the conseratives are so right to cut tax credit - do you agree ?

[waterhog]

tax credit - conservative edit shame 20.10.15


we want everyone working
its not just a conservative dream
tax payers are fed up of shirking
they believe working provides self esteem.
so they set up a guide
so all would realize
instead of forcing the employer to adequately provide
the government would step in and subsidize.
all going smooth
but evident was the no equality
the tight and stingy boss did groove
paying the bare minimum made them richer then royalty.
now the government are withdrawing
it is a turn around and total flip
even own party back bench er's are roaring
they are even jumping ship.
you have no moral code
out of a stone you will squeeze
how will mr Osbourne deliver this explode
all smiley with spin topped with cheese.
on the conservative party is shame
this idea is not vintage
so i am playing the poetry game
i will tell the world from the box in highgate village.





http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-10-20/tory-mps-urged-to-oppose-osborne-on-tax-credits/

[Jøsh]

I get tax credit, this is wrong.

[Kizzy]

They'll be some pretty peed off conservative voting young families now I bet, I did try to warn people...

[Crimson Dynamo]

not the government trying to balance the books and cut Gordon Browns bribe tax?

:omgno:

[Kizzy]

No, he spent up on bombs so he needs some more moola.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fec064e6-73f4-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc.html#axzz3p7E9MwJA

[smudgie]

Not really sure who will be getting what until April.:shrug:
The bill needs to be brought down somewhat.

[joeysteele]

No they are totally wrong.

There is nothing wrong with looking at better ways of securing peoples incomes but just about every independent organisation has found problems and losers as to the plans as set out in these proposals.

To phase in the benefits while cutting in full, is typical, in my view of this govts failure to understand peoples real needs.

It is a mess and many Conservative MPs have misgivings as to how this is planned to be doing done, whether they stop being cowards and actually vote against such proposals, well that is another issue altogether.

I along with others were not fooled by Camerons further lying in the election as to tax credits being hit.
So it comes as no surprise to me at all the he and Osborne conned voters again.
To those who believed them and trusted them and who will be now left far worse off, then the answer is simple for them in the future now.
Vote the liars out.

[DemolitionRed]

not the government trying to balance the books and cut Gordon Browns bribe tax?

:omgno:

So you agree with Ian Drunken Smith? The man who has breakfast with Lord Lucan before riding Shergar into Central London for Cabinet Meetings?

[Kizzy]

I suggest they are hounded out of office for lying in their manifesto, why is that allowed...
What is the point of those things if they do the polar opposite of what they set out to do prior to an election?

[JoshBB]

Absolutely wrong. Their 'getting people back into work' rubbish is now crushed.

Tax Credits are to help those working on low-income, so this literally won't 'incentive going back to work' as they usually put it..

[kirklancaster]

I suggest they are hounded out of office for lying in their manifesto, why is that allowed...
What is the point of those things if they do the polar opposite of what they set out to do prior to an election?

If that was allowable, there would have not been ONE single Government in the past 60 years who had remained in power for their first full term, let alone second terms.

[JoshBB]

If that was allowable, there would have not been ONE single Government in the past 60 years who had remained in power for their first full term, let alone second terms.

I don't think any politician has ever broken something they EXPLICITLY spelled out so strongly..

CxS-Tow-Qik

[Kizzy]

Mind you they did the same last time, what was that saying again?... ''The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results''.

[Livia]

When the Conservatives are voted out and Labour get back in they'll take over a strong economy and quickly spend all the money... then the Conservatives will get back in and have to make cuts. They'll get the country back on its feel financially, then Labour will get back in and spend it all again. That's insanity.

[Kizzy]

The tories are revolting.

A Conservative MP has used her maiden speech in the House of Commons to lambast George Osborne for planning to penalise low-paid workers with cuts to tax credits.

In a pointed address, Heidi Allen said the cuts fail David Cameron’s “family test” and are driven by the chancellor’s mistaken decision to run an overall budget surplus.
The MP for Cambridgeshire South said she had declined to make her maiden speech until now because she saw no point in doing so because both sides are “firmly married to their respective positions”.

