boomers, whilst not having all the mod-cons that we enjoy today in many, many ways had it far easier; careers used to be for life, homes could be bought at sensible prices; the economy was booming. Just because someone has double-glazing and central heating now and a flat-screen TV, does not mean that they can afford to heat their home or feed their children because their mortgage is ridiculously high and wages horrendously low. A flat-screen TV means nothing. Indeed, since previous generations there has also been a break-down in the family unit which means parents are stuck between the horrible cycle of trying to work for a living and meeting child-care. If you had any friends or family on low wages with children, you'd understand just how truly difficult it is without a little help.

Is a father working 40+ hours a week whilst the mother stays at home to rear their new-born child, lives in a small and modest rented house in the South East as the family can't move away due to needing family support or taking care of their elderly relatives, whilst being stuck in a dead-end job with no prospects of ever increasing his wage due to time, financial and geographical constraints a professional urine extractor of the welfare system? Or is it, maybe, that he and his family are just one of many who are victims of the imbalances and closed nature of our capitalist society?

 

[FoxEye]

Is a father working 40+ hours a week whilst the mother stays at home to rear their new-born child, lives in a small and modest rented house in the South East as the family can't move away due to needing family support or taking care of their elderly relatives, whilst being stuck in a dead-end job with no prospects of ever increasing his wage due to time, financial and geographical constraints a professional urine extractor of the welfare system? Or is it, maybe, that he and his family are just one of many who are victims of the imbalances and closed nature of our capitalist society?

Did this theoretical person choose to have child(ren) whilst already stuck in a dead-end job with no prospects?

Why, given how expensive we all know children to be, did he choose to father one or more children? If he struggles just to support himself?

Are children a right, and do we all have the right to make the state pay for them? I'm curious. I have no desire for kids myself.

 

[Nix]

Did this theoretical person choose to have child(ren) whilst already stuck in a dead-end job with no prospects?

Why, given how expensive we all know children to be, did he choose to father one or more children? If he struggles just to support himself?

Are children a right, and do we all have the right to make the state pay for them? I'm curious. I have no desire for kids myself.

Ever heard of the biological imperative?

So, are you telling me that because someone is unfortunate enough to be underpaid or for whatever variables that have happened in their past to create their present circumstances, that they are deemed -- by virtue of being unfortunate -- not allowed to have children as a result?

Are you more entitled to have children because your parents had connections and got you into a FTSE 100 than someone who didn't have such nepotistic luxuries?

What about unplanned pregnancies? People can still get pregnant despite using birth control. The best laid plans of mice and men...

 

[estebanrey]

A flat-screen TV means nothing.

It's the curved screen TVs people on benefits shouldn't have, they cost loads. Haven't all TVs been flat screen for the past 20 years?

 

[NoNameNoNumber]

It also represents another constitutional crisis as the Lords aren't supposed to vote on financial matters (though it could be argued this is a social matter as well).

I thought they voted on anything the commons put forward? Is this not the case?

 

[dowie]

more birth control, abortions, increased funding for sex ed.... higher minimum wage would help with a lot of issues

tax credits are just silly in principle, massively reducing them is a good thing

 

[Belly]

Well, what might Cameron do about the House of Lords?

I suppose he could create another 100 or so Tory Peers so he has a majority there too. Radio 4 Today programme said that there are 8 Liberal MPs and over 100 Liberal Peers.

Let’s imagine:

The PM creates 100 more peers.

None of the Peers die during the life of this parliament.

The Tories loose the next election and all cabinet members loose their seats. Usually when that happens IIRC they are (can be) elevated to the House of Lords? So NOT only would be have the majority made by the 100 or so this year but we’d have another 22 or so - probably more as some cabinet members will axed during the length of the parliament, sit on the back benches and be offered a peerage if they too lost their seats or stated they would no longer stand.

Added to that you would have a number of "Tory helpers" who would also be ennobled.

Labour win the next election (yeah, I’ve got a great imagination) and try to pass a law through the House of Lords, the large Tory majority reject the bill, the Labour PM creates another 100 Labour Peers and so on infinitum. Where would it end? Hey maybe I could get a peerage!

One thing they should consider is scrapping the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected (first past the post) chamber with a finite number of seats. Strange when we consider that the Senate in America has only 100 seats in their upper chamber.

 

[FoxEye]

Ever heard of the biological imperative?

So, are you telling me that because someone is unfortunate enough to be underpaid or for whatever variables that have happened in their past to create their present circumstances, that they are deemed -- by virtue of being unfortunate -- not allowed to have children as a result?

No, I'm not, and like you said unplanned pregnancy is a fact of life, which makes it a moot point anyhow.

I do think that parents of little means should try to avoid having more than two kids tho.

Anyway, this is veering off topic. Employers should still pay as much as possible and the state as little as possible, toward the cost of the family.

 

[Nix]

On the other hand...

The biological imperative outweighs our rational assessment of the situation where we can see that having a child without a stable home life, or being able to afford to do so, is incredibly selfish?

Unfortunate? To the extent they can't afford to raise a child? All bad luck? Those people in their late teens or early twenties, who've done little to nothing to try and build a reasonable career before having kids are really in those circumstances through misfortune... yeah.

You don't need to have benefited from nepotism and a luxurious upbringing to be well off enough to raise a child.

Unplanned pregnancies? How often does that happen if taking reasonable precautions? And abortion ftw, in the tiny proportion of actual accidents (which occur when taking reasonable precautions).

So, let's assume that you're on a salary of £24k and the sole bread-winner. You happen to live in a high-rent area and cannot move away. Due to having to support your family you are locked in to your job. As the job is not flexible, you have little opportunities to help yourself. You cannot side-step in to another role as you cannot afford a pay cut.

Is this person not allowed to have a child?

What about someone that had a good job that paid well but due to a series of unfortunate events lost that job? What about people who have changed career and are working their way up the ladder slowly?

Life is not perfect.

I think you underestimate how expensive raising a child can be, especially if you have to factor in child-care.

It doesn't matter how often it happens, the point is, it does happen which means there will be people out there who despite trying to do things The Right Way™ found themselves with an unplanned child. Are you playing devil's advocate or being dense? Not everyone believes in having an abortion and even those that do, there are many reasons why they may choose not to follow through with it - for example, the potential dangers of future infertility.

Let's not forget that it takes a long time to forge a well-paying career in this day and age. People usually aren't in a financially stable position until a little later in life which unfortunately is out of kilter with the standard biological clock.

If you're not in a well-paid job as a woman by your 30s, are you not allowed to have children? Are you saying that they must play office politics and the waiting game until the HR manager who doesn't like them leaves and they can get the raise they need by which point they will likely need IVF before they're allowed to dare to think about having a child?

 

[Nix]

more birth control, abortions, increased funding for sex ed.... higher minimum wage would help with a lot of issues

tax credits are just silly in principle, massively reducing them is a good thing

Again, whitewashing the myriad reasons why people may decide to have children.