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?!

Never a truer word said, longtimelurker!

We have discussed above the £98bn and is bollocks. The Churchill quote was from 1909, a different era and before he rejoined the conservatives. Remember he was the prime minister who stopped rationing, which the Labour party at the time planned to continue indefinately because it was 'fairer', so maybe rationing is the way to go?
Please be careful what you wish for - Dennis Healey tried this and called in the IMF, taxing the rich does not work. I am a realist and want what works - unfortunately the current policy is what works.

"English history have those who are well off paid such a high share of the tax burden. I feel taxed to the hilt and unappreciated for it."

You've said this before and I told you it was drivel, how is 45% now the same 83% in 1979? BTW if you are a higher rate tax payer, you are facilitated by the society you live in to earn that money, so stop whinging.

Carol, the IMF came in because of the massive instability in the pound (no one's fault) and the economic weakness which had grown under the Heath administration, Labour had been in power about 18 months by then, and as we know from Gideon it takes at least 2 or more years for a economic policies to make a difference. Don't use it as a stick to beat people with.

Also, the 93 Billion is not bollocks, its subsidy and tax breaks, they have to be paid for some how.

Our european spending also benefits the rich:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich

Taxing the rich doesn't work? Neither does trickle down economics, there's no such thing as a wealth creator. I'd rather tax the rich because they benefit from this society more, than kick the poor because they are easy.

I said I feel taxed to the hilt. That is is how I feel. Also though high earners are being stuffed with indirect taxes too. If I choose to leave this large family house and swap it for a London penthouse of the same value I have to giev the state something like £300k which I would never do. Stamp duty at 12% is utterly ridiculous.

When Lawson brought upper rate tax down to 40% the tax take went up. When the upper rate came back down from 50% to Labour's 45% there was very little difference. High taxes don't work and mean there is less money for the poor.

Cameron who did brilliantly on R4 this morning made the same point - that we cannot care for the poor if the economy is shot to pieces (and of course only 1 in 10 tax credit recipients is going to have less money anyway). Higher wages, more people taken out of tax altogether and few people depending on state payments is the way to go which is why we have the next 5 years of Tory rule.

40% IHT when I die too is very high tax. I would abolish it entirely. If I die tomorrow I as a single mother would find my chidlren homeless because of the effect of IHT and because I chose to contribute to the poor of the nation by moving from the NE to London for work away from all family networks and support.

Then your children would move back to the NE where your family is, surely? AND they'd have 60% inheritance as well.

My children will be eligible for IHT too, but only on the bits that are over a million. They didn't earn that wealth so they should be taxed on it. I didn't earn it either, we've been fortunate to live in a society that enforces property law and invests in the infrastructure around us which has helped the value of our properties ( yes two) go up.

40% IHT when I die too is very high tax. I would abolish it entirely. If I die tomorrow I as a single mother would find my chidlren homeless because of the effect of IHT and because I chose to contribute to the poor of the nation by moving from the NE to London for work away from all family networks and support.

This is definitely one of the tory sops to the wealthy. And changing the IHT to exempt property, was brain dead. It's yet another tory policy making the housing situation worse.

I also think inheritance tax should be raised. Also what gets me is this. Tories say we want to keep what's ours. Labour says we want what's yours. That's what if feels like anyway.

I'm mid-way with Inheritance tax because I do feel it unfair that you can't pass on what you've already paid for/saved, out of money that has already been taxed.

Personally what I feel would be fair would be for IHT to be due on the value of property which has increased in value.

So the £X amount that you have earned, saved in the bank etc - No IHT due, tax has already been paid on it.

The £X that you have paid for property (value plus interest) - IHT free.

If you buy a property for £300k (including the interest) which is worth £800k when you die - IHT should be paid, at a certain %, on the full £500k appreciation as that money has not been taxed previously. The same with any other large assets or investments that appreciate in value.

BUT I can imagine that that would be an administrative nightmare to work out - I do feel it would be fairer though.

I'm mid-way with Inheritance tax because I do feel it unfair that you can't pass on what you've already paid for/saved, out of money that has already been taxed.

companies pay tax, then pay employees, who pay tax.

it's not only inheritance tax where this happens/

But the vast majority of inheritance tax hasn't been taxed in the past, the raising value of property, not taxed yet a benefit of society.

The tories only want the wealthy to keep whats theirs, no one else, otherwise they wouldn't be so keen on regressive taxes like VAT.

YOU may have paid for your house etc, but your children didn't, the fact that they get to keep the majority of the windfall means that its a fair amount to pass on.

Also you are only taxed on the bit above the threshold not the entire thing, I think IHT is quite generous.

