to ask if most of you realise the tax credits cuts affect people who work, not the unemployed?

[ssd]

yes, that's right, people who work get tax credits, you must work to get them

the cuts affect people in work, not people who dont work

I'm fed up reading here about the lazy unemployed who will get their tax credits cut...err no they wont.

"Do you mean because their income will exceed the threshold if they work more hours?"

Supposedly there are people who refuse more hours because they get more in tax credits than they would in wages...it doesn't add up, but people insist they know lots of people in that situation.

It is sometimes true that due to other benefits (housing benefit usually) and when combined with paying more tax it's not as big a rise in income as it should be and when you combine that with extra childcare costs it may work out as the same income for more work, but for most people more hours would mean larger income even with less tax credits.

CerealEater - I imagine there are more children conceived through rape than are ever reported. Especially as many rapes are never reported. Many occur within a relationship & it's often when a woman becomes pregnant than the abuse escalates. How would a woman prove she'd been raped in these circumstances, it would be virtually impossible.

Twosmallones because people can get the same amount of money,or more,by limiting their hours and maximizing tax credits,therefore they can get more or the same amount of money for less work. People often say that it's not worth working for the same amount of money they can get with less hours and maximum top ups, they bizarrely refer to it as 'working for free'. Strange but true. The whole concept of self sufficiency has gone out of the window for quite a few people. Comes up quite often on forums,including MSE.

Jux what would happen then? Aspiration would diminish. People wouldn't feel rewarded for what they've put in. They wouldn't feel the desire to improve themselves, in a career aspect, because so much relies on money and the work out in to getting it. What would you do with regards to degrees and other specific training? If people still had to get student loans or pay upfront why would they bother? They would end up studying and training for a career and end up worse off than the bin man next door.

I think inflation would rise beyond control with the system suggested there, apart from being littered with other problems.

They can't get more money by claiming tax credits, but when HB and council tax benefit are taken into account, the overall gain by earning £1 is 4 pence. So add in childcare, travel, etc., and it can cost more to work than not to.

I have a lone parent friend who works just 16 hours and has one teenage dd aged 14. She has family around including her mum just up the road and the child's dad close by both of whom help. This friend has been offerred extra hours , she has been offerred a second job both of which she turned down as she has worked out that her increase in wages will result in loss of tax credits and housing benefit and she does not think it is worth her while to do extra hours for a small amount more.

Before I was offered a new job we were facing losing £1200 a year. What has upset me is the suggestion that I'm not a decent person, that I'm lazy and that I'm a scrounger. I would have said that I've been working very hard over the past few years but apparently I haven't and I don't know what it takes to count as hard work , other than earning loads of money. Worse still I have doubts that I'm capable of taking on more than I already do. My salary is starting to climb slowly because of what I've been doing. I don't know what to call it since it doesn't count as hard work. Not sure it will ever be enough.

Nobody should be better off by choosing to work less. Someone earlier said if they worked more hours then they wouldn't afford their rent. What kind of insane welfare system has allowed this.

It's not the welfare system that's allowed it Vivienne it's a combination of things.

People wouldn't feel rewarded for what they've put in. They wouldn't feel the desire to improve themselves, in a career aspect, because so much relies on money

Maybe that would improve society.

Is careerism really that beneficial? Doesn't it mean that instead of concentrating on doing jobs well, people concentrate on getting ahead and earning more money?

Is greed really the only motivator? Is it even a useful motivator?

Do we want people to become doctors because of the money on offer?

Do we really want to be sending the current message that the most important job in society is moving other people's money around, and the least important is caring for the elderly?

bathtime l agree.
Unfortunately l think some people study /practice /work/ for the prestige.
They don't want to be that lowly min wage worker - they need those people to look down on. Make them feel it was all worth while.
I'd love you see what would happen if those 'lazy and unambitious' people stopped turning up for work!

*to see

As I've said upthread, DH can't work more hours because if we lost tax credits we'd lose housing benefit and there's no way we could afford the rent.

Bathtime It's not just about (or all about) 'gaining more money' is it? If you spend years studying and training for a specific job, one that requires a certain level of 'intelligence' and high skill, one that not everyone could do, one that can have such importance in life, most people wouldn't be happy doing that and then getting paid the same amount as a bin man etc. It's all those hours, skills and everything else that is poored in, more hours than many in a lot of cases

Most people can't get enough hours

Most people who earn mroe than the average or more than the lowest paid do not in any way "look down on" the lower paid. In fact I judge people by how they treat people from whom they can obtain no advantage. It's a very good test of whether someone is worth knowing.

They have tried hwoever to pay everyone the same and in China in the Cultural revolution they sent the children of the "elite" who would normally have gone to the best universities into exile allowed only to do tasks such as collect crops. It did not work. Also many jobs particularly high paid ones can be done from anywhere so when France went to 75% rates of tax higher paid people moved elsewhere - London is full of them so we need to be careful not to kill the golden goose by driving hard workers away.

That's it RedDaisy It's really not as simple as pay everyone the same and everything will be better. Not at all. Aspiration- minimal, we live in a world were reward is given to encourage. People will move elsewhere. Those who think it would cure the 'looking down' upon others (which I don't think is something that happens half as often as some people seem to believe) are wrong. I can only imagine it would actually increase 'annoyance' with others, create more 'lazy' and 'unambitious' comments and create a more holier-than-thou attitude for those who have put themselves through years of study, expense, training and long days pretty much for 'nothing' while others do much less, in those terms (not talking the importance of jobs here, all have value to society), for the same amount. It would end with people saying 'I done all this, and put myself through that all for society, I'm a better person for doing so'.

