AIBU about Tax Credits cuts,

[Weathergames]

Commons back Osborne plan for tax credit cuts
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34260902

I don't claim anymore because I now earn enough to support myself - because I could work and progress my career as well as my life while being a single parent.

AIBU to think this is a total travesty and so many single parents are going to have their life's devastated by this - and what about people in domestic abuse situations who will now be more unable to leave?

Maybe I some benefits scrounger - but the tax credits enabled me to be a good parent and role model to my kids - without their feckless father affecting that .... AIBU?!

Grazia, your DS won't be worse off because he won't get tax credits, or will get minimal tax credits. It's families with children, in work, that will suffer the most.

We all know you work hard. You remind us constantly.

Isn't it better thought to raise the threshold at which people pay tax so tehy keep more of their earned income and make companies pay a better wage? I don't understand why taxpayers should be subsidising big business which is what is happening at the moment with tax credits. Brown was insane to bring them in and it was obvious what would happen. Now all these companies and families that have become reliant on tax credits have to come off them and a lot of families are going to really struggle. The same thing is happening with housing benefit distorting the housing market massively (and private landlords taking advantage of this because they know their is a minimum they can charge even for the worst possible home). Remove these props which basically support the already wealthy/private companies and eventually we might find the true value of both work and rents/housing.

evilcherub I'm sure that is a great comfort to a single parent of two on the national average wage who is facing a 10% cut in their income.

Although tax cuts help people on an average income, they are of little benefit to the lowest earners (who probably don't pay much if any tax) and a disproportionate percentage of the gains go to high earners.

This is why people who are already on very good salaries stand to do far better than average earners out of the last budget. I have to say that presenting this as a budget for hard working families is a very impressive con trick!

Unless like grazia you believe that people in low paid work are just lazy.

Many of us do work 6 ot 7 day weeks as it is to fund our tax bills etc.

My workplace is only open Monday to Friday so for me working weekends as well isn't an option.

Neither is finding a weekend job as dp works weekends so can't look after the kids.

Also I'd like to actually spend sometime with them, that so wrong?

"How on earth does a single parent with no family support find regular child care for weekends?!"

Dead easy. What is with these single parents who cannot do that! When I advertised we got 60 applicants! There are loads of people out there very keen to do babysitting at weekends. We got a sixth former in a local private school. Brilliant and lovely. Adored the baby/toddler twins.

Mistrigri - "Unless like grazia you believe that people in low paid work are just lazy." Not at all. I just don't think other taxpayers money should be used to pay the mortgages for for rich private landlords or help subsidise the profits of Tesco's, Starbucks and Boots. I think theres hould be a minimum wage that is much higher than it is so people don't have to work for nothing. Perhaps if all those billions currently spent on housing benefit was diverted into a mass social house building programme with genuinely affordable rents, then people wouldn't need to survive on tax credits and housing benefit. The elephant in the room is that housing has become a highly priced comodity and is the reason why so many people can't afford to live on their wages.

I have never said people in low paid work are lazy ever. I don't mind debating things but I don't want to be misquoted. My son is a postman up at 5am every day. he is not lazy. My immigrant clearn works her job here around her other full time job (she doesn't work quite as hard as I do but she certainly comes close).

I assume you live in London Grazia, and not anywhere rural?

I also wouldn't be happy leaving my children with an unqualified childminder for anything other than genuine babysitting duties.

grazia I'm going to be blunt. Your posting history on here is not supportive of the claim that you work harder than your "immigrant cleaner" who does a cleaning job on top of another full-time job. Joining in AIBU discussions takes more time than I usually have (am off sick today hence being able to join in), and I am not especially hard working.

Plus, I'm not sure at what point it became normal and acceptable for people in average wage jobs to need to work 60 hours a week just to keep the heating on and the kids fed, and I am not sure it has ever been possible for women to do this unless they either have an extended family for support, or are high earners who can afford to pay for nannies.

I don't know UK law in this area but I suspect it would be illegal for a sixth former to provide more than babysitting services, don't you need an OFSTED inspection if you are providing childcare? You'd probably get away with it if you paid cash in hand but, well, that's illegal too ...

