Anyone Know Where The £12Bn Of Welfare Cuts Will Come From?

[spyguy]

When tax credits were introduced, my sister immediately cut her hours from 37 a week to 16 and was no worse off (travel to work costs, childcare). I am convinced that there are thousands millions like her. I regularly hear people comment that it's "their right" to spend time at home with their children rather than work. I agree that it should be - but not at somebody else's cost. If you can't afford your mortgage when you cut your hours, sell your house.

The problem now is that there is probably very little work available to all these people who are about to have their benefits cut. That will cause real hardship.

Maybe this will also tip the housing market downwards once more - i'm not sure that you can count tax credits when you take up a mortgage, but there's certainly no reason for you not to cut your hours when you've got one.

Fixed that for ya.

[Hairy1305]

Unbelievable. If I heard that in earshot there'd be a very big argument! As I am a very lazy sort of worker drone.

Why, because they're taking advantage of something? I say fair play to them; if the government gives it out, after several years playing hide the sausage with the government, and a further 5 years of it to come, I say take what you can.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Hairy1305

[byron78]

I haven't seen it but I'm sure Benefits Street is entirely representative of our subsidy and welfare culture.

Of course it isn't.

That's like saying the Premier League is representative of every football league/team below it.

They very obviously choose the worst areas of the country with a disproportionate amount of benefit dependency for Benefit Street.

Because it's a TV show.

Only the best and worst of anything seem to end up on TV.

My street has an ex-squaddy who lost the use of his legs somewhere on benefits, a lot of pensioners on benefits, a single mum doing the 16 hour tax credit thing (she has 2 kids), and a couple of kids on the dole having left school with an education that's worth squat last year (they toyed with going to uni according to their folks, but it seems too expensive these days).

That's probably more representative.

[Goat]

I thought the reason Brown introduced tax credits was because they didn't appear as 'spending' as such being more like negative income taxes.

In which case cutting tax credits should be the reverse: we should see a rise in tax receipts. That's not exactly the same as 'cutting spending' is it? Nevertheless, it will be interesting witnessing the language chosen. We may witness a redefinition of tax credits in linguistic terms that Labour will have to battle if they want to increase spending in this way by the back door in the future.

The Cretin Brown might've styled them "tax credits" for that reason but I think the vast majority of people regard them as benefits (and always have done) and would see any changes as benefit cuts rather than tax rises, I don't think this is a "redefinition" on the part of the current government, merely a recognition of reality.

Logically, a tax credit should be connected to an amount of tax due or already paid; in the case of dividends they come with a 10% credit to cover the basic rate income tax due, which gives credit for the corportion tax paid on the underlying income stream.

In the case of "tax credits" there is no connection to any underlying tax liabilty/payment and the largest awards are made to those who pay no income tax whatsoever.

[Guest_northshore_*]

Of course it isn't...

Almost every angle taken in the dialogue on benefits, given why they exist and where they actually end up (including most on this forum), is moronic and either delusionally sad or hypocritical bullsh!t.

Ironically I didn't think a sarcasm tag was required.

[Greg Bowman]

Easy

1. Motability. What a sham BMW's on the scheme as well as Audi.

2. Limit Child allowance to 2 max

3. Lower Benefit cap

I should imagine there are loads more ways

[byron78]

Almost every angle taken in the dialogue on benefits, given why they exist and where they actually end up (including most on this forum), is moronic and either delusionally sad or hypocritical bullsh!t.

Ironically I didn't think a sarcasm tag was required.

Apologies!

A sarcasm tag would be useful!

I am sure there's a fair few on here that think Benefit Street is a cutting edge "honest" documentary about the average claimant.

[Guest_northshore_*]

Apologies!

A sarcasm tag would be useful!

I am sure there's a fair few on here that think Benefit Street is a cutting edge "honest" documentary about the average claimant.

Probably. If people want to fight over crumbs of their efforts thrown from the table I wish them good luck with it; savouring the race to the bottom while establishment laughter continues to echo through history. I want rather more future opportunity than that, whatever everyone then makes of it.

