Child Benefit/ Tax Credits cuts - Tory Plans

[daisybeebee]

Danny Alexander has claimed he has seen proof the Tories are planning dramatic cuts to tax credits/Child Benefit. Includes limiting CB and TC to first 2 children and removing child benefit from 16-19 yr olds. www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/29/poverty-child-rising-welfare-cuts-tory-claims …

I was scared that this would be the plan when they would not be honest about where the cuts were coming from. As usual families and kids are going to be hit hard if they get in again.

It's all over Twitter now. Danny Alexander seems to have decided that since he is set to lose his seat he may as well spill the beans. I think many people expected something like this but the Tories have been so shifty about refusing to give any details of how they'll make all their savings, it may not have come out before the election without a leak like this.

Dishonest posting. It says this was a discussion document from 2012, which was dropped. It's got nothing to do with 2015.

They have £10billion more to cut from welfare budget from working age people as pensioners are protected. So it is only family's/carers/disabled/unemploymed who can take the hit.

I'm not sure you will save much because cutting will just mean more pressure on other areas like health and education. Unless you are planning to reduce benefits at some future date so you can make decisions over children then it's going be a big car crash

If it is so dishonest why will Cameron not say where the cuts are coming from ?He has been asked on a number of occasions and will not say. Have a read at what the IFS has to say on where they think the cuts will have to come from and they are not very different.
The paper may have been written in 2012 but mark my words it will be implemented if they get in again. I am not forcing you to agree with me.

Anyone see where labour are going to cut (which they are)?

Danny Alexander who say many papers cross his desk, is being disingenuous at best, as this was a paper put to the Cameron etc as an idea and was REJECTED.

The welfare savings targets over the 2-3 bil already should be identified now, but I suspect as Labour said in 2010 with a £157 bil deficit/overspend and not identifying ONE meaningful cut, they need to see what happens after the election.

As back in 2010 the new OBR no way forecast the UK recovery we saw, and as all its current figures for the next 5-years are based on many assumptions (that can be wrong) so lets say we have higher growth than the 2.5% the OBR forecasts, LESS cuts will be needed.

Labour promised us less spending cuts and MORE tax rises than the other parties in 2010, they are not telling us what they will cut other than a few ideological £billion - but even those will raise less than they forecast e.g. diddly squat - so what taxes does a party KNOWN for tax rises have in store for us AFTER the election, when they usually appear without notice.

"Labour's tax plans savaged by IFS"

"The Institute or Fiscal Studies says Labour will increase welfare spending and will not raise revenue they hope from higher taxes, while Tories have failed to spell out £12bn of welfare cuts"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11568086/Labours-tax-plans-savaged-by-IFS.html

Let's be fair - they have reiterated that this was not proposed or supported by either the PM or Chancellor and don't recognise where it came from. It's certainly not party policy.

That being said, CTCs and CB do need a look at imo.

They've been cutting it for ages now. It's not a new thing, it's just going to get worse and worse. We are a low income family and our income hasn't changed for 3 years. Our tax credits have gone from £190 a week to £140 and then £120 a week plus this last renewal they have changed the thresholds for free nhs dental treatment etc so we no longer get the card - we used to before when our income was the same.

It has left us really struggling as a family. Of course the answer is take on more work.... yes of course. Those miraculous well paid jobs that don't exist in our area and when dh is already working 50 hours some weeks. (I have health problems so don't work at the moment).

I feel really angry about the Tory cuts. They attack the most vulnerable and the poor in society.

And that's coming from someone who was previously a very high earner and didn't claim anything at all (over threshold for all benefits including tax credits etc).

All you need to do is look at the tax rising record of both the Labour and Conservative Parties.

The Conservatives have always been the party of lower taxation and have tried to cut taxes this parliament, rather than bring the deficit Labour left, quicker.

Below is Labour's record in its first 6-years from 1997, when the economy was good and the deficit was going to balance in 2001/2 - so god knows what they'll raise from the masses with a £87 billion deficit/overspend now, and the tax raids of the rich will bring in diddly.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389284/The-80-tax-rises-Labour.html

What recovery? The deficit rose by 405 billion in 13 years of Labour, in the five years of the Conservatives it has risen by 655 million! The Conservatives have not tackled the deficit at all, Gideon Osborne has a political agenda to slash welfare and this cut to child benefit was not rejected, it was clearly left for later as they couldn't cut too much too soon. They have wasted millions on the health reform bill which is just a plan to privatise the NHS by the back door - and that is what GP's and consultants are saying (www.selloff.org.uk/nhs/default.html) The Conservatives only care about themselves and their friends - I am glad that Danny Alexander finally grew a pair and let us in on the secret Tory tax plans.

Fairylea ... re your "I feel really angry about the Tory cuts. They attack the most vulnerable and the poor in society."

