The Tory attack on family 'v' The State of the Economy. I don't want to like the Tories, I Would Rather Eat my Own Arse. So help Me Understand

[Tortington]

abolition of Child Trust Funds;

money in bank for being born was always a shit idea. lets give kids £100 for existing.

the economy down the shitter - i think its proper that we pull this.

the Health in Pregnancy Grant;

not essential is it. does one reaaaaaaaally need a grant to be healthy in pregnancy?

jesus again i have to say - as a benefit to be pulled, its hardly essential considering that cut back have to be made

Surestart Maternity Grant for second child;

i dont know what this is- more money for having children?

the three-year freeze on child benefits whats the problem
and the introduction of housing benefit caps.
great

then theres the biggee - CB.

WTF am i not seeing that everyone seems to be going apoplectic about?

is there general agreement that a cb cut should be on household income? is it that its unfair in this way?

if that is the case - i see the point.

if its just bitching becuase people who earn over 45k aren't getting cb, then im finding it hard to agree.

and the argument that its a failsafe paid to women that help them get out of abused situations etc - you can't just pay women benefits on the offchance that one dayt hey will be abused.

am i missing a mahoosive point?

tell me the tories are targeting poor people like this but are not targeting rich people.

tell me that yes yes!! yes yes yes!!! you would agree with benefits like this being withdrawn, IF he also targetted rich people by some tax or other

tell me the equality?

they seem like non essential benefits to me - that have to be reined in cos we're financially up the shitter? or are we - maybe we aren't financially up the shitter and its a huge lie and the tories are just lying and whipping poor people? tell me?

To all the people that have said - why can't we just raise income tax to clear the deficit?

The answer is (I believe) that if we whacked everyones tax up by 3p or so (and I think thats roughly what it would take) people would just slam the brakes on spending and send the economy onto the skids even more than it already is.

Taxing higher earners until the pips squeak is a lovely idea but they will all just bugger off to another country, and even if they didn't, there just aren't enough of them.

Sorry.

I am bracing myself for October 20th- it isn't going to be pretty. I'm in that doo mongering group that thinks we've only just seen the tip of the iceberg so far.

I think the last govt. were a bit naughty by somehow allowing people to believe that give or take a few backroom staff here and there we could pretty much carry on the way we were going. I think its now abundantly clear that this was far from the truth.

Everyone thought that cuts would and should affect someone else.

Forgot to add that raising tax massively will just choke off job creation as well which, lets face it, we really don't need.

I walk - my DS's LEA nursery is in the middle of a housing area - they're already over subscribed on parent volunteers.

And I'd be stuffed if it was set at 15hrs a week as he only gets 12 because of the way his nursery works

though tbh that concerns me less than the lack of jobs.

Yesterday was Thursday (sorry stating the obvious) - I bought the local paper as it has the jobs section in on a Thursday. Lets just say it was 40p that would have been better used on a bar of chocolate >>

Trouble is GT that those schools that need help etc DID have help until the cuts- and whilst incomes may raise post recession the country needs jobs to achieve that: am not bsure giving work that could be done by employed people away helps that, does it?

personally i'd like to see compulsory training and more ooportunities to get training- eg if you've been unemployed a year why not scrap the ban on garduates geting funding for extar training? ATM I can;t do a TA course becuase as wellas a carer I am a grad. Bonkers! It's a rare job I could doa round school hours.

ISNT

Didnt see that alst night but every one of these rich guys doesn;t seem to get that almost anyone is at risk of redundancy now however careful they were to ensure they were employed. And yes, chdilren are needed unles we have massive immigration- and civil unrest.

My little AS ds1, aged ten, was told of for selling his homemade jewellery at school (made a tenner from tachers alone, mind). He was doing it because he saw me cry after a particularly bad budget announcement and thought he could help out with bills.

FFS- we're getting disabled ten year olds to cover their own expenses now? Nice!

Wasabi I am not convinced either way on income tax but why would ahve it to be the whole 3p? Why coudn;t it be, say, a third of that and the cuts combined?

To go back to the original post.... i.e. is all of this a big smokescreen for them to do radical and unpopular cuts or are we really in a financial crisis? I think, when whoever it was from the outgoing government left that note about 'there's no money left', he was actually overselling it. Not only was there no money left in the form of a big debt but they were planning for big contracts on top which had to be cancelled quickly. The Sheffield steel factory would be one example. The air-craft carriers ordered (although no planes were ordered to go with them) would be another.