[Hairy1305]

Easy

1. Motability. What a sham BMW's on the scheme as well as Audi.

2. Limit Child allowance to 2 max

3. Lower Benefit cap

I should imagine there are loads more ways

You do realise that Mobility doesn't get you a BMW, it gives you a smallish amount that you can put towards most cars, including BMW and Audis. I had a knee accident in the 90s and received it for 3 years whilst I waited for an operation and put it towards a BMW, but paid most of it outt of my wages.

Limit child allowance to two kids and it starts from today, doesn't mean all those parents with more than 2 have to stop claiming it from therein. That's never going to happen.

I know, let's starve the pricks out. Feckless unemployed and disabled, fook them all....

[2buyornot2buy]

You do realise that Mobility doesn't get you a BMW, it gives you a smallish amount that you can put towards most cars, including BMW and Audis. I had a knee accident in the 90s and received it for 3 years whilst I waited for an operation and put it towards a BMW, but paid most of it outt of my wages.

You can get a BMW 1 series with an advanced payment of £599 or an A3 for £499.

They'll obviously take your higher rate mobility component of £57.45 a week but you won't have to add anything to it.

Edited May 19, 2015 by 2buyornot2buy

[R K]

In the case of "tax credits" there is no connection to any underlying tax liabilty/payment and the largest awards are made to those who pay no income tax whatsoever.

Subtle move from "tax" to "income tax" without breaking step. Congrats..

[mattyboy1973]

Almost every angle taken in the dialogue on benefits, given why they exist and where they actually end up (including most on this forum), is moronic and either delusionally sad or hypocritical bullsh!t.

Ironically I didn't think a sarcasm tag was required.

Exactly - Cui Bono?

Hint - HB claimants don't really care how much they receive in HB (or indeed benefit from it), so long as it pays the rent.

[R K]

When tax credits were introduced, my sister immediately cut her hours from 37 a week to 16 and was no worse off (travel to work costs, childcare). I am convinced that there are thousands like her. I regularly hear people comment that it's "their right" to spend time at home with their children rather than work. I agree that it should be - but not at somebody else's cost. If you can't afford your mortgage when you cut your hours, sell your house.

The problem now is that there is probably very little work available to all these people who are about to have their benefits cut. That will cause real hardship.

Maybe this will also tip the housing market downwards once more - i'm not sure that you can count tax credits when you take up a mortgage, but there's certainly no reason for you not to cut your hours when you've got one.

Well its not "at someone elses cost" is it. hence why Osborne is running a £90billion deficit. If he was taxing someone £90bn then you may have a point. But he isnt is he. So its not even a transfer payment in the normal meaning of the term. The entire argument about "taxpayers paying for it" is false.

[EUBanana]

Well its not "at someone elses cost" is it. hence why Osborne is running a £90billion deficit. If he was taxing someone £90bn then you may have a point. But he isnt is he. So its not even a transfer payment in the normal meaning of the term. The entire argument about "taxpayers paying for it" is false.

50 billion of that is the interest payments on previous spending. We'll be paying for it eventually alright.

[Goat]

Subtle move from "tax" to "income tax" without breaking step. Congrats..

Are you suggesting that tax credits are somehow a rebate on other taxes paid, if so can you tell me how the link works?

Also, since most expenses related to children are exempt from other taxes, why are tax credits based on numbers of children and income?

[Guest_northshore_*]

Exactly - Cui Bono?

Hint - HB claimants don't really care how much they receive in HB (or indeed benefit from it), so long as it pays the rent.

Quite. The majority of my existence, output, restrictions, liabilities and taxes are not spent subsidising Benefits Street types. However... after we've followed benefit transfer mechanisms to their ultimate destinations and cut those cords. When I'm no longer explicitly funding landownerism, state granted monopolies and zero-accountability private credit creation, and other rentier abominations. Once my implicit contributions towards industry lobbied tax breaks, subsidies, grants and brown envelope private and public commerce have stopped... then, if still necessary, I'm happy to get concerned and join the fight against unemployed wasters and the pretend-disabled.