If I die tomorrow I as a single mother would find my chidlren homeless because of the effect of IHT and because I chose to contribute to the poor of the nation by moving from the NE to London for work away from all family networks and support.
your children would not be homeless everything below the IHT threshold would be inherited by them without tax (as well as 60% of anything above the threshold - so they could buy a cheaper house)

very patronising to lump all those outside the London bubble as 'poor' and need to be helped by lady bountifuls

Oh and you can't say I choose to contribute the poor of the nation, when it was taken from you in tax. What benefits of being part of the nation did you get? Shall we put a quantifiable figure on that and then work out if your tax has paid for it?

What caroldecker so you saying this is bollocks

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake

"In the financial year 2012-13, the government spent £58.2bn on subsidies, grants and corporate tax benefits. It took just £41.3bn in corporation tax receipts."

hmmm doesn't seem very fiscally responsible as we were in austerity.

IHT does not now exempt property which is why LLL and I will have heaps to pay when we die. I am not married so my IHT band is much smaller - as ever single mothers penalised by sexist tax laws.

Anyway IHT is a voluntary tax on the stupid so I will just make sure in about 25 years' time the chldren are given my assets and then no IHT will be due. That process has started in helping them buy homes. However if I am struck down tomorrow the house is sold. They cannot go back to the NE as all my parents are dead. They could of course buy a small flat etc. I regard high tax as theft and left wing people regard tax as something they love to pay. We are all different, hence interesting debates on mumsnet.

I don't quite know what the Guardian is classing as "tax benefits" though. For example if we decide we feed the poor less by encouraging business people to risk their homes by setting up a business and then tax them 10% capital gains tax on any gain when they sell the business ( as we currently do) does the Guardian regard that as a tax benefit to com[panies? If I can set the notepaper and printing ink I buy for work against my tax of my busienss do we regard that as a tax benefit to business? if the state says set up your company in Liverpool because there are no jbos there is that a pernicious immoral tax break to business?

I intend to have spent my money, if I live as long as my mother my children will be in their 60's when I die, a little bit left over will maybe get put into a pension pot or pay off a mortgage, they shouldn't be hanging round for it.

But I do go back to the fact that IHT is quite fair, because its unearned income for those who get it and entrenches privilege.

IHT does not now exempt property

See here

The move will allow a couple to pass a house worth up to £1m to their children or grandchildren. The chancellor will create a £175,000, tax-free allowance per person for their main property on top of their existing £325,000 allowance that can be applied to all assets.

At the time, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the proposal would disproportionately benefit wealthier people and could have a negative effect on the property market if elderly homeowners were discouraged from downsizing.

and as you know, I am all about making rents lower and property cheaper!

Taxes and policies that promote social mobility are what we should be looking at. A low IHT has the opposite goals.

IHT does not now exempt property which is why LLL and I will have heaps to pay when we die. I am not married so my IHT band is much smaller - as ever single mothers penalised by sexist tax laws.
but it is not just single mothers is it? - it is all single people whether they are single by choice, divorce or widowed before the passed on extra IHT threshold was introduced. and it is men as well as women so not sexist at all

as us singletons are aware, coupledom is valued above us and creates many unfair situations.

IHT is not "unfair"!!!!

I didn't say IHT was unfair
I feel it is perfectly fair
I was merely pointing out to grazia that her whinging about only getting half the threshold as a single person was not as a result of sexism as any single person male or female has the same disadvantage (along with all the other disadvantages of being single - I could point them out but this is a bit off topic. )
Hope that is clear and unambiguous enough.

IHT is perfectly 'fair' !!!!!!

The rich do not benefit more from society than the poor - I do not understand how you would think that.
Over half of the £98bn is avoiding tax on turnover, most of the rest is not tax rail and aviation fuel as heavily as cars. All these reduce costs for consumers, not benefit businesses.
The 70's were a dark time, with both parties being varying degrees of socialist, which brought in the IMF - I am not blaming any particular party, but the policies, which are similar to those promoted by the current Left. The problems with the pound were indeed the fault of the government's of the day.

The ability of the rich to make their money is facilitated by the state, through the education of the work force, keeping them healthy, building infrastructure, the rule of law, property rights

The direct result is that someone who is wealthy benefits from the actions of the state far more than the individual who gets tangible benefits from the state. Therefore greater contributions need to be sought from them because they are so supported.

I'm sorry but if you don't understand that, or disagree with it, you're not worth discussing economics with.

Also Carol, why is it ok to print money to give to the banks, which has produced a massive bubble in the stock market ( and benefited the wealthy who have seen their wealth increase 30% since 2008) and not to spend on infrastructure and job creation?

You also repeatedly state this turnover point but I see no evidence of that

£44 billion was corportate tax breaks and I quote:

"The largest amount was spent allowing businesses to write off billions spent on plants, machinery and equipment among other items.

In 2012-13, the public gave a £20bn subsidy to private investment. The construction industry gained more than £7bn in exemptions on new housing and land duty."

So firms are incentivised to invest by tax breaks on investment, and then incentivised to invest by lowering corporation tax, kind of unfair then isn't it?