to be incensed by this

[TheStripyGruffalo]

The government is right to press ahead with cuts to tax credits - despite claims millions will be worse off - because the UK must become as hard working as China, Jeremy Hunt has said. The health secretary said the cuts - combined with a higher minimum wage - would send out the right "cultural signal" to low paid workers. And he said he did not "buy" claims people would be left out of pocket.

(source BBC politics website)

I am furious about this, I work for the government and don't earn enough to pay income tax so will not be better off by the tax allowance rises. My employer can't afford to increase my hours and I am paid the same hourly rate (give or take a few pence) that I was when I started the job 10 years ago but my working hours are less as there have been major cut backs. I earn over the living wage but only just so won't benefit from the increase. I will lose over £1500 a year when the tax credits cuts come in.

Jeremy Hunt is being so offensive and downright unpleasant.

Not that it's relevant anyway as as I've already said I don't receive tax credits. My mum does however, and she needs them, and has even less choice than I do about where she lives.

In any case plenty of people all round the country rely on tax credits and might not be on what you consider a 'low' wage'. Failing to see that it's all relative to where you live and your outgoings is incredibly shortsighted.

I really believe the sensible solution is more social housing. Certain cut off for income, but dependent on area, and not low income either. Me paying cost plus even £10 a week extra to the council generates more income than me paying a private landlord. And that's before you consider tax credits and housing benefit cost for a lot of people in private. Housing benefit doesn't account for the massive difference between private and social rents. If I went on jsa tomorrow in a council property I'd get £73.10 a week. If I moved into the identical ex council and rented from a private landlord, I'd be paying at least half that jsa out to top up the rent. Same for low income. If I go on jsa tomorrow in my modest house I'm fucked, the whole jsa would be gone. And yet I would need evicting to get cheaper housing.

maybe I do agree in theory with what you say, but if you also admit you earn more where you are, you aren't worse off for paying higher rent to match.

I don't understand why it's hard to understand that the definition of a 'low wage' fluctuates around the country?? Everyone knows that the cost of living is higher in some places than others.

Much of the high costs of living in the South East/Thames Valley are caused by the high level of commuting, surely? London costs without London weighting on wages. My nearest town is Basingstoke which is hardly posh, but rent, childcare etc costs are HUGE compared to an equivalent town in say the Midlands.

And Lurked agree entirely. Private renting is just so inaccessible for low-paid workers.

I. Cannot. Get. A. Job. Outside. London.

But you are not on benefit so I can't see the problem. (But you could get a job but not in the field you want) I also think this dwelling on you need so much money from the taxpayer to even manage to live in London is a very bad concept. It is making the north/south divide much greater and that is simply not a good thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Boris manages to get some sort of deal for his London supporters. More social housing to solve the problem is pie in the sky. Numbers will never keep up with what is needed especially with the population ever increasing. It's all too depressing. This country is going to the dogs. If I was younger I'd emigrate.

I live in the southeast and I don't agree that 34k is 'relatively low'.

This country is going to the dogs.

Oh good, I wondered when that phrase was going to come out. Daily mail favourite, anyone?

I do agree in theory with what you say, but if you also admit you earn more where you are, you aren't worse off for paying higher rent to match.

I'm not worse off no, but I'm about the same as I would be somewhere cheaper. My point is I would have the same amount of money living in Newcastle as living in London, as I would pay less rent but earn less money. So moving somewhere cheaper would do diddly squat for me. I was digressing from the subject though - all I was trying to do was point out for vivienne that the amount that is 'low' is relative for where you are.

For my mum, 34k is not enough to pay the mortgage, pay travel, pay food, pay for childcare of 3 children including a disabled child. She lives in a cheaper area of London in a small house. She could move just outside, yes, but would still pay almost the same for a mortgage and way more for her travel. And as I've already said, the job she is trained for only exists in London. She would not have a problem doing a job in another field, but she's not trained for anything else (ie, she can't use a computer) and at 50 with no spare income is not in a financial position to retrain.

Just trying to say it's not as black and white as people choosing to live in expensive areas and then moaning about it.

