Tax Credit Sad Face :-((((((

[Harry Sacks]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I would say worse than that TC encourage people to not work - and be unemployable in future.

Work doing what? Digging holes and filling them in again? I wager over 50% of jobs are utterly pointless with a net external cost to wider society. Most of humanity's problems stem from over production/consumption. Why is there this cultural dogma about constantly working?

 

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, dom said:

Work doing what? Digging holes and filling them in again? I wager over 50% of jobs are utterly pointless with a net external cost to wider society. Most of humanity's problems stem from over production/consumption. Why is there this cultural dogma about constantly working?

 

As tax credits increase if you have more children - they encourage more total consumption of the earth's resources not less (maybe less per person).

 

[dougless]

3 hours ago, dom said:

Work doing what? Digging holes and filling them in again? I wager over 50% of jobs are utterly pointless with a net external cost to wider society. Most of humanity's problems stem from over production/consumption. Why is there this cultural dogma about constantly working?

 

A good point dom.  We really shouldn't need to work as hard as many people do.  I suspect its a combination of a backwash of religious ethics from earlier times coupled with 'keeping people busy stops them thinking about more important things'.

[Harry Sacks]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

As tax credits increase if you have more children - they encourage more total consumption of the earth's resources not less (maybe less per person).

 

Tax Credits have been around since 1997? The UK birth rate is currently the lowest since records began.

[Harry Sacks]

13 minutes ago, dougless said:

A good point dom.  We really shouldn't need to work as hard as many people do.  I suspect its a combination of a backwash of religious ethics from earlier times coupled with 'keeping people busy stops them thinking about more important things'.

Yes. And with a monetary system that is constantly pulling future value into the present and inflating prices beyond wage growth, it's inevitable.

But it's so much easier to point the finger at single mums.

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by dom

[spyguy]

16 minutes ago, dom said:

Tax Credits have been around since 1997? The UK birth rate is currently the lowest since records began.

In work kid benefits have been around since Ted Heath - family allowance.

Tax credits UK v1 came out in 2002. And were a massive fup, too complex/confusing, not taking into account changes, resulting in low income people owing 10k to HMRC.

Tax credit v2 came out as result, in 2006ish, wheer Brown chucked lots of money at the problem. And thats wehre the UK remains.

TCs were the major cause behind Brexit.

 

[iamnumerate]

12 hours ago, dom said:

Tax Credits have been around since 1997? The UK birth rate is currently the lowest since records began.

Good, great for the environment,  however I wonder what the birth rate is for tax credit recipients - I would guess a lot higher than the average.

12 hours ago, dom said:

 

But it's so much easier to point the finger at single mums.

 

And often justified I remember living in a horrible flat while a pro single mum I know lived in a much nicer house  - I thought if they sent her to a pit village in Sedgefield I could buy this house and the tax payer would save a fortune.

[winkie]

16 hours ago, dom said:

Work doing what? Digging holes and filling them in again? I wager over 50% of jobs are utterly pointless with a net external cost to wider society. Most of humanity's problems stem from over production/consumption. Why is there this cultural dogma about constantly working?

 

Yes, because of the high rents and debt people have had to take on to live......the state is subsidising it via TC/other benefits....people would not have to work as long or as many hours (for money) if people held no debt or had no rent to pay....so jobs have been invented or created, employers sometimes getting cheap labour without having to give all the best employee benefits and security..... society as a whole therefore picks up the bill.?

[Locke]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

high rents and debt people have had to take on to live

A direct result of taxation and government intervention destroying the economy.

 

If they HADN'T interfered in the FIRST PLACE, then we WOULDN'T BE IN THIS SITUATION

[gp_]

Quote

Work doing what? Digging holes and filling them in again?

That is what Keynes suggested, as does modern monetary theory.

In fact there are plenty of useful things the government could spend money on: the NHS, education, the justice system, etc.

Boris has promised to reverse the police cuts, which is a small step in the right direction.
 

Quote

 I wager over 50% of jobs are utterly pointless with a net external cost to wider society.

That implies huge negative externalities. I find it hard to believe.

[poohbear]

17 hours ago, dom said:

Tax Credits have been around since 1997? The UK birth rate is currently the lowest since records began.

Since April 2017 benefits only pay for two children.Have a third and you get £20 child benefit only.

The move over to Universal Credit is certainly turning the screw.

Have a look at the Facebook group Universal Credit Survival.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Arpeggio]

9 hours ago, poohbear said:

Since April 2017 benefits only pay for two children.Have a third and you get £20 child benefit only.

