to be utterly disgusted at people's comments re. welfare cuts

[HappyGoLuckyGirl]

Yes, I'm aware that our welfare system needs reforming. I do not profess to know how this should be done.

I've just read a few articles on the proposed cuts that primarily focused on reducing tax credits. The vitrol is appalling. I can't believe this is the country I live in.

I am a single mother working 40 hours a week also mid way through a 5 year part time degree. I earn slightly over minimum wage. Things are tight enough as it is, with the tax credits I get (80% of which goes on my weekly childcare bill) and now they are planning to reduce them.

I am trying to better myself so I don't always have to rely on benefits to get me through the month and yet I'm being punished! Why are working people being targeted? How is that fair in the slightest? If I wasn't so furious I would cry.

And as for people saying that employers should raise workers wages, I can say with 100% surety that if I approached my employer and asked for a living wage (increase of £8k+) I would be flat out refused and or fired. And I work in a skilled job! What hope do people who work for a large multi-national company have?

I am very this morning.

Of course it's bloody wrong that the state allows tax avoidance schemes for the rich. That people then use them is a disgrace. But state sanctioned by the tory boys.

I've just looked that up, Sultan. Basically, the situation is that today's figures will show a rise in child poverty. Mr Cameron doesn't like that.

In the UK, child poverty is calculated on average household income. Children in households with under 60% of the average income are deemed poor.

During a recession, household incomes stagnate or go down. One effect of this is that the 60% benchmark also goes down. Since many of the poorest households are on a fixed income (with benefits), their situation looks OK compared to the falling average.

Cameron thinks that, by removing pensioner households from the calculation, the average income will stay low. Therefore, the percentage defined as living in poverty will carry on not looking so bad.

He can justify this by saying not many pensioners have children living with them. But it's a clever way to keep the 'average household income' down, so that fewer poor families show up as having less than 60% of average.

Obviously you can look at UNICEF or any of the big children's charities to see that we have got a real problem with child poverty. However, that rarely makes headlines. When they make this change, they'll be able to put out a press release saying fewer British families are defined as living in poverty! Clever, huh.

Guardian

Well, what does everyone suggest then?

Should we just throw more money at the problem and ignore the globalisation issue and the fact that it is a globalised recession and hope our children/grandchildren can sort it out?

I see tax evasion has been brought into the mix trying to make it a zero sum game, and yet no one has even recognised that the past coalition has recently introduced more legislation to combat this (Google tax/aggressive tax avoidance etc) as though it's just an attack on the poor.

I don't think some of you really do recognise that there is only so much blood you can squeeze out of a stone, the truly 1% are mobile and every country is fighting for big business to base headquarters in their own country, it is far more complex than if a global company moves out it opens the doors for smaller companies to exist.

I see plenty of 'austerity is ideological thinking', long term investment is what's needed and in the same breath saying that hs2/trident should be scrapped because 'muh free money' with no sense of irony or understanding of contracts signed re trident, train capacity for the future, or worldwide politics in general.

Maybe we should follow the Scandi route and lower personal tax allowance to 1500 a year and ramp everyone's taxes up and introduce a 'paid in' benefits system?

I'm not seeing any alternatives other than to childishly shit on the Tories?

Add message | Report | Message poster MargoReadbetter Wed 24-Jun-15 21:52:39
Of course it's bloody wrong that the state allows tax avoidance schemes for the rich. That people then use them is a disgrace. But state sanctioned by the tory boys.

What about the Millibands using perfectly legal trusts to avoid inheritance tax?

Only just got back from work so couldn't reply before. lashes - I dint think you are depriving the state by avoiding tax. Using my parents as example -they have paid a large amount of tax which they are legally required to - they are not depriving society. The choosing the use legal methods to keep more of their money to spend as they wish is not wrong. They (can only speak for my parents) then choose what charities they want to support -they are , again, not depriving society.

And to the PP who said I lack empathy - thats not true. I am just able to see that genuine oeople in need of help (the disabled) should get it and as such, people should not evade tax. I can also see that those that work hard/were lucky want ti keep most of their money for themselves and their families/causes and I dont think theres anything wring with that. Also, I dont havr an 'Im alright Jack' attitude - Im a broke student working min wage.

Well, what does everyone suggest then?

Empathy and compassion. Making sure the poorest and vulnerable are properly looked after. Ensuring all children, whatever their background, have equal chances in life. Scrapping cuts to women's services so hundreds of women and children are not turned away from refuges daily, as is happening now. A fair society where the 4% most disabled people don't bear the brunt of 13% of austerity cuts, as they do now.

That's what I suggest.

So what's your point, Downtheroad?

Tax evasion has been brought into the mix because it's real. When big corporations don't pay tax or decent salaries (hence the need for top-ups), aren't they in effect being subsidised for making a profit?

Bereal "a broke student working minimal wage" but you could always go to mum & dad and they'll help you out. You have options. You're young and slumming it a bit.