The day to day running costs are too far in excess of our day to day income.... and whilst many economies operate on a surplus/deficit cycle without incident, the current deficit is considered to be too high to be fixed simply through time and natural correction/growth. Darling promised cuts pre-election that would be (I paraphrase) like the Thatcher years. In fact, the election manifestos of all the main parties had economic plans which, experts agreed, were all a long way short of what was actually needed to get on top of matters.

In a way it would have been marvellous to let the Labour party tackle this particular mess and watch them take on the mantle of 'the nasty party'.... Now that they've finished navel-gazing, I hope they don't spend the next few years chucking rotten fruit from the stalls but actually offer to help constructively.

Sanctimoaneyarse - it could be a combination. My reply was aimed at some posts that said - why can't they raise tax and not cut?

It depends which school of economics you come from as to whether you think it's best raise revenue by taxing or cutting spending.

Only read the OP, but yes, most people are in agreement that it probably is fair to withdraw CB from higher income families, but the unfair method of implementation that sees households earning 80k retain it when a household on 45k, and already penalised by the tax system (they pay £500 a month more in tax than a family on dual income totalling 45k) will lose every penny. And the total lack of acknowledgement from the Tories that this is a problem as they trot out "It's tough but fair, those with broadest backs, yadda yadda yadda".

It's a crappy policy, dreamed up 12 hours before they announced it, with no scrutiny, no consideration, and because it was the first 'big' announcement they are digging their heels in and refusing to acknowledge the crappiness and unfairness of it, just saying "It's fair."

Statements I've heard from the Tories;

"Yes it's unfair - but it's rough justice".
"There is no other way of doing it - it's fair."
"These single income families are ALREADY penalised by the tax system, so I don't know why they are complaining when they know this is how it works"
"The total fairness of the Conservative party was never more evident than when announcing the CB cut."

I think they weren't expecting the argument they got - they were expecting an argument that it shouldn't be cut from 45k families because 'they weren't rich', and are still arguing that point, rather than the actual point of it being inconsistent, ill-thought out and UNFAIR because of the anomalies.

Blimey LB- enough to make you weep no? (the excuses)

whethre you agre with it or nor, there are some shite explanations in there

I don't think it was a smoke screen at all.

I think that if we hadn't shown that we were getting a grip on the deficit we would have had to take an emergency IMF loan and then ended up having to endure an even greater level of austerity as they imposed terms for its repayment.

Payback day was always going to come unfortunately.

Custardo - I haven't read the whole thread in detail yet (but I will) and don't disagree with the basic thrust of your arguement but you have spectaculalrly missed a 'mahoosive point' on CB and indeed on the whole of the tax and benefit reform.

Me and my DW earn quite a lot more than £45k yet we will still get CB. We are happy to give up all the benefits we get including CB (apart from NHS healthcare) and even expect to pay more tax. Someone has to in order to clear this deficit.

BUT.....

I stil think the way the CB has been implemented is utterly wrong and am very annoyed about it even though my family will stil get it. Families who earn less than me and DW combined will not receive it if they have one person in the family earning £45k or more.

Its the fine details of how benefits cuts and tax rises will be implemented that matter to people. It has to be fair and seen to be fair in how the pain is being shared. From the multi millionaire Non Doms living here but paying little tax right down to the single mother living on benefits.

It is simply not good enough for George Osborne to say there will be anomalies and just carry on. The Labour 10p tax debacle was an anomally and it lost them votes because it was unfair and seen to be unfair.

A much better system would have been to raise HRT to 41p or 42p in the pound. Then ALL HRT payers would have taken the hit, spread across families WITH children and families WITHOUT. The anomaly wouldn't have existed, because it is already tapered. The small amount of money raised by this cut (and which is already threatened by his proposed married couples allowance, which will wipe out the saving if they extend it to HRT payers as they are proposing) proves that this cut, which will make a real difference to families, is an IDEALOGICAL one, and is designed to enable them to stuff poorer families even further, because they will have the ammunition of "But we targeted our own core voters, the middle class, first".

So, for those on lower incomes accusing people of 'bleating' - be aware that this policy is simply arming the weapon of dismantling the welfare state. Even if you keep Child benefit, this policy is there so that they can be much tougher on you.