The move over to Universal Credit is certainly turning the screw.

Have a look at the Facebook group Universal Credit Survival.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Good. I can't see why the h*ll anyone who can't afford to have kids should pay taxes toward others to have them. Having children on other people's money is not a "human right".

[poohbear]

2 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

Good. I can't see why the h*ll anyone who can't afford to have kids should pay taxes toward others to have them. Having children on other people's money is not a "human right".

Unfortunately the benefit entitled culture is so ingrained in this country it is going to take quite a few years to get that idea out of people’s minds.I do believe it has started though.

It used to be have a kid,get a house.People are now shocked that they are ending up in bedsits or a B and B or having to move away.

The introduction of tax credits really ramped up the entitlement though,and two child limit and Universal Credit is really proving to be a shock to the system.

 

 

 

 

[Council estate capitalist]

23 hours ago, poohbear said:

Have a look at the Facebook group Universal Credit Survival.

 

I've been on that group before.

From what I gather UC is very generous for some, and not so for others. 

If you're just a single person aged 30 unemployed all you get is £73.10pw + in my area £70 towards bedsit rent. (lowest rent in this area is £90). So £7400 a year. UC goes down by 63p for every £1 earned. 

A couple with 3 kids would get just over £20k a year provided they were all born before 2017 (assumes rent of £450pcm) 

If they were born after 2017 It's still £16.5k for 2 children. 

[spyguy]

On 16/10/2015 at 20:12, interestrateripoff said:

I agree, Labour have created a catch 22 with the tax credit system, essentially most of the country are nothing more than benefit claimants and many now work part time because of this credit. Keeping it is unsustainable economically, but removing it is going to cause issues. It would have just been better and far more efficient to cut taxes on the low paid rather than this convoluted feck up Labour implemented.

The UK welfare state is in very dangerous terrority.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7343187/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-warns-risk-deeply-divided-Britain-income-tax.html

Way too many, depending off  too few.

Having a hefty percentage of Europes benefit toll and the rest of ghe world pile in a join tge party really isnt helping.

Gidiot should have moved in 2010 to shut Briwns idiocy down.

10 years later, uk debt doubled, brexit voted for ....

[spyguy]

On 02/08/2019 at 12:17, poohbear said:

Since April 2017 benefits only pay for two children.Have a third and you get £20 child benefit only.

The move over to Universal Credit is certainly turning the screw.

Have a look at the Facebook group Universal Credit Survival.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

I might have found peak TC

FB commentators apart from  -*

So, i have to apply for UC this month due to moving home? I dont understand why i have to swap benefits really! Will i be better off or will my money go down? I have 8 childrens so tax credits weekly payments are completely stopping which is a bummer especially with the fact it take 5 6 weeks to go through!

So will i still get same amount of money or will i lose any? And what about carers will that stop now too?

Thanks.

 

I get dla for 2 of my children and carers for one my husband get carers for my other child. In regards to UC my housing officer said i have no choice and have to move to UC . X

 

Been on housing benefit for years its just moving to different area, she said i have no choice and have to apply for UC. Childrens birth years are 05,06,08,11,13,15,17,18

13.5.17 no wages coming in hes full time dad at home with me now after ill child. Rent on new property is 1000 month no rent free weeks.

Nearly 5 k a month in benefits? **** (other commntator)

 

This is a group for advice and support, not for judgement. *** (otehr commentator)

 

And my choice to have 8 children was purely because i have love to give endlessly and wanted a large family as im from a large family myself, my husband was in full-time work for 30 years but had to quit 4 years ago when my pregnancy took a turn for the worst.

 

and the 1000 rent is included isnt it which will need to go straight to the housing associations? X

 

To framae this, this family is pulling in ~5k/month - 60k year, equivalent to  take home of a ~100k salary.

 

Then theres the 8 kids at school/childcare a cost of ~5k/head - 50k.

Then the giving birth/ongoign medical  care.

 

The UK median wage ~2j8k pays about 5k tax. Yes i know theres VAT n Ctax..

 

If hubby had ;worked  FT for 30 years before jacking it in ~5 eyars ago), hes going to mid 50s. Yet still popping kids out..

 

If they want, families should be offered 10 years paid time to look after kids. Then th8e state claws it back by putting 5 years on mother and fathers stateretirement age.

 

 

 

 

 

[byron78]

On 01/08/2019 at 09:39, Locke said:

Yes there is; cut taxation and regulation.

Congratulations. You just invented China. 