Allen has asked questions since her election but had not delivered a full speech until a Labour debate on tax credits on Tuesday. She said: “It is right that people are encouraged to strive for self reliance and to find work that pays for their independence from the state. But I worry that our single-minded determination to run a budget surplus is betraying who we are. I know true Conservatives have compassion running through their veins.”

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/20/conservative-mp-george-osborne-tax-credit-plans

[kirklancaster]

The government are wrong. Across The Board Austerity Cuts are draconian, ill founded, and unnecessarily compound the financial and emotional suffering of the GENUINELY ill and needy. It would make far more economic sense to leave benefits alone and concentrate resources on detecting ALL types of benefit fraudsters and stopping their false claims. This would save the country as much money as 'Austerity Cuts' without creating further problems down the line.

Action DOES NEED to be taken to reduce the UK's preposterous Benefits costs, but this IS NOT the way forward.

[Kizzy]

When the Conservatives are voted out and Labour get back in they'll take over a strong economy and quickly spend all the money... then the Conservatives will get back in and have to make cuts. They'll get the country back on its feel financially, then Labour will get back in and spend it all again. That's insanity.


Gross National Debt
FY 2015* £1.36 trillion
FY 2014 £1.26 trillion
FY 2013 £1.19 trillion
FY 2012 £1.10 trillion
FY 2011 £0.91 trillion
FY 2010 £0.76 trillion
FY 2009 £0.62 trillion
FY 2008 £0.53 trillion

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

[Livia]

The government are wrong. Across The Board Austerity Cuts are draconian, ill founded, and unnecessarily compound the financial and emotional suffering of the GENUINELY ill and needy. It would make far more economic sense to leave benefits alone and concentrate resources on detecting ALL types of benefit fraudsters and stopping their false claims. This would save the country as much money as 'Austerity Cuts' without creating further problems down the line.

Action DOES NEED to be taken to reduce the UK's preposterous Benefits costs, but this IS NOT the way forward.

I have to agree. These cuts are brutal. I also agree that our benefits are generally preposterous and they need to be sorted to weed out those who've got comfortable sitting at home when they're well able to work. Tax Credits, pensions and disability payments should be out of reach though when it comes to cuts.

[Kate!]

When the Conservatives are voted out and Labour get back in they'll take over a strong economy and quickly spend all the money... then the Conservatives will get back in and have to make cuts. They'll get the country back on its feel financially, then Labour will get back in and spend it all again. That's insanity.

Sadly yes. It's a vicious circle.

[Livia]

Gross National Debt
FY 2015* £1.36 trillion
FY 2014 £1.26 trillion
FY 2013 £1.19 trillion
FY 2012 £1.10 trillion
FY 2011 £0.91 trillion
FY 2010 £0.76 trillion
FY 2009 £0.62 trillion
FY 2008 £0.53 trillion

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

I don't reply to cut and paste opinions.

[JoshBB]

The tories are revolting.

A Conservative MP has used her maiden speech in the House of Commons to lambast George Osborne for planning to penalise low-paid workers with cuts to tax credits.

In a pointed address, Heidi Allen said the cuts fail David Cameron’s “family test” and are driven by the chancellor’s mistaken decision to run an overall budget surplus.
The MP for Cambridgeshire South said she had declined to make her maiden speech until now because she saw no point in doing so because both sides are “firmly married to their respective positions”.

Allen has asked questions since her election but had not delivered a full speech until a Labour debate on tax credits on Tuesday. She said: “It is right that people are encouraged to strive for self reliance and to find work that pays for their independence from the state. But I worry that our single-minded determination to run a budget surplus is betraying who we are. I know true Conservatives have compassion running through their veins.”

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/20/conservative-mp-george-osborne-tax-credit-plans

Bloody hell - first time I've ever found myself nodding and thinking 'shes so right!!' about a conservative.

[Kizzy]

I don't reply to cut and paste opinions.