[mattyboy1973]

The problem (apart from the obvious) with tax credits is that it is a win-win for both employee and employer. Employee gets to work less hours for more or less the same amount of money. Employer gets to reduce wage (and increase profits) whilst having their employee's income subsidised by other (mostly full time, non tax credit recipient workers). Employee works better (not too stressed from working too hard and doesn't have to pay out (as much) for childcare etc). Employer gets to make bigger profits as most likely no employers NI to pay and reduced wages. Hey presto, win win for all except mugs who actually do work, don't get any benefits and have to work a 37+ hour week. I hope to Satan the Tories actually do something about this setup.

I classify any sort of benefit paid to in-work claimants as benefit to the "employer" (funded, as you mention, by us). I'm left-leaning and all in favour of a safety net, but I think the market should be left to sort the rest out. I.e. if you are in work, you get no benefits. Of course, this would make work much less enticing for those on the margins, but ideally this would mean that employers would need to pay more. Simplistic probably, but IMO if a job doesn't pay you enough to live on then its not a job worth having and if these employer subsidies were removed we'd have a much better picture of just how ridiculously out of hand the real cost of living (housing) has become for many.

[SarahBell]

I imagine it would cost the tories any party loads in lobbying funds.

Why - How many motability cars are made in Britain?

[doomed]

Nobody on benefits should get anywhere close to 40hrs per week minimum wage regardless of their circumstance. Working must be seen to pay or what is the point?

[EUBanana]

Nobody on benefits should get anywhere close to 40hrs per week minimum wage regardless of their circumstance. Working must be seen to pay or what is the point?

The only real alternative is some sort of CI.

[winkie]

Could be a tilt from needs based to contribution based.......always wondered why someone could pay taxes and NI for many many years then fall on hard times and they say spend your savings you are not getting zilch, nought, nothing, zero......and someone and their family who have never done a days work gets a house and money in their pocket because they say they are entitled to it..........what we need is a fair and balanced system, in the past it was neither fair nor balanced.

[mattyboy1973]

......always wondered why someone could pay taxes and NI for many many years then fall on hard times and they say spend your savings you are not getting zilch, nought, nothing, zero......

Unless you bought a house, of course - equity therein does not count in any way towards means tested benefits, whereas 16k in savings and you're on your own. A staggering injustice IMO and one that could well bite a lot of renting generation. Not that I think those with means should get benefits - I think equity in the home should count equal to any other asset and if the money is not available at the time, then a lien on the family home and a loan, at interest.

[Hairy1305]

You can get a BMW 1 series with an advanced payment of £599 or an A3 for £499.

They'll obviously take your higher rate mobility component of £57.45 a week but you won't have to add anything to it.

As I said, you have to pay more money.

[wonderpup]

Nobody on benefits should get anywhere close to 40hrs per week minimum wage regardless of their circumstance. Working must be seen to pay or what is the point?

Working must be seen to pay?

Or working should provide a living wage?

The two concepts are superficially similar but are in reality very different. Sure we could make working appear to be more viable by cutting benefits to the unemployed- but if those people who are working are not earning enough to live on then this is a purely cosmetic exercise- it does not solve the problem of low wages.

If I were to cut you off at the knees I would be seen to be the taller- but breaking you does not in fact increase my stature- and if I am too short to keep my head above water the fact that you drown first will not save me.

[winkie]

Unless you bought a house, of course - equity therein does not count in any way towards means tested benefits, whereas 16k in savings and you're on your own. A staggering injustice IMO and one that could well bite a lot of renting generation. Not that I think those with means should get benefits - I think equity in the home should count equal to any other asset and if the money is not available at the time, then a lien on the family home and a loan, at interest.

Yes, it doesn't make sense......free money made from just buying a house that has freely increased in value without lifting a finger is protected, but hard working labour, paying taxes and putting a bit away each week is not protected.......every day it gets clearer to see that hard work does not pay... leverage using others money or investing to speculate on property does.