government cuts tax credits for 800,000 people without a parliamentry debate

[CREATIVE!11]

here is a genius quote from some people I knew

"Why'd you vote conservative? what were their most attractive policies etc?"

"dunno, cause my grandparents and parents vote them"

And that kids, is why democracy fails. You give idiots votes. This happens.

 

[Freakbro]

I'm not sure it is completely due to them, the Tories have since raised it themselves too and will do again

It was 100% a Lib Dems policy, the Tories had never spoken of it before and they actually watered it down by bringing it in over 5 years whereas the Libs wanted it in on year one.

 

[V F]

here is a genius quote from some people I knew

"Why'd you vote conservative? what were their most attractive policies etc?"

"dunno, cause my grandparents and parents vote them"

And that kids, is why democracy fails. You give idiots votes. This happens.

I've heard worse. "Why are you voting for him? He looks nice."

 

[muon]

Wait - so the threshold/trigger by which people will be reassessed to ensure they're being paid the correct rate of credits has been lowered? How is that unfair?

They're somehow losing out because they'll be assessed and paid the correct rate quicker if their income goes up and won't be able to keep surplus payments they aren't entitled to? Oh how unfair... seriously this is like the benefits equivalent of 'micro aggressions'.

Not worth a Parliamentary debate? There is probably a reason why any threshold exists. If there wasn't it would be lowered to £0, not £2500.

I can't really be bothered right now to consider all the ramifications btut it is safe to say MPs should at least be considering them.

edit:

I lied, I thought I'd read up on it. Very good article below.

http://revenuebenefits.org.uk/tax-c...tax-credits-work/understanding-the-disregard/

 

[Tefal]

I don't believe you quite understand the magnitude of these cuts. I suggest that you read some of the well written articles concerning just how much these cuts will hit even middle class working families.

The change reduces the amount a claimant’s income can increase in a year before their claim is reassessed – from £5,000 to £2,500.

Its not really a cut they're just reducing the amount you can lie to the benifits people by.


Now you can only claim you earn 2.5k leas than you really do instead of 5k.


The fact that that change will save 1 billion shows how much the government was getring scamed by inaccurate claims.

 

[Tefal]

here is a genius quote from some people I knew

"Why'd you vote conservative? what were their most attractive policies etc?"

"dunno, cause my grandparents and parents vote them"

And that kids, is why democracy fails. You give idiots votes. This happens.

Odds are though the kid will be in a smiliar socioeconomic position to thier parents and grandparents and so voting in line with them would be sensible.


I keep getring told how evil the conservatives are and how youd have to be an idiot to vote for them etc, but year on year ive been better off under them

 

[muon]

Its not really a cut they're just reducing the amount you can lie to the benifits people by.

It isn't a matter of lying. They calculate tax credits on last year's income. That is the issue.

Now you can only claim you earn 2.5k leas than you really do instead of 5k.
The fact that that change will save 1 billion shows how much the government was getring scamed by inaccurate claims.

Note that there also exists a income disregard in the other direction. Your income is £2,500 lower than last year? Tough luck.

TCA 2002, Section 7(3) goes on to explain how to determine relevant income. In summary this is:

For income rises – income disregard £5,000

(a) If current year income (CYI) is greater than previous year income (PYI) by no more than a certain amount (known as an income disregard, the final award is based on PYI;

(b) If CYI is greater than PYI by more than the specified income disregard, the final award is based on CYI less the income disregard, and an overpayment may arise.

For falls in income – income disregard £2,500

(c) If PYI exceeds CYI by no more than a certain amount (known as an income disregard) the final award is based on PYI ;

(d) If PYI exceeds CYI by more than the specified income disregard, the final award is based on CYI plus that specified income disregard.

All other cases

Where none of the above apply, the claim is based on CYI.

source: http://revenuebenefits.org.uk/tax-c...understanding-the-disregard/#The income tests

 

[thebennyboy]

I keep getring told how evil the conservatives are and how youd have to be an idiot to vote for them etc, but year on year ive been better off under them

That's probably because you're not on the dole or disabled.

 

[Tefal]

It isn't a matter of lying. They calculate tax credits on last year's income. That is the issue.



Note that there also exists a income disregard in the other direction. Your income is £2,500 lower than last year? Tough luck.



source: http://revenuebenefits.org.uk/tax-c...understanding-the-disregard/#The income tests

Based on that text they've simply brought the rise disregard inline with the fall disregard.

Instead of jt being 5/2.5 its now 2.5/2.5

 

[dowie]

Not worth a Parliamentary debate? There is probably a reason why any threshold exists. If there wasn't it would be lowered to £0, not £2500.

erm yeah, because salary/income often varies over time...

 

[muon]

Based on that text they've simply brought the rise disregard inline with the fall disregard.

Instead of jt being 5/2.5 its now 2.5/2.5

What's your point? That may be the case, but that wasn't your original post.