I didn't ask for a reply, I just thought I'd post some stats as opposed to my guesstimate.

[JoshBB]

I just found out that Heidi Allen still voted in line with party whip :umm2:

Bit of a hypocrite then really

[Kizzy]

It wouldn't have been very good for her fledgling career to do that, at least she's made her feelings known... it's a start

[Northern Monkey]

The government should'nt even think about this until they have forced every employer to pay a proper living wage.An actual living wage that people can live on.The country is'nt ready for this now.

[Livia]

The government should'nt even think about this until they have forced every employer to pay a proper living wage.An actual living wage that people can live on.The country is'nt ready for this now.

Completely agree with this.

[the truth]

No they are totally wrong.

There is nothing wrong with looking at better ways of securing peoples incomes but just about every independent organisation has found problems and losers as to the plans as set out in these proposals.

To phase in the benefits while cutting in full, is typical, in my view of this govts failure to understand peoples real needs.

It is a mess and many Conservative MPs have misgivings as to how this is planned to be doing done, whether they stop being cowards and actually vote against such proposals, well that is another issue altogether.

I along with others were not fooled by Camerons further lying in the election as to tax credits being hit.
So it comes as no surprise to me at all the he and Osborne conned voters again.
To those who believed them and trusted them and who will be now left far worse off, then the answer is simple for them in the future now.
Vote the liars out.

I half agree. the minimum wage is also a joke, without tax credits no one in poor areas will be able to afford to pay the minimum wage for the most menial jobs, so jobs will be lost in their tens of thousands. tax credits offered to subsidise wages in these poorest areas.

However this business of everyone limiting themselves to only 15 hours work in order to keep all their benefits has been a mess. Will this actually be solved with this new tactic?

I doubt it. We should never underestimate quite how moronic nearly all politicians are these days in all parties.

meanwhile tim ferret the idiotic new liberal leader said the solution is simple bring in a £12 minimum wage.....what a pillock

[Johnnyuk123]

With the technology that we have today it is very easy to see what people spend their money on given to them from the state. So for me the focus should be on that. OK so we can see that most of the money we gave you this month was spent on cigarettes and alcohol so we will now cut those benefits. :thumbs:

[Northern Monkey]

With the technology that we have today it is very easy to see what people spend their money on given to them from the state. So for me the focus should be on that. OK so we can see that most of the money we gave you this month was spent on cigarettes and alcohol so we will now cut those benefits. :thumbs:

This is tax credits though.Working adults should be able to afford cigs and booze if they choose imo.If employers paid decent wages then people could afford these things without the tax credits.I agree with you on people claiming JSA and other non working benefits though.

[DemolitionRed]

I suggest they are hounded out of office for lying in their manifesto, why is that allowed...
What is the point of those things if they do the polar opposite of what they set out to do prior to an election?

Speaking of hounding, you should read this http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/19/tories-threaten-to-suspend-house-of-lords-if-it-kills-off-tax-credits_n_8332674.html
insurrection comes to mind :unsure:

[DemolitionRed]

This is tax credits though.Working adults should be able to afford cigs and booze if they choose imo.If employers paid decent wages then people could afford these things without the tax credits.I agree with you on people claiming JSA and other non working benefits though.

I know I've already said this but its worth repeating.
Over 60% of British people within working age are only one pay slip away from the poverty line. If a person works for 20 years before getting struck off; if that person can’t find immediate suitable employment to sustain their normal outgoings which includes their mortgage; in the present system they will fall into a financial crisis very quickly. Should we add to that pain by removing JSA from such people if they happen to smoke?

[DemolitionRed]

The government should'nt even think about this until they have forced every employer to pay a proper living wage.An actual living wage that people can live on.The country is'nt ready for this now.

Quote of the day^ :clap1:

[Johnnyuk123]

This is tax credits though.Working adults should be able to afford cigs and booze if they choose imo.If employers paid decent wages then people could afford these things without the tax credits.I agree with you on people claiming JSA and other non working benefits though.

