To think that ending the tax credits and benefits freeze should be a much higher priority than public sector pay rises?

[MargaretTwatyer]

Benefits including in work tax credits are completely frozen for another four years. Not a 1% a year rise, frozen. This means the very poorest in society are being the worst hit by high inflation.

I can't really understand why higher rises for the public sector are currently being given a high profile while nobody seems to be paying much attention to this. A rise in benefits would help the poorest workers in both public and private sectors. It would target those in need most whereas public sector rises would also mean a lot of people who are already very comfortably off would get richer while the very poorest private sector workers would get no extra help at all.

AIBU to wonder why no fuss is being made over this to the same extent? Or is it just because the word 'benefits' means it isn't a vote winner? Or nobody cares about the poor in the private sector because they don't have unions to shout for them?

I do see your point, and I also think you're on the right track as to why nobody is bothered, but I don't think either are much of a solution.

I'd prioritise genuinely affordable housing, which would make everyone's income go a lot further, whether they are unable to work, minimum wage or average salary.

I'd then make the private sector pay living salaries so ft workers didn't need top up benefits, and the saving would cover increased salaries for those in the public sector. And freeze salary increases at the top end for a few years for any salary paid from the public purse.

I'd disagree, if you keep raising benefits more and more will claim them as it's money for doing nothing whereas a salary has to be earnt.

There are a huge amount claiming tax credits as they want to work part time or not at all. Why should we reward that?

increasing benefits is not the answer to the problem

I'd disagree, if you keep raising benefits more and more will claim them as it's money for doing nothing whereas a salary has to be earnt.

No they won't. Given there's a benefit cap in place that had been there for years and reduced further, and the fact that child tax credits has been (rightly IMO) been capped to two children.

money for doing nothing

Yeah. Because no one who works relies on top up benefits like working tax credits and child tax credits do they? How are they doing nothing exactly?

I think peoples wage should be enough to live on and benefits should be for those that cant work or temp out of work.

There should be no need for in work benefits. In fact all introducing working benefits meant was that employers felt they could get away tiny/zero wage increases.

rainbows do you have the vaguest idea what current benefit rates are? Or any idea how many of the available jobs out there involve ft salaries above tax credit levels?

In theory I do agree we shouldn't be paying working tax credits to couples with school age dc where one parent is a sahp, or any parents who aren't working 30hrs minimum, unless the parent is disabled or a carer. But I wouldn't be in favour of it happening right now, because firstly the saving wouldn't be redirected towards any valid cause. And secondly they would just use it as yet another excuse to sanction people because they'd create ludicrous hoops for people to jump through and cause hardship like they do for many jobseekers and disabled people now.

I'm a public service worker. I believe most public service workers work hard and put up with a lot of shit from the public.

For years we had 0% increase, then 1%. Our pay has fallen in real terms. I found out that at my daughter's school, if the teachers and TAs got the 2% pay rise, their budget would be seriously screwed. As in, redundancies screwed. The government needs to pull its finger out on schools, the NHS, everything. Scary times.

I think the benefits cap and public sector pay cap have equal priority. Both should remain in place for the foreseeable future, until a politician comes up with a plan to actually pay for the increases.

The country needs people to work in the public sector
I work in a community rehab team. A few years ago a vacant therapy post would attract 60+ applicants. It would be closed after only a few days
We have a vacancy now. It's been advertised for 4 weeks and we have 1 applicant
I'm sure the government are happy with this situation as failure would support their ideology of private services

money for doing nothing

Yep, I claim Carer's Allowance for doing nothing for my two disabled children 24 hours a day.

Well sure bit then you'll also agree that the NHS workers supporting your disabled children deserve a pay rise? Before they all leave!

Carers allowance is actually a very good point, if you work it out at an hourly rate it appears to have been capped since 1902 or so but without bank holidays or Sundays off.

Have a

You know this will turn into a bunfight, don't you?

Increasing benefits can reduce incentive to work, whereas hose who are working are seeing their real income falling, which disincentives them. In an ideal world both would be possible but they are not therefore I wok,d go with increasing the wages of the working

I'd disagree, if you keep raising benefits more and more will claim them as it's money for doing nothing whereas a salary has to be earnt.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't very clear. But a rise just to keep up with inflation. And these are mainly in work benefits too.