It would be far better if wages were enough to provide a decent standard of living, but in many cases they aren't.

There are lots of low paid jobs many part time.

Where I am if a British person does not accept the working conditions then a migrant worker will.

Employers do not increase wages. Someone else will do the job for the low pay.

I already live in a ' cheap' area, so a move to try and gain better wages would result in a much higher cost of living and thus pointless.

I think it is a disgrace that lone parents, the majority of which were once in a secure relationship and possibly working pt to look after their family, are the ones who will suffer.

If men were targeted in this way there would be riots breaking out.

What about capping all rents and capping all salaries? Would that help, do you think? In the short term it would be a nightmare - removing tc will be - but in the long term?

No jux because they're already way out of sync. I'd go for more social housing. Banning 99% of the current zero and stupidly 'flexible' rotas for minimum wage and an increase in nmw. And then anyone still needing tax credits from part time work should need to demonstrate they are looking for full time work. Unless they have the full time job of carer or medical reasons etc themselves. And for the demonstrating I mean like jsa should be demonstrated. Not the sanctions and humiliation aspect of current practice.

The crux of the issue is that the lowest cuts are coming in well before the "national living wage" reaches its highest peak so there is no consistency. I'm not on min wage, I don't work the least hours possible to maximise top-ups but my wages are not going to go up.

The ignorance and narrow mindedness is astounding. I don't know anyone who chooses to be part time. Everyone I know who is working part-time is looking for ft hours/job or a 2nd part time job.

I know one person who I suspect has chosen not to work at all and instead live on benefits, and I know a lot of people! And this person won't admit it as contrary to Murdoch press and tory cabinet it is not seen as an acceptable choice.

In addition, if everyone on tax credits due to low income were to move out of high cost large cities (London may be the worst but its not the only one) were to 'move out and live and work somewhere more affordable' who do you think is going to:

Clean the streets, toilets, offices, hospitals
Nurse the sick/care for the disabled (or do they not exist among those not receiving tax credits?)
Serve in the shops
Work in the council/civil service
Read meters
Care for children in nurseries
Assist teachers
Work in the offices providing support services etc?

"But you could get a job but not in the field you want" really? There aren't enough jobs anyway for the people WITH relevant qualifications and experience, someone without relevant qualities won't even get an interview actually they won't even get a reply!

I agree it's also ridiculous bringing in the cuts before raising nmw (it's NOT a living wage despite Tories claims). Would make more sense to raise nmw first to an actual living wage, people having more disposable income even for a while would mean more spending and boost the economy (most economists agree that the best way out of a recession is consumer spending not cuts anyway), gradually reduce tax credits eventually phasing them out meaning employers then slowly becoming responsible for paying decent wages instead of being subsidised. But then God forbid govt uses common sense!

" - all the shops (major retail brands) near me that are hiring are looking for people to work 8, 16, 20 hour weeks. Also bear in mind that for people without children, most TC claimants will be working full-time or nearly full-time since you have to work at least 30 hours a week to claim "

Hopeful Anxiety a friend who works in a supermarket has a colleugue with no DC who is on 28 and a half hours a week. Shes been on 28 and a half hours a week for 4 years. Shes begged them to up them just an hour and a half a week so she can get tax credits but they wont. Apart from the runup to Christmas when it benefits them

And yes she has tried looking for other work but the only thing available are part time jobs which clash and overlap with this supermarket job she already has.

And thats another problem Employers wanting employees to be available but not guranteeing the hours.....effectively expecting employees to be "on call" but not paying them to be.

When extra hours are available they are usually intermittent and inconsistent and the system cant keep up.

Tbh if nmw was increasing enough to do away with tax credits, it isn't even necessary to make many cuts, because they're reduced in line with earnings anyway.
Single parents are fucked unless they either have reasonable and proven skills or 24hr childcare. Nearly every unskilled job involves shifts outside of childcare hours, being flexible within them so for 20 hours between 9-5 you'd still need to pay ft childcare, zero hours or all 3. And if that child has even relatively mild sn that means the usual cheaper childcare isn't suitable they are completely fucked. How convenient, make it difficult as fuck for them to work full time and they make a great scapegoat for anyone else effected.