It's just the way the world works. Financial equality will never be, it doesn't mean things can't be upped for many and lives improved, but to think that everyone having the same amount would make everything better is just plain daft!

most people wouldn't be happy doing that and then getting paid the same amount as a bin man etc.

I don't know about most.

Certainly greedy people motivated by having more money and superior status wouldn't be.

But they don't sound like the best people to me. Maybe we should structure things so that people are motivated to do things they are interested in and that seem important.

Most people who earn mroe than the average or more than the lowest paid do not in any way "look down on" the lower paid.

Our current political discourse is based on the idea that people's worth to our society can be precisely measured by how much money they have.

"Wealth creators" vs scroungers

When the former group includes people who inherited vast fortunes and have created nothing of note, and the latter includes non-employed mothers, carers, volunteers, and employed care workers, security staff, labourers.

Getting rid of all the physical waste created by humans is an important and unpleasant job. It should be paid well.

And not used as the go-to example of low status employment.

So, what should people do if they can't study, can't increase their workload etc?
Should they be content to live from a wage that barely covers basics?
I'm really in to know.
We have thus topic (in one way or another) regularly here. Nothing really stands out to me. Just the same old comments about improving ones self or situation.

*like to know.

It's not always about 'greed', or even about it in most cases though, is it Bath . It's been about reward for what you do, it's that simple (although in the case of footballers and such like I think it's insane!). Years of studying and training, a pile of debt and ending up worse off than someone who's walked into a completely unskilled job, putting in less hours, straight from school. In a country/world where financial reward is such a big thing , do you really think that would work?

It would take an absolute age to gradually change peoples pay to make it equal - raising the lower paid, lowering the higher paid, until they meet. Absolutely years of gradual change. And in that time people would get annoyed, they would protest, they would strike, they would move elsewhere. To do it suddenly would cause uproar and probably a similar problem to now, but potentially with higher earners losing homes -house prices won't change overnight and those landlords (especially in London) will be wanting as much money as they can *

If, after a few decades of that happening, we finally got to the point where all was equal then yes those future generations would be more focussed on the personal achievement and reward more than the financial, it would be the norm. It happens now, plenty of people don't choose higher paid jobs through greed -it's what they want to do with their lives, something they have a true passion for, but will often, include wanting to be able to provide more in their lives too. When we've instilled financial reward for everything, how do you expect such a financial change to how things work for everyone to be easy, simple and accepted by all?

• What would happen with the self employed businesses and property owners? Would they be subject to having to earn the same amount? This is a fully equal financial utopia you are suggesting afterall. Would they have to restrict the amount of work they do so they can't earn more? Turn down one last job a year because it would take them over the 'allowed to earn' threshold? Reduce or remove the competitive side of many businesses because there's no point trying to build yourself up above other similar businesses? What would happen with those who own and let property? Would they not be allowed an income? Would they have to sell that property? What would you propose?

You can't really regulate a business like that, but if you didn't would we end up with doctors, lawyers and others who are higher paid, becoming self employed and contracting themselves out to earn more money?

If they won't study or increase their workload then they live within their means just like everyone else.

Losing tax credits by taxing extra hours doesn't mean housing benefit goes too, it's tapered. Besides, surely it's better to have a salary that covers everything rather than benefits? Or likely, it's seen as work few hours to gain maximum benefits.

Maybe employers should be under obligation to inform the DWP when hours have been turned down, just like job seekers are sanctioned for refusing work.

Nobody is saying that wages shouldn't increase Gosh , there is no argument about that at all. It's the rate of the increase or the levelling so everybody would earn exactly the same that is being discussed and argued.

Wages should increase, everything will increase in line with it, so how a level field could be created there I honestly don't know. But I know that paying everyone the same or raising the minimum wage to £15 an hour and not expecting those who already receive that or more to then expect or get more, is just not as possible as it seems. It would take so long for it to work out for the better in a societal sense, rather than just monetary sense.

Wages are too low and that needs to be sorted, but support from the Government shouldn't be seen as the easy way out as it is for so many, and no that it not Daily Fail talk, it's true. I've lost count of the amount of people on forums, MSE in particular, and in real life who have said there is no point in working, changing jobs or increasing their hours because they would only be say £10, £20 or £30 a week better off because they would lose some tax credits and housing benefit. The knowledge and satisfaction of the earnings and paying things by their own hand doesn't come into it, they see it as pointless for the work they put in!!!

It's been about reward for what you do, it's that simple (although in the case of footballers and such like I think it's insane!).

I don't think footballer remuneration is that insane.

Elite football players at Premier League clubs have extremely rare and valuable talents, that's why they are paid so much.

I think the reason people get so worked up about them is because in many cases they used to be working class boys, and are not people we think deserve to be loaded, unlike people who inherited their wealth.

What's insane is the respect accorded, and money devoted to jobs, that are basically just rent-taking, such as working for financial institutions moving money around.

I never said everyone should be paid the same for all jobs, I said there was some merit in the idea.

The incentives people have for deciding how to contribute to society are perverse. I think we need to examine our presumptions about who "the best" people are, who are the people who contribute most to our society, and think about how we can create better rewards for people who do good work that the market relies on but will not reward.

If wages are increased then schools dinner ladies, TA's, care workers, hospital workers and many small business would have to cut back on staff or offer decreased hours. Many people are underemployed. Affordable or even available childcare is non existent in many areas. So again more child poverty. So we are back at square one. Many of the arguments on hear are simplistic to say the least. The same arguments bandied about again and again and again....