An awful lot of fuss seems to be going on about how public sector workers are suffering so much because of inadequate rises with inflation, but the worst thing paid private sector workers are actually suffering far, far more and becoming comparatively much poorer but nobody seems to care about that.

I would much rather see tax credits rise to help the poorest public and private sector workers than fling away a few million on NHS managers keeping themselves in Waitrose, Audi and Tuscan holiday territory rather than having to suffer the indignity of Sainsbury's, a Citroen or (ugh!) holidays in France.

I work for the public sector. We had a total pay freeze for 2 years followed by several years of less than 1%. This was planned to continue to at least 2022.

At the same time, to make our pensions fairer they increased our contributions year on year, reducing our take-home pay still further. Most people where I work are taking home less money than they did in 2010. Not just a few £ but a lot short.

Thanks to the media's fantastic PR job there is a huge % of the population convinced we don't deserve any money at all (yet hear the outcry when a service provided by a civil service that has been cut to the bone can't cope - passports, tax credits etc).

What is happening is that those public sector workers who can get out are doing so. If I were just starting out, or in my 20s and 30s I'd be out too. They are leaving for higher salaries and much better conditions in the private sector. Then the government will be left with just the over 50s who are hanging on until they can retire, and expensive consultants. But then the public will have had their wish to get rid of the pen pushers. Good luck with trying to get your benefits/passports etc then.

There is a crisis in the public sector and the pay freeze has contributed to this. As a user of the public sector as most people are I would prefer my taxes to fund an increase in their pay than increase benefits

When does the new rule for claiming chb for a 3rd child come into effect?

Why does it need to be a race to the bottom? Why can't both these things be lobbied for?

I work in the public sector (though am currently on maternity leave). I am constantly given more responsibilities and a bigger and bigger caseload to manage, as well as supporting less experienced colleagues with theirs'. I work a ridiculous number of hours of overtime because I care about the children and families I support and don't want them to miss out on what they desperately need. I am working harder and harder every year for less and less reward, both money and job satisfaction wise. In real terms my pay is much lower than I anticipated when I started training, and housing and other costs in my area have rocketed in the same time.

It feels like an insult to be given a pay cut (in real terms) year after year after year. My husband thinks I am crazy to persist in my current career in the public sector. I am starting to agree with him.

stories about the public sector sound similar to private sector - or at least the blue chip company i work for. i've had a pay cut in real terms for about the last 10 years and a slight pay increase for 2. Now they are giving people bad annual reviews so they can get out of paying increases or bonuses.

solution? I'm not sure, but you can't expect private or public sector workers not get any increases to pay tax for benefits for people on tax credits who don't want to work more than minimum hours, but can if they want

I think an increase in spending power can only be a good thing. Not through unsecured debt as now but through real and sufficient raise in salaries and more support to those in need (carers, parents, disabled, widowed etc). Housing will never be sorted in this country but at least the poverty levels or 'just about managing ' could be reduced.

Everyone would prioritise what is currently an issue for them.
I think given recent attrocities such as the bombing in manchester, the terror attacks in london and the Grenfell tower fire, a very large spotlight has been put on nurses and fire fighters right now, and they are in the public sector with crap pay, and it's naturally followed on from all of that. Especially as these people in these jobs are essential, and if it doesn't pay the bills to be in such an important job, people will go for other careers or jobs, and leave a shortfall in what are, crucial services, which will affect everybody.

Absolutely benefits should be reformed, but i personally (due to my own circumstances) think the rates of disability/sickness benefit needs priority over child benefit, they already get up to 20k and whilst they may be struggling, you're a lot better off than the sick and disabled, since someone on ESA gets less than 6k a year! How is anyone, especially someone with higher than average living costs, supposed to survive on less than 6,000 a year? And that is supposedly "means tested", bullshit, it's the same payment as job seekers, which is deliberately made so low it's unlivable to force people to look for and get in to work.

Tax credits are out of control. Spending has gone from 5BN and year to 30BN a year since the late 90s. They are already very generous.

The three child rule applies to children born after 6 April 2017 so a family can only get tax credits or child element of universal credit if this is the first or second child. The exceptions are multiple births or child who "was born because of 'non-consensual conception' (rape).
(This is is England not sure about Scotland wales or NI).

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/help-if-on-a-low-income/working-and-child-tax-credits/working-and-child-tax-credits/check-if-you-can-get-child-tax-credits/

When does the new rule for claiming chb for a 3rd child come into effect?

It already is in place.