Not at all. I just don't think other taxpayers money should be used to pay the mortgages for for rich private landlords or help subsidise the profits of Tesco's, Starbucks and Boots.

That accusation has been leveled at a lot of people, so don't feel singled out. People are having trouble distinguishing between people blaming the poor (or not so poor as it happens. you can have a substantial income and still be eligible for housing benefit in some parts), something many of us have not done, and saying that our housing problems are not going to be solved with more benefits (in fact, my contention is that they make the problem worse).

Perhaps if all those billions currently spent on housing benefit was diverted into a mass social house building programme with genuinely affordable rents, then people wouldn't need to survive on tax credits and housing benefit. The elephant in the room is that housing has become a highly priced comodity and is the reason why so many people can't afford to live on their wages.

Affordable costs will come if housing is plentiful. If there was political will, they could discourage foreign owned empty dwellings (which could be done with the stroke of a pen), make BTLs less attractive, and also building more homes. it all needs to happen to restore any sanity to the market.

What's shocking is not the current predicament. The shocking thing is we expect something else given that home building has been at levels that everyone (the people, economists and governments) agrees are far too low, and at historic lows for the last two decades.

The question was about someone looking after a child at the weekends. It is definitely not illegal to have someone into your home to do that.

This is the problem with the UK - people look for problems not solutions. I provide solutions. Why can't a clever bright sixth form girl mind a baby all morning whilst you work ion your home competently? It worked for us. In fact she was looking after twins. They all do first aid at school in those schools plus she had experience with siblings.

But the reason it is far too low red, is because it protects a whole range of vested interests. Build enough housing (and you lower the profits of construction firms , BTL landlords. You lower the asset value of many voters, so they don't vote for you, and hugely you lower the asset value of those who donate money to parties. Too many vested interests in one market to actually do anything about it.

Further issues with the cutting benefits to cut the deficit are that people are buying into what is in effect cod economics, because it suits their own prejudices (lazy feckless scroungers, why should I pay etc etc). In effect deficit reduction, the deficit which rose year on year last month btw, is being used as an excuse to sell off former public assets to private interests. In effect it is very in line with the Chicago School ideas that you need a external or internal shock in order to be able to bring free market economics to former public industries. Unfortunately the "free market" in many cases actually means selling off to crony capitalists to the detriment of the consumer and the nation selling.

Watch what happens with the NHS, Education and such over the next few years, funding cuts will cause them to under perform and be sold off to the private sector, it won't be any better, but the vested interests of those at the top ( as with housing) will have been sated.

Deficit is not really an issue, neither is debt because countries do not work like households ( another part of the myth sold on the "paying down the nations credit card" ugh! ). Do you know when we paid the last installment on the debt accrued during the 1st world war? Last year. We paid the last installment on an American post war 2nd world war loan in 2006, its not an "issue" really.

If deficit was really an issue, we would be chasing more of the £116 bn per year avoided/evaded in corporation tax, plus shutting down non-dom status, and raising things like corporation tax. We would also be cutting corporate subsidies, subsidies to land owners and a wealth of extra measures.

The major problem with the benefits debate is the "aspirational" attitude towards taxation of many voters, they vote for things like lower inheritance tax rates and upper income tax rates because they think they wouldn't like it when they get there, very few do something like 9% of the population will benefit from the inheritance tax raise, yet the nation loses billions a year, almost as much as the cut in work tax credits is going to cost, funny that..

Finally I can use this inheritance on houses point to finish, the raise in house prices is not based upon the "hard work" or effort of those who bought them, but the society around them improving, many who bought prior to 2000 have benefited hugely from government policies and need to put back into the society from which those benefits arose.

The wealth of those who gain most from the slashing of corporation tax, capital gains etc, is not based on "hard work" but on the receipt of rentier money ( dividends, rent, etc) and should be taxed accordingly. We are in a sorry state of affairs when we tax earnings by far more than wealth which means that inequality and the need for things like benefits rises because of that inequality, privilege entrenches, and the dream of hard work equaling success dwindles for all but the very few.

