To wonder why people in receipt of Working Tax Credits are considered in the same vein as "benefit scroungers"

[shrunkenhead]

I was under the impression that those people in receipt of WTCs DO work (hence the name) but are poorly paid so the government bump it up with these credits so they can afford to live. So you have to work to claim them.... However lately I have heard several people say they are glad the government are slashing these benefits and talk of them along similar lines to JSA/DLA etc etc generally benefit bashing "just get a job" etc etc.
So, am I missing something? Have I got it all wrong? I thought WTCs were all about "making work pay"....?

Well I was thinking that it does seem unfair that a large business like Tesco's is propped up by tax credits and makes millions in profits. But the small business will suffer. I still think the only way is to lower the thresholds and limit the number of children. A while ago somebody with 12 children earning £26K a year was getting £67K extra in benefits. What country in the world gives that kind of money to one family. None I bet. The welfare system has gone a bit crazy but it's a shame some hardworking people will lose out.

Surely if one of the weaknesses of the wtc system odd that it can put people of increasing their hours (since more ratings means a decrease in tc claimed) then the new budget making the deduction steeper (48p less tax credits for every extra pound earned versus the old 42p) will only exacerbate this problem.

It's also not really true. When I took a year's maternity leave during a tax year (an April baby) my income plummeted to smp. This, combined with wtc and ctc gave me a household income of 13k.

This year my income is higher due to receiving salary again and my total gross income plus tax credits is 23k.

My sister earns more than I do with same number of children and her gross income is 28k. Sure she gets less in tc but her overall income is higher.

The new budget will make this distinction less. For every pound more earned, you forfeit more tax credits. So Osborne is clearly NOT concerned about encouraging those who are able to, to take on more hours or earrn more.

I am also DEEPLY suspicious of his using the term 'living wage'. Why did he not use nmw? There is already a weird due a legal minimum amount to pay someone. The lw is different. I suspect he wants to make the term lose its meaning by confusing the two in people's minds. The existence of a lw that is higher than nmw stnds as a criticism of the government (whichever flavour) so by adopting it like that it can't be used like that anymore.

Do the people who want these cuts realise that if someone is kicked off WTC with the cuts.. they get no help at all with childcare 3 and 4 year olds will get 30 hours but what about wrap around care for schools , school holidays...

totally agree with morethan

there is so much ignorance over tax credits and how the cuts will affect then, its scary

and viviennemary, how many people do you know who have 12 kids??

" A while ago somebody with 12 children earning £26K a year was getting £67K extra in benefits."

I mean, really??

If you know anyone with 12 kids I'll send you a fiver.

I would put a large bet on the number of families in Britain with 12 or more kids being under 100 (quite possibly fewer than 10) and the chance of viviennemary knowing any of them is basically zero.

Starlight you can have an underlying entitlement to WTC but not actually receive any WTC other than childcare due to high income.
As long as you receive CTC you will still be entitled to the childcare element of WTC.

Who says that? I know loads of people from 'private healthcare not eligible for child benefit squirrelling money offshore' to people who are frightened of working in case they lose free school meals and HB. Do people really talk about working tax credits benefit scroungers? Or isn't it just the Dally Mail?

I know somebody with 7 kids. And my auntie's friend was one of 14. Does that count.

What would absolutely cut the issue by about 50% was if social housing was available to pretty much anyone who wanted it. Nobody is going to have dcs sharing rooms and a smaller house if they can easily afford a 4 bed detached so I doubt there'd be a rush from people who didn't need it. It would allow tax credits to be reduced and boost the economy because people wouldn't be spending half their income on housing.
Ban zero hour contracts. And severely restrict the amount of casual hours contracts, so eg if you employ 3 staff on 40 hrs you can offer maybe 1 role that's 6 hrs and casual after that. And only then if you can prove there are weekly fluctuations that require it, eg pubs, function rooms, hotels etc. Retail can predict there's and offer short term contracts, as can most carer roles etc

I know I keep harping on about this but we need good old fashioned council houses.
The documentary a while back about the first ones was so interesting and educational.
They were for working families, you were respectable and treated as such. There was pride in the homes and set rules you had to obey to avoid being kicked out.
Nothing allowed in your back garden, nets had to sparkle and no washing to be seen apart from a line in back garden.
They should be available to anyone who wants one. Reasonable rents would stop the need for so much benefit, but no government is going to do this.

no, I'm keeping my fiver

I really don't want a heap of abuse poured out on me here but surely the argument that is being put forward here - that people many (not all - I repeat NOT ALL but many) feel they have a choice is the fundamental problem and problem mindset here.

As stated in many many posts here examples which boil down to ...... "If I/they take on more hours, I /they will 'lose out'/it's not 'worth it'!

is it right that this is seen as a legitimate arguement? Surely any benefit should be because there is no 'choice' not because someone doesnt want to have to work more if they can choose not too and get the same money? I think that is what the current gov means by "making work pay" - that if you CHOOSE not to, then you shouldn't be able to claim money off the government to support this choice. The huge problem is how to decide who is making that choice and has no choice either because their employer can't / won't give them any more hours. I really think that the Osborne version of the NMW was poorly thought out as the solution to this because it could be soooo much better. As a pp said, a system of tax credits back to employers rather than employees to support small businesses to implement a 'real' living wage whilst leaving tescos et al to take it from the humugous profits. Problem is that doesn't work either as they would just pass these increases on to customers and the whole thing starts again ....... it's depressing and complicated but huge public spending doesn't work either and has bought every country that's tried it to the brink of ruin also.