I do agreed that corporations should be made to pay the living wage. But isn't there the problem that they may end up employing less people or moving their base elsewhere, which would make us worse off?

margo Yes, they could help me out but the point is I'm not some rich person who doesn't care about people (not saying at all that rich people don't care about people).

You're young and slumming it a bit why don't you go say that to all the young mothers/fathers struggling to feed their children. Or is struggling only a problem once u hit a certain age?

Bereal but that money should be paid into society and spent accordingly. Not given to random charities.

Bereal - perhaps you didn't understand. I said you have options: your parents! They can help you out. You can "play" at budgeting but you can go to mum & dad for help. For others it is for real.

I don't buy the tory lie about corporations fucking off and the trickle-down of wealth. Or maybe there'll be space for others to grow, with better morals and wages.

The fact is the majority of the UK voting electorate voted for this strategy. Whether we like it or not, that's democracy for you.
Ultimately 'we' (the government, the UK, whoever) have to get a grip of the finances, and while there are clearly personal difficulties, tax credit is a crazy system - why on earth would you take money off people, and give it them back as a credit. Wouldn't it be better not to tax them in the first place?
Government should stick to doing as little as possible - the way forward has to be low government spending and low taxation. Low taxation is a statistically good way of increasing the amount of money that the government earns, and that's good for the stuff we consider priority. So if you have to blame someone, blame the people who brought it in, because they caused your pain.

Grumpy bear only 37% of those who voted voted for it.

Poor people like the things that keep them poor, in other words. (That American writer, forgot his name.)

Empathy and compassion. Making sure the poorest and vulnerable are properly looked after

I don't think there is anyone sane who would disagree with that in principal.

Any form of disabled should be excluded from cuts, yet the 'poor and vulnerable' has become an ever expanding encapsulating term that it is becoming meaningless in certain situations.

I know that comes across as I'm some right wing nutjob but since Gordon increased tax credits there has been an increase in people (with non disabled DC) making sure not to exceed the 16 hours working because of tax credits and spacing ttc to prolong 'help' whilst ignoring the 'vunerable and poor' that are without children or just above the threshold.

You are wilfully ignoring our standing in a globalised economy whilst typing on your laptop/iPad.

The other parts you mention is outside the scope of the discussion, yet I would add that male refuges have had even less or zeo funding for a while but that is me derailing the thread and possibly being ignored due to sexism.

Low taxation makes money for the govt? Right, I've got it now. So tax evasion and tax avoidance makes gazillions by this logic.

But more than voted for any other view.

As I say, that's the democracy we have and love (!).

No need to mention the over / under representation of SNP / UKIP etc etc

Lashes, stop repeating tired old memes.

It's FPTP, labour won a majority on less, no one complained.

Since the rise of SNP/Greens/UKIP your never going to get a majority ever again unless you want to revert to a 2 party state.

On the recent polls a right wing government would still have won under PR but it would have been worse as we would have a substantial UKIP contingency.

As for voting on 'austerity' then 88% of the electorate voted for it as labour where on board with austerity measures.

Painting with a broad brush can get messy.

Margo.
Unlikely as it sounds, that's correct. There is loads and loads of evidence for this with over 100 years of data in most of the western industrialised countries. The basic thinking is of course that lower taxation rewards people who invest in business, and in turn the investment increases employment. It's the increase in employment and the subsequent increase in wages that push up Government revenue. Go and have a look on the net for yourself.

Evasion / avoidance is not a point I was arguing, however, there is a wide stratum of opinion that would suggest that making taxes simple would avoid avoidance. (less Government)
My personal little view is that HRMC should have the option to tax on turnover, not profit. That's easy to do, and enables them to have the tools to sanction the likes of Starbucks, Google, Ebay, etc who benefit from UK infrastructure, but contribute less to it

Lurker er don't generalise, I complain because it's unfair not because my party (I didn't vote for lavour) didn't win. And I wouldn't have to trot out memes if you'd use the correct terminology. You did not have a majority

Nice, picking up on my terminology and making assumptions on how I voted, (Fwiw) using the 37% stat has become a meme.

Still, if you want to build a straw man that's up to you.

As I mentioned on a previous post, it's becoming pretty common that those who vehomently oppose tory rule didn't vote labour, conveniently ignoring the past decade under labour wher inequality actually grew faster etc...

Oh I best apologise for my spelling mistakes, because otherwise it prevents you actually addressing the points made....

Low taxation in the past 100 years hasnt exactly solved life's problems. Society is more complex now. I don't know what the solution is but I don't prppose going back to some golden era or profit, poverty and charity.

Lashes 51% of people voted for the Conservatives or UKIP. Many people who voted Lib Dem will have done so because they supported the coalition. But you keep on deluding yourself that somehow a right wing government has been forced on a left wing country.

Did you vote Green?

Aer but we can't predict how they would have voted under a different system as it gets rid of tactical voting and safe seats.

I voted libdem as I'm not short sighted enough to hold one bad descision against an entire party, greens would have been my second choice