Sorry, rant over, hope I don't come across as a loony.

graziaaka thegoadyserialnanechangingmumsnetter Do you have a blog if not I suggest " my son the postman".

House prices have gone up and up and up in the South. Same with rents. What is the answer. Ever increasing tax credits to meet huge rentals and high mortgages payments. No. It's not good trying to meet these ever increasing costs with tax credits. The spiral upwards will never end if things carry on the way they are.

It's always this what are we supposed to do? I can't work weekends, can't work after 3 pm can't do this can't do that. So instead a nice handout every month from benefits. Fair enough people on minimum wage getting tax credits. I support that. I don't support people on higher than average wages getting tax credits and HB to enable them to live in expensive areas.

" nice handout every month from benefits"

The average person is on benefits for around 3 months. The "long term" benefit claimaints make up around 2% of the entire JSA headcount, which is around 50,000 -100,000 people at any given time.

You "resent" people living in areas they can't afford? So an extremely small amount of people, in very small areas, there are not tens of thousands living in period flats in Fulham at your expense. Stop buying into the distraction myths and look at what is going on.

What I resent is the non-acknowledgment of the state/societies role in anyone's success, but then even with the banks, success is private, failure is public.

But the reason it is far too low red, is because it protects a whole range of vested interests. Build enough housing (and you lower the profits of construction firms , BTL landlords. You lower the asset value of many voters, so they don't vote for you, and hugely you lower the asset value of those who donate money to parties. Too many vested interests in one market to actually do anything about it.

I agree.

Deficit is not really an issue, neither is debt because countries do not work like households ( another part of the myth sold on the "paying down the nations credit card" ugh! )

I disagree. Ask the greeks (or in a few years the japanese) if it's an issue.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I more or less agree. I am all for making corporations pay tax, and reducing loopholes. The system is tilted, and massively so. But has HB helped? I think investing in social mobility with grants for training and education would be a much better use of that money, and I would be all for that. I am ambivalent about tax credits (I see that many people need them, but many people need them because house prices are too high and wages are too low. it's a spiral affect).

My specific issue, however, is with housing benefit. it's a poor allocation of resources (I think it can be better spent elsewhere), and creates the false impression our government is doing anything about the housing crisis (it just prevents a massive revolt, while keeping our dysfunctional housing system, which is a massive transfer of public money into private LLs hands, intact). but more importantly it's at the cost of someone else's well being, which people who are for HB continually forget. For some reason, I am the monster for opposing HB, when recipients of HB necessarily crowd out someone else (another real person) who may be just as poorly off but doesn't have the benefit of already being resident in an expensive area. It's shielding a portion of the population from the rental market at the expense of others.

So an extremely small amount of people

about 25% of people collect HB (or get some assistance with housing), isn't it?

Ask the Greeks? Is a bad comparison, the Greeks were able to borrow far more money than they should have been, at rates far lower than they should have been due to their membership of the eurozone. OUR interest rates ( which are at a historic low) for debt are set by the performance of our own economy and the ability of the government to pay. Its fine. Scaremongering and comparing to Greece is another method used to follow through with the great public selloff.

Japan has had stagflation for years, Abenomics has done something to correct this, but it does not have a "debt" crisis as such.

HB allows the economy to work, for people to live close enough to their work to have a life outside work and commuting, it is a product of the vested interests mentioned above, that as well as the pandering to the corporations and the wealth owning elite, if we forced them to pay more to their staff ( if the minimum wage had increased with inflation since introduced it would be about £16 I believe).

Don't begrudge the small time beneficiaries, when the big time beneficiaries are making off with the loot.

Housing benefit should be scrapped altogether. It has caused no end of havoc in the housing market. A quarter of people need state help to pay their rent?? Something wrong somewhere. I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced by some other kind of benefit. But it's no good paying out a benefit which has massively increased costs of housing and made buying a house very difficult for a lot of people.