I agree totally about housing costs being a huge factor and the thatcher policy now being lambasted but for those who were around in those time it was seen as a the answer to social mobility - allow people who would never be able to afford it to buy their own house and if the answer was a simple as build more - well there has been over 10 years of a labour government since the thatcher government and they didn't have that as a policy either - there must be a reason why? Although I struggle to think of one other than ANYTIME a substantial housing estate project is mooted near where I live, the whole flaming county is up in arms about space/countryside/not enough infrastructure blah blah. It seems everyone wants more housing ...... Just not where they live.
Depressed!

you dont get the same money that you'd get from working , if you get tax credits top ups, you just dont, ever.

work always pays more than tc top ups, you may lose some of the top us, the higher wage you earn, but you never get

eg. work full time = work part time plus tc top ups

work full time pays more, as it should.

So well put ssd. That's it exactly.

There's no way I have ever been better off by not working and our family having tax credits. We just happened to manage on a lot less than people normally do. There aren't many in my situation, I was once called a tory conundrum, but didn't get why.
I don't even argue that we should keep them when there are disabled losing out.
My problem is the assumption that it pays a wage or near wage for a sahp, it doesn't happen.
When we had 3 dependant dc it didn't even pay the same as a wage when child care had been taken out. Nor should it do.

I dont know how people imagine its otherwise, morethan

tory propaganda, probably

People on up to £65k can get wtc if they have 3+ DCs and pay £300pwk (£15kpa) for childcare for 2 of them. It's only £580pa though. here

Personally I'd rather the money that has been put into tax credits had been put into free universal childcare instead. Imo no one should ever be worse off in work because of childcare costs or only able to work term time school hours because there are no breakfast clubs/after school clubs/holiday care available.

Viviennemary you may not want to taken away from family's with disabilities but it has been

The torys have targeted families with disabilities under the last government and are already doing so again

Under the coalition (mainly torys obviously) DLA (fruad rate of 0.5%) was changed to PIPs with DC saying it was to cut 20% of claiments. This cuts the figures eligible to claim disability element of wtc. They cut disabled students allowance, and now scrapped it altogether. The bedroom tax disproportionately effects people with disabilities who may have an adapted house they can't leave. Or maybe they need the second bedroom because their child's asd &Adhd causes sleep problems which negatively effects their other child. Adult education fund (that people with disabilities often access) was scrapped. Under the torys themselves they have cut the funds to access to work fund and ilfs are 'transfered' to councils (which is at their discretion to use) and cut. The new budget will also disproportionately effect those with disabilities as many rely on tcs due to limited access to employment. They also changed esa so most people will only be able to claim the lower rate (which is half of what they would normallyclaim). They have also drasticly cut ffunding to disability charities over both governments.

That's not including cuts to NHS, sw, education that again disproportionately effect those living with disabilities.

Under the coalition we went from having one of the best records on treatment of the disabled to one of the world's worst. That's horrific. And then there'sthe rumours about the uUN gearing up to investigate the UK as the first ever country to violate the convention on the rights of disabledpeople.

Anyone who voted Tory either knows this and doesn't care, or the voted in ignorance- in which case there's a serious problem with the electorate. I don't want to name call, but its hard not to agree with pps sentiment re Tory voters when you know the ins and outs of how they are targeting the disabled. Have a read of disability rights UK website.

Forgive typos please

I haven't read the whole thread but I had a thought.

If I were say, 20, and in a stable relationship, wouldn't it be wise to have two kids quickly, or do I mean three, before the 2 doc cap, and work when I reach 25 and qualify for the new new?

We are like frogs sitting in a pan of slow boiling water.

The money cuts aside I'm more bothered about what out country's attitude to anyone that isn't wealthy, healthy or a British national is going to be in years to come.

Viviennemary within the TC system there is an additional allowance for disabled working adults. The allowance was in the system to give an additional incentive because of the additional costs disabled people face in work. Disabled people will be disproportionately hit by the reduction in the income disregard and the increase in the claw back rate because of this.

I think that Carers who manage to work a few hours (which is sometimes crucial for their mental health) will also be affected.

Agree that it is very naive to voice approval of the cuts because there are people in greater need when a large group of them were screwed by the first round.

If you are in receipt of DLA or its replacement PIP it is for your care needs and your mobility. These don't always affect your ability to work.

I work and receive PIP and before that DLA.

Working tax credits will be abolished as the threshold has been lowered and the minimum wage has been raised slightly putting them out of reach for many people currently on them.

Working tax credits will be abolished as the threshold has been lowered and the minimum wage has been raised slightly putting them out of reach for many people currently on them.

...that wont be a mistake by this gov, will it

They won't be abolished, that's a dodgy rumour being put about by people who don't understand or are deliberately misleading people about what the threshold means.

Significantly cut, yes, but not gone.

hope not