AIBU to think its become shameful to admit to getting tax credits?

[smallspikyleaves]

it certainly is in my circle

I have had mine reduced recently and was moaning about it only for most of my friends to be kind of like, oh we don't get any anymore. when I would actually put money on that they actually do

It just used to be a given that most people with families got some. and people used to openly discuss it in my experience. now its all hush hush and taboo I think

I know! I remember being asked when the company's financial supervisor told everyone and I felt like jumping into a hole. It was a shitty company anyway and there were far worse things they said/did to me, but this was the start.

how horrible :(

for you ...hope you are working somewhere twat free now.

so what was the thinking behind them wanting to make it socially acceptable to claim them, when the rhetoric now is the complete opposite? why would the government (obvs was a different one!) WANT to entice people to take money from the state?

It was mostly the sociological effects we studied. I didn't do politics. However my understanding is that labour government is very pro welfare. Both to raise overall spending in the country (supposted to be good for overall economy) and because it made childhood poverty figures look good. Also by making it seem more like a tax refund for working but low to mid earning families, the higher earners, who didn't qualify, were less likely to be against it. It also wins a large number of voters over - in a look how kind we are giving you hard working people more money and we've reduced child poverty.

Its like the EMA payments 16-19yr olds used to get for attending college. They couldn't instantly raise the school leaving age but wanted to drastically reduce unemployment figures in the under 25's. It was cheaper to give those at most risk of being unemployed (and not in education or training) straight after school £10, 20, or 30 per week than it was to give them job seekers. They worked out the thresholds based on this. It actually saved money.

Conservatives on the other hand are more about we must get rid of all the country's debt and about pleasing the high earners and the social 'elite' - this is where they get their voters from. They feel this is best done by reducing governments welfare spending although others argue this reduces household spending and isn't necessarily good for the overall economy. They have had some success in bringing us away from recession but there is no way of knowing if we would have been better or worse off under a different regime. So anyway, conservatives are demonising benefits claimants, and down playing the fact that there are many full time working people who get some sort of benefits. They want it to be seen as socially unacceptable to claim help.

Yes small thankfully I am now 👍🏽😁

Wasnt that financial "advisor in breach of data protection.

It was a small business run by a horrible husband and wife. They didn't care much for following rules.

Autumn im guessing there are many single women who wouldnt exactly be champing at the bit to take the risk of living with blokes they dont know.

Bit sick of the "you havent got kids so you can do this and fuck you" attitude.

Having said that im old enough to remember seeing ads for jobs in the Job Centre paying 50p an hour £1.50 an hour and £50 a week This was the mid to late 90s just before tax credits came in. They were a RESPONSE to low pay They didnt cause it.

The argument for tax credits is that a lot of low income families can't afford opportunities for their children that would raise their self-esteem, expectations etc and potentially give the next generation a route out of poverty. It was devised as a genuine effort to reduce child poverty and inequality.

So for example, if your child is a gifted musician but you can't afford an instrument or lessons then your child has no chance at the thing that could have completely changed their life... Tax credits concept was pretty simple math really. Poverty is almost entirely about a lack of money and it is a lot easier to do a good job and offer opportunities when raising your children with more money.

Of course, higher pay and more generous benefits for those who aren't (or can't) work do the same thing but is harder to sell politically.

Hence the conservatives are only offering slightly higher pay and blame to anyone without a job...

(I'm not saying tc are perfect btw but I do believe that theethos behind them was good and genuine)

Having said that im old enough to remember seeing ads for jobs in the Job Centre paying 50p an hour £1.50 an hour and £50 a week This was the mid to late 90s just before tax credits came in. They were a RESPONSE to low pay They didnt cause it

deffo Helena

also I remember at 16 (in 1996) going for job interviews that were paying as little as £2.00 per hour ....my first job paid £3.65 an hour and I thought I had won the lottery haha

Why don't they just up the tax threshold to something like 20k rather than fiddling about taking money off people then giving it back?

I am boggled that 80 hours per week of work, between two people, is seen as remarkable or onerous. I work at least 60 myself between salaries job & side business. With additional time commuting and many other responsibilities and endeavors outside of work.

Maybe some people need to hustle a bit harder...