That is rather unfair, as they only had to make cuts as they inherited a £157 billion annual overspend from Labour, and who is to say WHAT Labour would have cut - as Labour due to 2010 electoral cowardice, refused to address their own problem before the election (or in their 2010 manifesto) - but they TALK big on benefit cuts in between elections.

March 2010; ”Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”

“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

August 2013; “Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/21/labour-to-cut-benefits-bill-2015

”Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday”

”Liam Byrne, a Labour frontbencher, said the coalition's welfare reforms were failing to cut costs enough, and called for cross-party talks to "save" some of the government's key schemes.”

"In June 2012, members of the Quad – the inner group of the four most senior cabinet members – were sent a paper by the work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith entitled “Welfare Reform Quad Summer Reading Pack” setting out plans for £8bn of welfare reforms.

The proposed cuts included:

Limiting support to 2 children in child benefit and child tax credit, so cutting up to £3,500 from a family with three children.
Removing the higher rate child benefit from the first child, an average cut of over £360 for every family with children.
Means testing child benefit – cutting £1,750 for a two child middle income family
Removing child benefit from 16 to 19 year olds – a cut of over £1,000 for parents of a single child."

How can anyone say this was not a proposed policy?

It wasn't a formal proposed policy by the PM or the Chancellor - if I've understood correctly, it was a paper from IDS which wasn't implemented. All Govt depts submit papers - doesn't mean they automatically become policies (or even proposed policies).

Do you think CTC and CB should continue as they are though?

Another reasons why 'inclusive' government coalitions don't work; all through one the media and opposition spend all their time looking for cracks and policy difference - and when they end and they are struggling in the polls around 9% - you find you had a lying snake in the grass stating a potential suggestion was policy.

The options in May 8th appears to be a Labour/SNP block vote government, or a possible minority Conservative government who should no longer trust the other party snakes and go it alone - economic/financial/social chaos either way.

I tend to look at it from the opposite perspective - coalition Govts can act as a balance and a deterrent to policies being pushed through unchallenged.

I think they are right to consider limiting CHB and payments of TC to a certain number of children per family. Maybe 2 is too few, I would say 3 but it is not right that families can have huge numbers of children and expect the state to support them. I have one child btw in case anyone thinks I am advocating a three child limit for a particular reason.

SirChenjin .... I have said on here numerous times that I believe political history will show for many years to come that the Lib Dems (arguably in 2010 on some issues to the left of Labour), did the right thing in forming a formal coalition with the largest party - when others, clueless themselves in 2010, chose to oppose nearly everything put before them in parliament for 5-years and spout anti progress propaganda the whole time. Idiots.

Where would this country and the Barnett Formula be now, without Clegg (holding his political nose lol) and doing what was right for the citizens of the UK - hence my personal disappointment in todays shenanigans.

BUT going forward, the country out of crisis as long as we follow the same path, what can be the point of a manifesto and holding any party to account for NOT doing what they believe in, when coalitions mean a policy horse trade - to be thrown up in their face at every turn by negative politicking?

So as neither main party is likely to get a majority, the country is no longer on an economic precipice - if the UK wants to chance their coalition luck again,let the games begin - although clearly easier for Labour/SNP.

But maybe Labour has to finish the 13-year direction of travel they started (as they did with a penal taxes bang in 1979) for another 5-years, before the country even starts to give the coalition politicians credit, for the past 5-years.

Interesting points....time alone will tell. I can only hope that Labour honours its promise not to enter a coalition with the SNP - but that's more to do with my well known loathing of the SNP.

SirChenjin .... who do both the Labour and SNP Party's hate more (the Conservatives), and I suspect that Miliband's won't do A deal with the SNP, is Oxbridge Student Union Debating Society tricksy - as to get anything through a 650 MP Westminster, a Labour Party (with similar 275 ish seats expected as the Conservatives) NEEDS a 57 ish Westminster seat SNP, to get ANY legislation through.

BOTH Labour and the SNP offer voters independently; LESS budget deficit reduction, MORE debt driven pending and MORE taxes - so who needs to publicly 'agree' on that direction of travel and individual piece of legislation?

Mr Miliband and Mr Salmond (Ms Sturgeon's Westminster deputy) don't even have to wink at each other, as they vote en block.

Mr Miliband can say "I won't become PM if it means an agreement", but knows that when Labour opposes all Conservative legislation as they have done so for the past 5-years AND Ms Sturgeon (and Plaid Cmyru) has guaranteed that they will NOT vote with a minority Conservative government - Cameron can not be PM either.

So just wait until there is parliamentary paralysis from May 8th, and a Mr Miliband KNOWING he has the SNP block vote in his pocket, stands up and says 'I know what I said citizens, but I have to go back on what I said, for the good of the Uk'.

(pass the sick bag, somebody)

P.S. But as Ms Sturgeon has indicated; every bit of co operation from minority parties holding that power, will come at a price.

And from a Scottish National Party, who will benefit, England or Scotland?

I'll get back to you on that.