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?!

The benefits £1 thing actually works out, it gets spent, spending creates
jobs, those jobs pay tax and spend money. Called the multiplier effect.

However, cutting taxes for the wealthy leads to money being hoarded, put into pensions etc. Wealth does not trickle down, a rising tide should catch all boats, but this tide is only raising the yachts whilst the rest flounder in the mud. There is a Tsunami coming though...

No group has suffered more additional tax than the rich though . Never in Brtish history have those who earn the most paid the highest tax burden. It ends up being counter productive as the higher tax rates are the less tax is recovered.

They keep taxing us until the pips squeak and we are fed up. Even stamp duty is now exhorbitant in high tax Britain.

The pensions freedom changes which I don't support have a similar spending effect - holidays, cars etc.

"No group has suffered more additional tax than the rich though . Never in Brtish history have those who earn the most paid the highest tax burden"

Thats bollocks, when the highest level of tax rate was reduced under thatcher it came down to 83% to 60% and the wealthy rejoiced.

In fact the burden of taxation lies heaviest on the poor, and it effects their lifestyle and cost of living the most. BTW Thatcher hiked VAT a regressive tax to pay for the slash in top level tax, so everyone else paid for it.

The wealthy benefit the most from society. Who works in the jobs that make their investments succeed, who educates the work force that works those jobs? Who keeps them healthy? Who builds the infrastructure?
All these things must work to facilitate the top earners to earn what they do, if they weren't they couldn't do it.

We don't even tax wealth!! We tax earnings, so the wealthiest actually pay the least in proportion into the pot.

Sorry, but your argument is not factual or logical. Must try harder.

The benefits £1 thing actually works out, it gets spent, spending creates jobs, those jobs pay tax and spend money. Called the multiplier effect.

I know what the multiplier effect is. But just think about it. If the govt gets back twice what it puts out, then we can all be billionaires, right?

yeah, it doesn't work that way. it might halt a downward spiral, but you can't just ratchet up debt and hope we all become rich.

Or you can place the burden of tax on the poor and let the rich cream the benefits of society whilst hording their money.

The Govt does get more money back this way than it spends, when the benefits recipients get the cash. In terms of HB which is the largest it sees little return because HB goes to pay off mortgages of BTL landlords and boosts the liquidity of the banks.

We're not going to agree, but either we pay people enough to live and work, and have a reasonable work/life balance whatever they do, or we subsidise that so the wealthy elite can make then rentier profits. There is no third way.

Did you see the tube map of average rent that has gone viral today? We really would be importing all our service workers from MK if we cut HB, and then what life are we giving those workers? Work has to pay for people to do it. Otherwise just bring back workhouses ( which I bet Gideon and co would love to do )

This creating wealth by giving people more benefits works only the heads of people like Jeremy Corbyn. It's like pyramid selling. It all comes crashing down in the end. Which is why every Labour government ends up a disaster.

As does every Tory one Vivien, Major disaster, Thatcher disaster, Heath disaster, MacMillan disaster, Eden disaster, Churchill gets a pass because he retired, Chamberlin disaster, Baldwin disaster, Bonar law disaster.. shall we go on?

"Wealth Creation" doesn't actually exist, entrepreneurs respond to demand in the market, there is not benevolence out there, there are many many pieces of evidence to do with this. Its the same as the "invisible hand" myth, Adam Smith was good, but not always right.

There is a good Ted talk which sums it up. Look it up.

The Govt does get more money back this way than it spends, when the benefits recipients get the cash. In terms of HB which is the largest it sees little return because HB goes to pay off mortgages of BTL landlords and boosts the liquidity of the banks.

you just repeatedly assert the first sentence without evidence, and without regard for the obvious ridiculous implications.

you later say we aren't going to agree, but then agree with the only real assertion I made: that HB is damaging and doesn't really help anyone but BTLs. I have not taken issue with other forms of welfare.

longtime Then the answer is obvious - give everyone a million pounds a day in benefit.

only a monster would stop at a million.

Flawed argument there isn't it, standard slippery slope. I'm not arguing for everyone to get benefits, they are useful though as an automatic stabilizer.

Problem with cutting HB red is, what do we replace it with? Do we build houses? No that won't happen because of all the vested interests. Do we dump everyone who is poor in the same area cause its cheap? No that leads to massive social problems that will take up more money than HB currently does.

The only thin I can see is German style, how much can be charged per sq ft. Which would lower the amount paid. Again though vested interests come into it don't they. Look at how many MPs are landlords.

Sorry, German style rent controls that should have been.

Flawed argument there isn't it, standard slippery slope. I'm not arguing for everyone to get benefits, they are useful though as an automatic stabilizer.

given that you have made no evidence for your assertion, I'd say a flawed slippery slope argument is all that's needed.

Problem with cutting HB red is, what do we replace it with? Do we build houses? No that won't happen because of all the vested interests. Do we dump everyone who is poor in the same area cause its cheap? No that leads to massive social problems that will take up more money than HB currently does.

there is absolutely no doubt this is an issue that's not going away soon. However, one of the vested interests are those that collect HB, not just Tory BTLs. As we can see from this thread, both groups support the current system, so I think we will have this system for another generation.