Angelos because then they wouldn't be making tax. Not every low paid worker has children.

again with the not working hard enough

so sick of hearing this

I never said it was unacceptable to be working 80 hours a week between two people. but is it unreasonable to think that doing that should give us a reasonable standard of living?

cos it doesn't - hence need for top ups

but again, this is probably our own fault

I actually think that one person working a decent job doing 40 - 45 hours should be enough for one person to be a sahp. it certainly was a few years back, indeed with my eldest I was comfortably at home for a couple of years while dh worked.

I really really fucking hate this rhetoric that everyone has to be in work busting their fucking balls or they are somehow not worthy

it just doesn't benefit the family I don't think esp when kids are young. I will prob get flamed for this but its just my opinion

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Twice as many as there were 40 years ago and growing at appalling rates.

That competition for natural resources and some way to scratch out a livelihood is naturally going to diminish standards of living from the "good old days."

There is only so much to go around especially as technology continues to make lower-end, easy jobs obsolete (clerk, bank teller, food server). The days of one laborer supporting a family with ease are long gone. Having a kid is a luxury now, not a necessity, and fewer and fewer people are interested in paying for someone else's luxury. Not when people are a dime a dozen and new immigrants can take care of any unlikely labor shortfall.

Think of the jobs market and economic conditions your kids and grandkids will face with 13 billion fellow earthlings. Unless they are brilliant they will be lining up to change adult diapers in a care home for $3 an hour and some potable water.

Jeepers Lea, you're a bundle of joy aren't you?

I'm realistic.

Global warming, endless war, elephant and dolphin slaughter, species extinction, pollution, etc. -there are many downsides to unfettered and thoughtless reproduction. We are beginning to reap them.

TWX credits have been ruined by people like the question time woman running a nail bar in her lounge and classing it as "working bloddy hard".

Spiky of course you were able to stay home comfortably with one child! You have what, 3 now?

Hold on - yes, lol whenever I see "I work bloody hard" I always think of question time nail lady

Spiky do you know what I'm going to bite.

You work a max of 25 hours p/w, that is not 'hardly seeing (your) kids.'

I have a lot of sympathy with low paid people but the reason your husband is doing such long hours is not because of a failing in the benefit system but because you aren't working full time.

The problem is that any system designed to alleviate poverty by transferring money to people according to a set of criteria creates incentives for the recipients (or potential recipients) to make choices that are less than optimal. This includes choices on reproduction, attainment of qualifications, hours of work etc.

Because a reduction in child poverty (or at least not an increase) is a policy goal of most (if not all) developed nations, benefit recipients are generally never penalised when having an additional child.

However it strikes me that the tax credit system has been very poorly designed at its inception. Especially the requirement for couples to only work very few hours between them (I think it is 24?) to qualify has essentially created a culture (and an expectation) that one should be able to be stay at home parent and be financially supported by the state in order to achieve this.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that the tax system (not tax credit system, which has nothing to do with taxes) does precious little to help parents with the costs of raising children. It's all done via benefits (which tax credits are). (Relatively) high earners have to "suck it up". Other countries have different systems where tax payers receive a generous tax allowance (or a tax credit in its true meaning) which takes the sting out of taking on more hours or getting a promotion.

The combination of the two has I believe lead to a race to the bottom - a low paying, part time job and tax credits (with the other passported benefits this entails) provide a reasonable standard of living, making the alternative (taking qualifications, delaying reproduction until after qualifications have finished, working up through the ranks to a reasonably well-paid job) look much harder and less attractive. As part of the race to the bottom, employers know they can get away with low pay (as it is topped up by tax credits), but can justify the fact by pointing out the lack of qualifications of workers, and their unwillingness to take on additional hours due the implications on benefits.

generous tax allowance for children

Excellent post Awake

Yeah awake I do agree with a lot of that! Would be better to just tax people less. (Not sure if I've already said that?)

As for me "only" working 25 hours well if I worked more I'd need to pay out for a lot more child care therefore wiping out additional earnings and probably more. And I'd be knackered. So what would be the point?

But thanks for the implication that I'm lazy for "only" working 25 hours a week.

I full on can't wait till dh qualifies as an electrician as we are fully intending for him to be self employed and not declare a lot of it. I'll be at home more then make no mistake!!! And they can stick Their tax credits up their Arse then as well. So Sick of this government!! And a lot of the attitude on this thread. that will stick it to the fucking twats in charge and the people who think everyone should be working their bollocks off for fuck all