There is no lying or scamming involved. Those are words intended to invoke a biased response.

erm yeah, because salary/income often varies over time...

Of course. That was entirely my point. There is probably a good reason it exists at all. Otherwise it would be £0. Hence it isn't a black and white matter, not worthy of debate.

 

[Rorxy]

I don't think you understand that there aren't really cuts in this instance, it is just that people will be reassessed to receive the correct rate of tax credits quicker if/when their wages rise. They won't hit middle class families, tax credits are for low earners.

sorry I meant the extent of the cuts being made overall. It's late.

Reading this proves very difficult:

Osborne is expected to use Wednesday’s budget to:

raise money through a series of stealth taxes including a significant increase in insurance premium tax that will hit motorists, homeowners and tourists

crack down on a tax avoidance loophole that allows television stars to be paid “off the books” (well documented that Os and Davey themselves are connected to such schemes)

save £1.2bn by reforming personal independence payments to the detriment of over 600,000 disabled people

raise the personal allowance rate at which people start paying tax by £300, bringing it closer to the £12,500 target by 2020

raise the amount at which people are drawn into the 40p tax rate (tax cuts for the rich).

I am sure there will be a few other 'surprises' in there too.

 

[413x]

Pretty sure none of this every really affects myself
Probably a little unnoticeable extra from rise in tax free and a little less for driving (be it fuel, insurance, etc etc)

 

[dowie]

Of course. That was entirely my point. There is probably a good reason it exists at all. Otherwise it would be £0. Hence it isn't a black and white matter, not worthy of debate.

No 'probably' about it, there is a reason it exists. I don't see why it is worthy of debate, they're not actually cutting anything per say other than triggering a re-assessment sooner rather than later.

 

[dowie]

sorry I meant the extent of the cuts being made overall. It's late.

the poster you quoted was quite specifically talking about this threshold being lowered not cuts in general

 

[regulus]

I don't believe you quite understand the magnitude of these cuts. I suggest that you read some of the well written articles concerning just how much these cuts will hit even middle class working families.

Absolutely awful. The next couple of years are going to be incredibly hard. It just makes no economic sense to hit hadest those that need any support they can get, cut deals for the richest % and throw money at far less important things like Crossrail, HS1, HS2... hundreds of millions to Trident...makes me sick.

You forgot the word 'hard'. Should've said 'hard' working families. Gives it a bit more of an emotional buzz and gets people riled up. Or something to that effect. Remember next time!

As for Crossrail, HS1, HS2. It provides work to literally 1000s upon 1000s of people, directly and indirectly. Income that they pay tax on and spend in the local economies. I wouldn't grumble too much. That money could've gone to people for nothing to be wasted.

 

[regulus]

here is a genius quote from some people I knew

"Why'd you vote conservative? what were their most attractive policies etc?"

"dunno, cause my grandparents and parents vote them"

And that kids, is why democracy fails. You give idiots votes. This happens.

You think it's any different for Labour voters?

 

[Freakbro]

erm yeah, because salary/income often varies over time...

Of course it does

All self employed/zero rated hours/contractors workers have variable incomes, and such a pejorative slant of language by Tefal there, "lying" and "scammed"

I keep getring told how evil the conservatives are and how youd have to be an idiot to vote for them etc, but year on year ive been better off under them

So am I but since I'm well off and have a good income, I shouldn't be, I'm the sort of person who should be taking a greater share of the burden not those already at the bottom of the pile.

But then I'm not that self centered that I just think of myself.

 

[Destination]

To be fair, it doesn't seem that unreasonable. If someone is getting state benefits as if they are earning £15,000 but actually earns £19,000 is that harsh to say "you need to pay back any money you wouldn't have got if you had stated £19k in the first place"?

If I earnt, say, £4k more on my salary then HMRC wouldn't say "don't worry about paying tax on that extra four grand as we did our calculations at the start of the year and didn't account for it" would they?

I see benefits as a kind of reversed income tax and don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply to people giving as receiving.

Precisely this.
This is a very reasonable change.
Why on earth if someone earns 4 or 5k more than their projected amount should they not be reassessed?

This isn't actually a cut, this is giving people what they should be getting rather than letting them get away it.

 

[Hades]

To be fair, it doesn't seem that unreasonable. If someone is getting state benefits as if they are earning £15,000 but actually earns £19,000 is that harsh to say "you need to pay back any money you wouldn't have got if you had stated £19k in the first place"?

If I earnt, say, £4k more on my salary then HMRC wouldn't say "don't worry about paying tax on that extra four grand as we did our calculations at the start of the year and didn't account for it" would they?

I see benefits as a kind of reversed income tax and don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply to people giving as receiving.

Exactly. Some people love to shout about the evil Tories. But in this case it doesn't seem much different to any other person not receiving benefits. Let's say I earn £40k and then receive some further income from another source. In that example I would have to declare the additional earnings and the unpaid tax is clawed back through the next years tax code.