I didn't pluck the figure from mid air, but admittedly can't remember where I read it, I think it may have been one of the Owen Jones books and he got it from the ONS, but I haven't got them to hand. Even a standard multiplier effect would see more return than that paid out in cash benefits though.

I don't know what the solution is, I know that its not to slash benefits and leave people destitute though.

I keyed in my son and that is better off by £80 and he is on a low income so no need for people to be too scared although it never hurts to start working at weekends too to provide for your future or taking on extra over time. Many of us do work 6 ot 7 day weeks as it is to fund our tax bills etc

Whilst the rest of us work to fund our lifestyles.

If I worked more to fund my tax bill that would make no sense because them my tax bill would be higher.

So I work to fund my lifestyle and a consequence of that is that my tax just happens to go up

Out of interest Grazia how much did you pay that 6th former?

I would be prepared to bet a fair sum that the sixth former was paid (a) below the minimum wage and (b) on the black.

Because the rules only apply to some people, you know. It's a bit like right wing American politicians campaigning to build a big fuck-off fence along their Southern border while employing illegal immigrants cash-in-hand.

I know that its not to slash benefits and leave people destitute though.

I am certainly not proposing that. I am specifically objecting to HB being spent on housing in central London. So, I agree people shouldn't be left homeless, nor have too little food. I am all for the state providing those basics (schooling, NHS as well) to those in need.

Living in central London is simply not a basic need.

Central London should not be the preserve of those who are rich. Look at the tube map of rents for 1 bed flats, almost everywhere inside zone 5-1 are hugely expensive. Are we to have donought cities, that are only occupied by the wealthy, with everyone else having long arduous commutes, putting higher costs on our transport system? What about the people who do valuable jobs who are being priced out of London?

what ever is suggested there are costs, its not going to change soon

Even if spending housing benefit on it does not cost more or much more than spending it in say Salisbury?

Even if spending housing benefit on it does not cost more or much more than spending it in say Salisbury?

of course not. but of course spending in central london is higher.

Red, I actually agree with most of the things you've mentioned, but I think you need a bit more information to go on because they're not all well thought-through. Like someone else said, due to the benefit cap, moving people out of central London wouldn't necessarily save any money even without taking opportunity costs into account, like moving people away from places they - or at least their children when they're grown - might be able to find work into places they probably won't.

And moving social housing tenants out of central London to private rentals elsewhere - there isn't enough social housing and there isn't the space to build enough because London has a hell of a lot of people compared to the rest of the UK - would also cost more.

The thing with espousing ideas like getting rid of housing benefit and tax credits completely, which do make sense in the long term and I understand why some people might want that, is what do the people who need those things do in the short term? The choices really are limited if you're already working all the hours you can or if you can't work at all due to a disability, and that's only two examples.

It would be lovely if nobody needed benefits, but we have to deal with the world we live in, not the one we want.

And even if you (hypothetical you - I'm not saying anyone here thinks this way) didn't care if loads of people ended up begging on the street and turning to crime for a couple of years until things settled down, wouldn't that also have long-term effects?

Tax credits are also different to simply raising the minimum wage. They take account of the fact that raising children or having a disability costs more - working on a minimum wage as a healthy 19-year-old male with no dependants is very obviously different to doing the same job once you have kids or a disability, both of which usually limit the hours you can work.

Most wealthy countries have tax credits of some sort, although they might have to be claimed back at the end of the year when you file your taxes (even the US has this and it's actually in some ways more generous than ours); the UK was unusual when it didn't have a system that allowed for extra responsibilities or dependants. Fighting against having tax credits is fighting against having something that most countries think is normal.

Central London should not be the preserve of those who are rich.

I live here and don't want it to be the preserve of the wealthy. Not in the least. But you propose a system where it's the preserve of wealthy and the poor, which is also not desirable. People in the middle are being squeezed out.

The problem is that there isn't enough space for EVERYONE who wants to live here. Picking and choosing who gets to doesn't solve that problem.

I'm there too (well Kilburn) and I agree people are being squeezed out, but the place needs people on lower incomes to operate, and they need to have lives too.

Like many people, if we had to buy now, we could not afford it. The area seems to be filling up with younger people who have got huge deposits from their parents ( 75k plus). Its such a quandary.

And moving social housing tenants out of central London to private rentals elsewhere - there isn't enough social housing and there isn't the space to build enough because London has a hell of a lot of people compared to the rest of the UK - would also cost more.

your first paragraph is a bit garbled (though oddly you agree with on some points). The quoted is an odd point to make. Housing is most scarce in central London. Moving them out would free up housing in the highest demand part. They like everyone else will need to commute for the jobs. There are several posters here who do so.

is what do the people who need those things do in the short term?

wait a second now, we are talking about a completely different beast here now, aren't we? I have absolutely nothing against short term help of any kind. If people lose their jobs and can't afford to live in their homes (or afford food), by all means we should support them so they can get back on their feet and find a new job without having to deal with moving. Absolutely.

But that's not the function of either HB or tax credits. They aren't meant to be stop gap or rainy day measures.

again, I am being painted as someone who wishes to toss people out on the street, and that's clearly false. I am distinguishing between the very real needs of housing and food (which I think absolutely should be provided to people who can't afford it) to the imagined "need" of living in central London.