OUR interest rates ( which are at a historic low) for debt are set by the performance of our own economy and the ability of the government to pay. Its fine. Scaremongering and comparing to Greece is another method used to follow through with the great public selloff.

many economists think that our interest rate is far too low, and creating bubbles all over the place (housing?). Yes, we have control over the rate, but that doesn't mean that our borrowing is fine.

Japan has had stagflation for years

And that's never happened here...

HB allows the economy to work, for people to live close enough to their work to have a life outside work and commuting

no it's not. Let me complete that for you by adding "for those lucky enough to get it and live centrally."

redstrawberry - Absolutely. Unfortunately a lot of people don't recognise that tax credits and housing benefit are actually benefits for the wealthy. In a normal market, the equilibrium on pricing is met by what people can afford to pay (in both rent and mortgage costs) from their wages. The market we have at the moment is completely distorted because there are so many props, notably "housing benefit" and "help to buy" which are merely bungs to landlords/house builders. Unfortunately successive governments have managed to make these benefits (tax credits and housing benefits) look like they are helping the poor when in fact they are doing the complete opposite (and making things much more expensive for everyone since rents are set at the lower margin of housing benefit), so everyone is forced to pay more.

At least the Tories are finally waking up to the misery that BTL brings and they are slowly removing some of the tax advantages. Still need to do far more in my opinion but hopefully with Corbyn bringing some of these matters into the spotlight the Tories will be forced to act.

We are paying a huge amount of interest on the huge debts this country has. Many economists believe huge debts are a problem. I am not alone in that view.

On housing Corbyn proposes buildling 100,000 social housing properties every year. I have no problems with that if we can afford it. The BTL tax changes don't hit the rich (who don't have loans on their buy to let properties). They hit 40% trax payers - the taxi driver with the one property he lets out because interest on his savings is just 1% etc. The wealthy don't go near housing benefit tenants by the way and as someone said above you cannot get a mortgage if you let to them very easily at all so it's a bit of a red herring.

In my parents' home town their house went up 7% in the last 5 years. Down here more like 37%. The problem is jobs - there are jobs in London and no jobs in many other places. That is the real reason for the housing issue which is mostly a London issue.

Red, interests rates on gilt edged bonds are different to those on set by the BOE for the internal economy. They're based on the ratings of agencies, Standard and Poor et al.

At the minute our interest on our borrowing as a nation is REALLY low, we should be borrowing to invest. All the other ideas to boost the economy haven't worked.. QE boosted the stock market which has far outstripped anything else, but has it benefitted pensioners or normal investors, has it bollocks. Help to buy inflated the property market that it. Low interests rates. If we borrow to invest we would create jobs, boost the economy, Keynes works!

Cutting benefits doesn't work(which btw for every £1 paid the govt recieves around £2 back through other means.)

Benefit cuts do not redress the balance of the deficit, they are ideological, and sadly those that are for them talk of "my taxes" and stuff. If you are in any way average, you will very unlikely benefit from anything this government does, you will suffer.

The wealthy don't go near housing benefit tennants btw

Wrong, the richest British person of them all the Duke of Westminster lets propterties in London to housing benefits people. He's the reason why Housing associations didn't have to go into right to buy last time. He opposed it in court and won.

At the minute our interest on our borrowing as a nation is REALLY low, we should be borrowing to invest. All the other ideas to boost the economy haven't worked.. QE boosted the stock market which has far outstripped anything else, but has it benefitted pensioners or normal investors, has it bollocks. Help to buy inflated the property market that it. Low interests rates. If we borrow to invest we would create jobs, boost the economy, Keynes works!

"Keynes works!" is a bold statement, completely unproven. And low interest on bonds isn't new. But the point about low interest is that it loads us all with debt. we are heavily in debt, and in this state if interest rates rise (on either bonds or the BoE), we are all screwed.

Cutting benefits doesn't work(which btw for every £1 paid the govt recieves around £2 back through other means.)

I doubt that. think of the implications.

Benefit cuts do not redress the balance of the deficit, they are ideological

I don't disagree. The difference between benefits and housing benefit is that housing benefit is a zero sum game because the number of houses is finite.