[spyguy]

6 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Congratulations. You just invented China. 

China is not low tax, low regulation.

You cannot scratch your balls in China without  CCP sayso.

Taxes are only lower as theyve not got much social costs to pay. These are racking up at a rapid clip at tge mo.

[byron78]

7 minutes ago, spyguy said:

China is not low tax, low regulation.

You cannot scratch your balls in China without  CCP sayso.

Taxes are only lower as theyve not got much social costs to pay. These are racking up at a rapid clip at tge mo.

Oh please. 

Give me an example of anywhere in the world with low tax and low regs that's not essentially a bloody sweatshop. 

It's a myth that society works best for everyone when nobody is pulled up on anything and the people with the power and money simply get to keep it. 

I hate simplistic, and frankly juvenile, arguments like this. 

I would have got an F on any paper with that logic when I was less than 10 years old. 

[spyguy]

56 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Oh please. 

Give me an example of anywhere in the world with low tax and low regs that's not essentially a bloody sweatshop. 

It's a myth that society works best for everyone when nobody is pulled up on anything and the people with the power and money simply get to keep it. 

I hate simplistic, and frankly juvenile, arguments like this. 

I would have got an F on any paper with that logic when I was less than 10 years old. 

https://www.cloudpay.net/resources/understanding-payroll-in-china-what-global-companies-need-to-know-about-china-payroll

[byron78]

14 minutes ago, spyguy said:

https://www.cloudpay.net/resources/understanding-payroll-in-china-what-global-companies-need-to-know-about-china-payroll

A prole like you is not worth my time. 

Where is your low tax low reg nirvana? Somewhere in sub-Africa maybe? One of the little islands in the Bahamas where the likes of you will never be able to avoid tax? 

Edited August 10, 2019 by byron78

[A17]

Three meanings of low regulation, with some overlap.

1. Low safety and environment regulation. No hard hats required. Dump what you want in the river.

2. Low corporate regulation. Ease of setting up companies. No need for "local partners" or "joint ventures" to skim off the top. Government generally staying out of things - simple or no permits needed. Lack of protectionism.

3. Low personnel regulation. Fire people easily. Lack of unions or restrictive trade guilds.

 

So one example is India - low safety and environmental regulation, but good luck trying to set up a factory there as a foreigner without masses of duplicated paperwork and having your local partner skim off the top. On the other hand, the UK: strict safety rules but fairly easy to set up a company and run it honestly. Slightly different to say France, in that you can fire people easily and it isn't necessary to have a government certificate or license to do a lot of jobs.

[spyguy]

8 hours ago, byron78 said:

A prole like you is not worth my time. 

Where is your low tax low reg nirvana? Somewhere in sub-Africa maybe? One of the little islands in the Bahamas where the likes of you will never be able to avoid tax? 

Jesus.

You need to get out n about.

Most poor countries tend to be very high tax and regulation, africa esp.

The fact that the taxes are more bribes and the regulation is rent seeking.

This picture of China as some bare minimum regulation country has not existe for 20/30 odd years.

You are confusing low wages with low regulation/taxes.

 

[spyguy]

6 hours ago, A17 said:

Three meanings of low regulation, with some overlap.

1. Low safety and environment regulation. No hard hats required. Dump what you want in the river.

2. Low corporate regulation. Ease of setting up companies. No need for "local partners" or "joint ventures" to skim off the top. Government generally staying out of things - simple or no permits needed. Lack of protectionism.

3. Low personnel regulation. Fire people easily. Lack of unions or restrictive trade guilds.

 

So one example is India - low safety and environmental regulation, but good luck trying to set up a factory there as a foreigner without masses of duplicated paperwork and having your local partner skim off the top. On the other hand, the UK: strict safety rules but fairly easy to set up a company and run it honestly. Slightly different to say France, in that you can fire people easily and it isn't necessary to have a government certificate or license to do a lot of jobs.

Last point.

US.

Theres so much regulation/certificationof daft jobs like hair dressing and massage.

One great big bureaucrats paradise.

Stuff like public sector and utilities in the states state tend to be smaller - each city runs its own police n fire.

 

 

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, spyguy said:

Last point.

US.

Theres so much regulation/certificationof daft jobs like hair dressing and massage.

One great big bureaucrats paradise.

Stuff like public sector and utilities in the states state tend to be smaller - each city runs its own police n fire.

 

 

Very true - see this

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/28/louisiana-only-state-requires-occupational-licenses-florists-its-absurd-column/459619002/

 

Quote

“Sandy Meadows died alone and in poverty because the State of Louisiana wouldn’t allow her to work in a perfectly harmless occupation.”

