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.

SmallFox- Thanks. I can see how that is true when measuring as % of GDP which makes sense.

Surely though it is a good thing for the country to aim to balance its books and not continue running up further debts?

There have been a couple of comments about universal credit. As far as I understand, the idea was that on average people who move onto it should get roughly the same, as it replaces all other benefits, including tax credits. (So the person worried about losing tax credits maybe shouldn't be, though as she gets them and I don't it's possible she knows more than me.)

The other comment was about working people not getting it. I thought the central idea of universal credit was that any change for the better or worse in your employment status made no difference, your claim continues all the time, it's just that the amount you get fluctuates in response to how much salary actually comes in. If it works as advertised it will solve some of the problems caused by zero-hour contracts.

I too am on tax credit (child element, DH gets the working part).

I have 2 young kids and obviously when the youngest starts school I will get a job as best as I can (quite severely VI so that can be a problem).

If I were to pay for childcare is lose money Just to work - there is no logic in that.

Yes, things aren't ideal but targeting the most vulnerable isn't the answer.

I don't thinkits as easy as employers paying more wages.

Inknof a coffee shop with 10 staff at £7ph. If the government said you must pay your staff £14ph the coffee shop would either raise prices to cover it or sack 5 staff. Either way itnwould mean less business, more unemployment and likely another business folding.

Absolutely we should balance our books, but for every "i can work more hours but don't" person theres got to be at least one person whose desperately reliant, can't do more hours, struggle to afford to feed their children.
I would sooner a system that sees that person supported and child fed.

A nations debt is not like household debt, it also depends who owns our debt. Around 70% of UK debt is held by British based organisations, 30 percent of this is held by the BOE so is in public hands.

Almost all countries run a deficit, the UK has only run a surplus 4 times since WW2, the household debt analogy is not one that should be used for national debt.

Inknof a coffee shop with 10 staff at £7ph. If the government said you must pay your staff £14ph the coffee shop would either raise prices to cover it or sack 5 staff. Either way itnwould mean less business, more unemployment and likely another business folding.

Surely thats when Tax Credits would be a good thing and not propping up the likes of Sports Direct or Tescos who could actually afford to pay a decent wage

Perhaps things have changed. When universal credit was proposed, the withdrawal rate was about two thirds, meaning people kept at least a third of every extra pound they earned. I think people should keep at least half, but I believe it's changed the other way, and there's now a window where you keep virtually nothing of each extra pound. I haven't really kept up with the details though.

For someone to be working less than 16 hours and claiming a benefit they will have to have a disability in the family. Even then I think the cut off for tax credits is 16 hours but disregards single or couple status. To be working less hours the only tax credits will be child tax credits. The rest of their income would be PIP, ESA or carers allowance.

I don't think a family with 4 kids should expect to be able to support their family only working 35 hours between them a bit of help so families can buy extra things for their kids is good , subsidising a family so they only need to work 35 hours between them is ridiculous

I work full time on a pretty decent wage for my area, but am completely dependent on Tax Credits to make ends meet due to extortionate childcare costs.

If those cuts had gone through, I would have been -£50 PER WEEK! £20, and I probably could have saved a bit here and there, gone without certain things. But £50 a week? I was absolutely terrified.

I think mines is a perfect example of why tax credits DO work. I'm taking quite a bit from the system right now, but because of that support it's enabling me to continue working at a professional level while my kids rely heavily on paid childcare, and when they are grown i'll most definitely be a net contribuer and will put a substantial amount of tax into they system.

If tax credits didn't exsist i'd have had to leave my job and work PT as a lunch assistant, cleaner or something that fits in with school hours. All well and good when kids are younger but these jobs don't pay enough, certainly not enough to pay lots of tax back into the system! And once you leave a career it's incredibly hard to get back in.

I don't think a family with 4 kids should expect to be able to support their family only working 35 hours between them a bit of help so families can buy extra things for their kids is good , subsidising a family so they only need to work 35 hours between them is ridiculous

Yeah its ridiculous how workers think they should be payed fairly for a days work, what would be wrong with companies paying a decent wage, enough for people to live on, without having 2 people working a 50 - 70 week. 1 parent could stay at home whether thats a SAHM/SAHD

Yeah, I so wish the changes had gone through. My DH and I both work, so when concentrix came along and halved our tax credits, we were pretty gutted.
Tax credits paid our childcare so we had to make cuts elsewhere. I havent had a haircut in months, buy my clothes from second hand shops and buy kids clothes off ebay or fb. We also had to sell some of our things.
We are effectively on the breadline. Our employers do not benefit in any way, the only benefits ironically are to the government.
Kinda blows your argument out of the water.
I may have missed this or pp may have asked, but how exactly does it affect you? Are you one of these posters who 'just wonder'? How us common people live?

Flipflops- Totally agree with you. I don't think welfare cuts are the way forward.

Small fox- Shouldn't we be worried that we have only managed to run a surplus 4 times since WW2? Is it the case that a country can continue to run up more debt every year (as long as it is in a controlled way) forever, or at some point (maybe in 4 or 5 generation's time) will this cause a huge problem?

jojo how would they pay for their childcare? Imagine the cost of school holiday care? If they manage it between them like that, i've no doubt they are better off, not to mention the kids are better off.

I've no doubt tax credits are essential for some but they need to be better targeted. Currently you can claim them if you have thousands in the bank , or if you own your house outright or are getting hundreds a month in cm payments. None of these factors are currently taken into consideration ( except interest on savings over a certain point).

Countries debts are not like that of households. It won't cause a huge problem in future because the cost of the debt is relatively low in comparison to its size, UK gilts btw are currently paying negative interest.

Some of the bonds raised to pay for WW1 were finally paid off last year, did that effect you in anyway?

www.rt.com/uk/238969-ww1-debt-uk-repaid/

Essentially the "nations credit card" analogy to describe the debt is utterly incorrect.

BTW did you know that the budget deficit was the same size in 2007 as it was in 1997 when the Tories left government, it wasn't public spending on benefits/infrastructure that brought the huge escalation in deficit and public debt.

The point is they aren't not a benefit. They are a "tax credit" you know like our parents had and therefore it doesn't matter what assets you have or haven't got

isn't it going to be the case that you can only claim for two children?

How can they be a tax credit? Many people who claim them don't pay any tax and many claim far more in tax credits than they ever pay in tax?

There used to be less benefits for the working poor. Family allowance was only introduced in the 70s. I can remember as a child the poverty of growing up in a working family, when there were no benefits to help. Do we really want to go back to that?

Yo can only save up to 16K.... are people on tax credits not allowed to have ambitions of owning a property one day? 16K isn't even enough for a deposit on a house really.

child maintenance is an unreliable form of income. hence why it is excluded.

and housing costs are not taken into consideration... that is what HB is for.

Cally - yes i think from April 2017 they will be just for 2 kids, unless the government U turns on that too.

Baby if the NRP decides to not pay CM that month, or pays it three weeks late. Thats why its not included. You should be able to count on it, it shouldn't be 'optional' but whilst it is they can't include it.

Sofabitch/ The 16k does not apply to tax creidts only HB and IS I think. You could have £100k in the bank earning no interest ( which at present is feasible) and still claim tax creidts.