BB - you're a bloke????? I never realised

ermmm LB - to be fair I've heard people on higher incomes accusing those on lower incomes of "bleating" too

And those saying "we have to cut the deficit somehow - it's payback day" - this policy will not raise any money. They are talking about 1 billion in savings - but then Cameron rushed out his 'married couples allowance' - and bingo, that billion is already spent. What they will essentially be doing is taking the child benefit money, and distributing it across ALL married couples, whether they have children or not, high earnings or not. So there is no saving, but the money is taken from those with extra costs and given to people who have absolutely no justification for having a tax break. Why do you need an allowance for being married? Given that you already have lower household costs because of sharing a house.

And it spectacularly misses out lone parents, who they are just trying to pretend don't exist.

MaMo, quite probably! But this seems to be the way the Tories are trying to turn the debate - to make out that the HRT payers are somehow grasping on to their CB because they can't somehow see that the 'poor people need it more'.

nah - I'm not really here >> ouch that bloody hurt - maybe I am real.

And of course, turning the lower incomes against the higher incomes will make it ever so much easier to slash welfare for the lower incomes, because they are hoping the higher incomes turn round and say "your turn now".

It's positively evil I think.

MaMoTTaT -

and how many threads have I been on that you're on

Great post ISNT.

'How are people going to feel when the first busloads of "undeserving" poor start to leave the cities? When the first families are living on the streets? When the first children start dying? seeves them right I guess. Basic tory policy from the tory policy handbook.

We've been told that should our landlady want out home back (luckily not this year) and we be unable to find anything lcaolly (a probability in our area) the LA has no hosuing to meet our needs, and that we would be required to palce the SN boys into care then access homeless accom. with the others.

And we're a working family too.

nice.

"We are going to see people dying on the streets."

• Child trust funds - Low income family...DOn't see the point. Can't afford to put any extra in, families rich enough to do so wil probably be savng for their dc already, plus only DS2 has one anyway, other dc were too old.

*HIP grant - is the ONLY money given to low income (working) families with a baby on the way. Often vitally important to ensure mother eats a decent diet whilst pregnant.

*Sure-start maternity grant - should only be paid for the first dc, it's only paid to people on JSA/IS, not the working (of any income level), and baby stuff isn't expensive second-hand.

*Child Benefit - yes, needs cutting, but in a fairer way, on household income, and on a sliding scale so those 1p over HRT don't lose all of it.

BUT how many people have understood that a large portion of the 'benefits bill' is paid to the working poor, not to those on JSA/IS? ANd the reason for this is the abolition of the 10% tax rate. Since then many low-wage earners have had to claim for much more assistance in the form of HB, CTC and WTC. How many HRT payers are worried about the rate going from 40% to 41%? A rise of 'just' 1%. Low wage earners have had their tax bill DOUBLED. How many HRT payers would cope financially if their tax bill doubled? I would hazard a guess at not many.

Easier solution to the 'benefits bill'? Reinstate the 10% tax band, leting low-wage earners keep more of their money, and therefore have to claim less HB/CTC/WTC.

Oh we will nikki; homeless people have a bad habit of doing that you see. Not kids and famillies probably, but the young men and women who currently are in hostels etc and quite likely havde frugs and or alcohol issues.

After all, as well as social cutting (go back to my post about one county considering privatising child protection provision and look up the stats onc are and homelessness) charity cutting will fall if people are broke, and charity provision is rucial in the sector.

And all the people blaming X and Y and Z (no* mainstream party is innocent in this becuase the perhaps biggest issue is the lack of affordable housing- not just for people on benefits but for those on a lower wage. The sell off (Tories) reduced availabilitty and Labour never solved it. Interests rates hiked and buy to let landlords bought at teh top so need £££££ rents, thereby seeing local rents rise in tandem, and people tehn scream 'how come they get £26k including HB?... well teh reaosn for the £26klmit is becuase there is nowhere cheaper left to allow people to reside so councils spend way over teh odds on basics such as housing now.

And that IS worekrs as well. We work, we may well need to claim HB next year.

£30k people on the waiitng list ehre. Mostly famillies in substandard acoomodation. Most will never ahve a chance.

And that's both party's fault. Sorry no: nowt's changed: all three of them.