So said Clark Neily, who represented Meadows in an unsuccessful attempt to overturn Louisiana’s floristry licensing law back in 2003.

In a nation rife with wacky occupational licensing laws — different states around the country license everything from fortunetellers to frog farmers — Louisiana has stood alone as the only state that mandates a license for putting together a bouquet. Now, nearly 14 years after Meadows’ death, Louisiana may finally be on the brink of overturning this absurd requirement.

More: Mayors want to pass gun safety laws, but the NRA and our state legislatures won't let us

More: Supreme Court Janus case is bigger than unions. Upward mobility is at stake.

After Meadows’ husband passed away in 2000, she had little money or education. But she had a talent with flowers. She found a way to support herself by managing the floral department of a local grocery store — until the Louisiana Horticulture Commission threatened to shut down the store’s floristry operations unless it hired a licensed florist. Meadows tried to obtain a state floristry license five separate times, but she was unable to pass the complicated, subjective practical exam that was part of the licensing requirement.

The exam required applicants to arrange four bouquets in four hours. The results were judged by a panel of licensed Louisiana florists, who all-but-certainly viewed the applicants as competitors that were best kept out of the floristry trade. The passage rates for the exam were below 50 percent; even longtime florists often failed it. One licensed florist in the state described the test as nothing more than a “hazing process.” Ultimately, because she could not pass the exam, the grocery store had to let Meadows go.

Louisiana eventually scrapped the practical portion of the exam — while keeping in place a written test — but the state has remained frustratingly unable to fully repeal the law that many consider the poster child for occupational licensing run amok. Earlier this year, however, Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards advocated reforming the state’s onerous occupational licensing regime. He even referenced the floristry license specifically, noting that Louisiana was the only state in the country to have such a law before adding, “I’m not sure why we do that.” 

Right on cue, Rep. Julie Emerson, R-Carencro, introduced a bill in the Louisiana Legislature that repeals the licensing mandate for florists and removes the requirement that the Horticulture Commission be partially stocked with incumbent florists. Gov. Edwards expressed support for the legislation in his recently-unveiled legislative agenda, which gives the bill strong bipartisan roots.

Occupational licensing is often justified based on health and safety concerns, both for practitioners of the licensed trade as well as consumers. While these concerns can make sense in fields such as medicine, it is difficult to conceptualize any risks inherent in arranging flowers. The fact that all 49 other states lack a floristry licensing regime — as well as any epidemic of flower-related injuries — further suggests that licensing is inappropriate in this field.

This is not to say that the requirement doesn’t have its defenders. Republican Mike Strain, who serves as the elected commissioner of Louisiana’s Agriculture and Forestry Department — the agency tasked with overseeing the state’s floristry licensing regime — has defended the law on consumer protection grounds: “There’s a certain amount of regulation to make sure the public gets what they pay for… [otherwise] you’re going to set up a situation where anybody can open a floral shop and there’s no method to regulate the industry and protect the public.”

This justification is similarly weak. While consumers are occasionally at an information deficit in certain service industries — for example, it would likely be difficult for most patients to select the best treatment option for a particular disease without the advice of a doctor — floristry is relatively straightforward. Picking out a pretty bouquet from the supermarket is not a specialized skill; it’s a task the average consumer is more than qualified to perform.

More: Trump's infrastructure plan is gaining support from small businesses

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Louisiana’s floristry license certainly stands out for its one-of-a-kind nature, but needless occupational licensing is a widespread problem. Many other states also have outdated, nonsensical licensing laws on their books that affect practitioners in industries such as cosmetology, barbering, interior design and more. Because each state has different requirements, individuals in these fields often have difficulty moving across state lines and continuing to practice their occupation. More states need to follow Louisiana’s lead in identifying absurd — and sometimes even embarrassing — licensing laws and getting rid of them.

In reflecting on Meadows’ case, Neily later wrote, “Prevented by government from doing the only work she knew, Sandy had no way to make a living. She had no car, no phone and, on the last day I saw her alive, no electricity because she couldn’t afford to pay her utility bill.”

Rep. Emerson’s bill would finish the job that Sandy Meadows’ lawsuit started. While it’s far too late to help Meadows, this much-needed reform would at least provide a glimmer of light in an otherwise tragic story.

Shoshana Weissmann is a policy analyst and digital media specialist at the R Street Institute. C. Jarrett Dieterle is the director of commercial freedom and a senior fellow at R Street.