The national minimum wage would have to triple before tax credits could be abolished altogether. If it was just low paid people getting tax credits then fine. But well paid people are getting them because their living costs are so high. I don't think it's the responsibility of others (on low wages) to contribute money to people because they live in expensive areas and have high outgoings. So that means increased living costs down South means increased tax credits and so the spiral goes on and on. With house prices shooting up. This has to stop.

Low wages have been a problem for years. I earn the same money now that I was earning 25 years ago. It was considered to be a low salary then and it's a low salary now.

vivienne not if social housing or equivalent was available to low and average earners. Yes people shouldn't expect benefit to allow them to choose expensive areas but tbh I don't think that's the problem. if you made say housing benefit maximum the same across the country, with it reduced to the same as the cheaper areas now, I think it would make a difference. Because almost every average and low earner would do a mass exodus to those cheaper areas, and the countries infrastructure would collapse. All those on pretty big salaries wouldn't be working for long once those average and low earners had vanished. At which point the mass migration of most of the population would force change in how they are currently treated.

Ps well paid people do not get tax credits. Do you know what the current threshold is? Housing benefit to a certain extent allows for some of the cost of living, but even then you'd not get it on what is considered a high wage.

Helena I'm on 22.5 hours a week at a supermarket so I sympathise greatly with your friend. TC would make a huge difference.

Vivienne would you support the weekly hour threshold for those with no dependent children being lowered, to say 20 hours a week? Because it's not just about income when many low-paid PT workers can't claim WTC but more hours are just not available (especially in areas like retail).

Social housing being available to low and average earners would make a huge huge difference. Standards of living would increase enormously. Full time adult workers shouldn't have to only afford a room in a house, outside of London and similarly dense populations.

People on £60K a year were qualifying for tax credits before the cap came in. On this thread there are instances of people on £34K a year getting them and somebody working part-tiime getting £30K a year. I don't call that anywhere near a low wage. I don't think all this concentration on paying out benefits so people can continue to flock to London a good thing for the countryas a whole. Maybe a mass migration out of London would be better in the long term. But nobody seems to want to move out of London so prices continue to rocket. It can't go on.

Because the nets that Apple some Chinese business put up on their buildings to reduce the number of suicides are exactly the kinds of advancements in employee welfare that we should be aiming for.

The man is a cockshite.

Oligarchs buying up huge chunks of London that sit empty does far more damage than people on tax credits! To say nothing of a lack of government investment in other cities which means that many industries are based in London only, or are based in other cities to such a small extent that it's more realistic to go for London. Mid-earners on tax credits IMO are much better for London than the super-wealthy who see London as one of many homes and therefore don't invest in it in the same way. Prices rocket because there's so much dedicated luxury housing for the super-rich (who barely live there) rather than anything someone on £34k a year would live in even with TC.

No they weren't vivienne. I earn nowhere near that and I haven't had tax credits for years since I hit the threshold.
And by mass immigration I'm not thinking just London. Let's all see how well it goes if every average or low earner tries to live in some low cost isolated Welsh village or North East mining town because no job there means more money than work elsewhere.
Even if you just said inside the m25. How many people you think will be commuting in for 3 hours of their zero hour contract in Costa coffee? Bearing in mind it's hardly cheap just outside the m25. Do you think anyone is going to be commuting from a Birmingham housing estate to empty the bins in Kensington.

I get that the government understand full well how economy works but just don't give a shit. What beats me is people who don't understand how it works thinking Tory policy is actually supposed to improve it. It hardly takes a degree in economics to understand you don't boost the economy by reducing the majority of the populace to below the breadline.

How about houses can only be sold or rented by those who live in the UK and are UK taxpayers.

How about having to prove that if ypyou buy a house here, or rent here it is your main residency.

Would that help?

Viviennemary - tax credits don't take account of people's housing costs so it isn't a case of tax credits supporting people to live in more expensive areas. Tax credits are calculated taking only taxable income into account. Two people earning the same money, with the same number of children will get the same level of tax credits even if one pays rent of £1200 per month and the other has a mortgage for £300 per month.