to wish the changes on tax credits had of gone through

[madhurjazz]

They would of affected 1/5th of people on tax credits and that would of caused some issues in the short term so maybe some more help to transition was needed. But since that tax credits sad face woman on question time that was claiming them to run a salon in her lounge they u turned.

This has just resulted in cuts from other areas and not stopped the cuts at all.

Tax credits and housing benefit maybe a good idea for people in the short term. But many people are being long term subsidised and the main beneficiaries are the employers who get away with paying less and making more profits.

I'll probably get flamed for this but how can this country carry on racking up the debt? Its just going to create a greater financial burden on the future generations.

Handmaids, am I a daily fail reader (Actually I quite like the sidebar of shame) for thinking it's wrong that the tax payer props up a family of 4 where the parents work less than 35 hours a week between them? By their own choice?

Have your right back. The higher spending has been entirely idealogically driven. If you look at the figures most NHS authorities ran their departments within budget as little as 6 years ago. Now every one of them is in the red. The only thing that has changed is a mindset to privatise and so the goal posts have been moved.

Tbh not much has been done to target any areas where spending is inneficient. Having to outsource to a more expensive agency for any business is ridiculous.

Training. We have such a skills shortage looming in this country because employers attitudes have long been short sighted. The "Give me a free boy" attitude prevelant in the 80s attitude to training is still rife. Apprenticeships and training employees has long been seen as a cost cutting measure instead of investment. Business has for at least 30 years wanted to reap the rewards of a fully trained workforce without taking on the responsibility for training them.

Moving on employers to stop 0 hours contracts and not just renaming them to flexible working contracts would be better.

How about reforming the childcare system so that parents arent paying through the nose? (works in many other countries).

The point is none of the changes brought in have been cost effective. They have all cost more. All that has happened is a small minded attitude in government departments of push the problem down the line and we don't care so long as our department looks good. Doesn't matter that it means it will cost more overall, so long as their books balance. Too many departments are being effectively run in isolation and its so widespread its crippling.
Then you have the attitude to large corporations. They seem to operate with impunity and pay next to nothing for the privilage.

You say all this is doing is subsidising employers. You are correct. So why penalise the people who can do the least about it and expect them to solve it?
Enployers are the ones who need to be targetted.
Public spending needs to be used efficiently, where it is needed and not weilded like a weapon to bring about an idealogical vision. If you want to change things, change them. Don't hide behind austerity and cost because the changes actually cost more and it's a worn out selling technique now.

"So the huge debt is getting bigger and bigger each year and of course the interest paid on that debt increases too"

Smaller than it has been for most of the last 250 years. So this argument is bollocks

Try harder.

I must live in a different world. There isn't one job over 20 hours vacant within many miles of me.
Everyone round here is desperate for more hours.

Re-reading your last post, it sounds like you are an employer. What hourly rate are your lowest paid workers on?

Excellent a benefit bashing thread

First off OP

Waiting for the first flat screen tv/smart phone comment of the day

smallfox2002

"Smaller than it has been for most of the last 250 years. So this argument is bollocks"
My understanding is the the deficit is reducing but as we haven't paid anything back and are still borrowing more, the debt is still increasing.

I'm no economist though so I'll accept it is you can show otherwise.

Picturing David Cameron at his pc, typing away and giggling...

He has better spelling and grammar, I'd wager.

For what it's worth, I think the whole Benefits system needs to be scrapped and we need to start again from scratch. It's too bitty, new things added over the years, entitlements changed and no bugger can be expected to know where they stand. Universal Credit was an attempt to simplify the system and roll all benefits into one which is a great concept, but rolling it out has been hugely problematic.

I don't think universal credit applies if you work.

Maybe it's gideon on a comedown. Whatever happened to him?

Except you can't have a 1 size fits all system without having flexibility within it. One of Universal Credits is its inflexibility. Look at the problems its had where it has been tested. No felixibility for working people and their appointments with advisors. No realistic system for self employed that takes into account such things as seasonality. The result has been sanction happy staff who don't even know or care about how it works.

At the end of the 2nd World War uk debt to gdp ratio was at 200%

They then to some degree invested in the poorer side of society, council house building, NHS, more money into schools and so on. They didnt go for an all out transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The current debt to gdp is now at around 83% (2015 figures) so in the big scheme of things not bad but its only gonna get worse as this transfer of wealth continues.

Yup, he managed to slope off quietly didn't he.

"My understanding is the the deficit is reducing but as we haven't paid anything back and are still borrowing more, the debt is still increasing. "

But we have been in higher levels of debt as a % of GDP for 170 of the last 250 years.

Also in the last 50 years we have run a surplus only 4 times.

Its a good thing I am an economist isn't it.

*one of Universal Credits problems is its inflexibility

They did didn't they?

I lost loads

Anyway, OP YANBU and goady

Isn't it the relative size of the deficit that's the issue? And how willing others are to lend to us.

So a large debt that's 70% of GDP with a good credit rating is better than a smaller one that's 110% of GDP with a long history of defaulting on payments.

Which is why stimulating the economy is a valid option. I'm not sure decreasing the amount of money in people's pockets and increasing production expenses is the way to go.

Apart from that, there's a large number of international studies that show that the more you spend on welfare benefits, the less spend on healthcare . So reducing tax credits and HB won't necessarily free up money to spend on the deficit because the NHS costs may increase hugely.

They make me laugh, no money in the pot - I bet if they needed to start s war tomorrow the money would pop up out of thin air.

How many people do you think are genuinely in that situation op? How much money do you think it would save?

Basic economics, if you give someone on a lower wage £1, they spend it (as they need to), that supports jobs, potentially the government get tax and vat on that £1 spent so in turn it helps the economy. Give a person on a higher wage £1, they save it.

It's discusting, innit!

The propensity to consume of the poor/middle is far higher than that of the rich.

Its why tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate the economy, it just increases pension pots and money held off shore.

I'm studying a nursing degree, my partner works full time and we have two young DDs. We claim a small amount of tax credits. This makes a huge difference to our financial situation. You need to take a good look at yourself and the people around you before you start generalising about tax credits and those who claim them. And please learn how to use of and have.

It's not about wishing bad on others op is making the point that having low wages topped up by tax credits is benefiting business owners employing staff and not paying them enough to live on by subsidising wages you are helping the employers. Work should pay enough to live on at least to afford the basics if you work full time if a business cannot pay this they shouldn't be employing anyone. Yes I know it's hard for small businesses to manage but government subsidising so employers can pay a low wage is wrong imo

Some do, not everybody of course. A girl I was friends with works 12 hours a week, she gets the same in tax credits as she does from work. If she worked full time she'd lose the tax credits. So why would you work more, if you get the same money from part time as from full time?

For tax credits to be linked to amount of hours worked you need to be working at least 16 hours if a lone parent or 24 if part of a couple.