Working adults should focus on putting food on the table and nappies etc long before getting drunk and smoking IMO.:wavey: If any adult with children spends that money from the state on fags and booze then they deserve to have that credit cut. We are all aware of the damage kids suffer from drunken parenting.

[the truth]

trouble is employers in poorest areas cannot afford to pay much more....having 1 national minimum wage across all the uk is insane as the wealth disparity is phenomenal
London average gdp is £42,000 per head....central London nearer £70,000
wales n Ireland nearer £16,000? the north £18,000
how can you have the same minimum wage in a place averaging £70,000 compared to one averaging £16,000? the city is 4 to 5 times richer per head than wales and n Ireland? all this will do is increase the gap and see 100000s of lower end jobs lost

[Northern Monkey]

I know I've already said this but its worth repeating.
Over 60% of British people within working age are only one pay slip away from the poverty line. If a person works for 20 years before getting struck off; if that person can’t find immediate suitable employment to sustain their normal outgoings which includes their mortgage; in the present system they will fall into a financial crisis very quickly. Should we add to that pain by removing JSA from such people if they happen to smoke?Some people sit living comfortably on benefits for life without even trying to get work and they spend the majority of their benefits on an alcoholic lifestyle and use that as an excuse that they can't work.That is more what i meant.Fags not so much.I have nothing against people smoking whilst actively trying to find work.I've been on JSA and smoked in the past.It's the ones who use benefits as a lifestyle choice and expect the tax payer to fund their nicotine and alcohol addictions that i would object to.Alot of working people can't even afford to get drunk now and then.

[Northern Monkey]

Working adults should focus on putting food on the table and nappies etc long before getting drunk and smoking IMO.:wavey: If any adult with children spends that money from the state on fags and booze then they deserve to have that credit cut. We are all aware of the damage kids suffer from drunken parenting.

Yes we should all prioritise the fundamental necessities in life first.However i see nothing wrong with somebody having a few drinks at the end of a hard week of work to relax.We should all get paid enough to afford that.When the government gets employers to pay decent wages then there won't be a need for tax credits.

[the truth]

Yes we should all prioritise the fundamental necessities in life first.However i see nothing wrong with somebody having a few drinks at the end of a hard week of work to relax.We should all get paid enough to afford that.When the government gets employers to pay decent wages then there won't be a need for tax credits.

can you afford to pay people £12 an hour to do the most menial work in the poorest parts of the UK? whilst still making a profit to live off? this raising the minimum wage endlessly is an over simplistic joke and will cost tens of thousands of jobs in the poorest areas. think again.

[waterhog]

why should anyone have to work and not even be allowed a decent life -

[kirklancaster]

Some people sit living comfortably on benefits for life without even trying to get work and they spend the majority of their benefits on an alcoholic lifestyle and use that as an excuse that they can't work.That is more what i meant.Fags not so much.I have nothing against people smoking whilst actively trying to find work.I've been on JSA and smoked in the past.It's the ones who use benefits as a lifestyle choice and expect the tax payer to fund their nicotine and alcohol addictions that i would object to.Alot of working people can't even afford to get drunk now and then.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: NO ONE who IS working should EVER be placed in a position where they would be financially better off by NOT working, or be placed in a position where they ARE financially worse off than some who are NOT working - WHATEVER the reasons behind such an inane status quo.

[user104658]

The government should'nt even think about this until they have forced every employer to pay a proper living wage.An actual living wage that people can live on.The country is'nt ready for this now.

Exactly. A huge part of their argument is that the tax credits cut (in 2016) will be "balanced out" by wage increases / other increases "within this term in parliament" (i.e. by 2020).

This is typical Tory logic to be honest; these people making these decisions come from families with money and have always had a pot o' gold in their kitchen. They simply can't comprehend the quite obvious fact that millions of people can't afford to "dig into their (non-existent) savings" to cover the shortfall for four years.

[DemolitionRed]

You’ve got to admit that our government have done a grand job when it comes to promoting class interest by diverting anger from the top to the bottom. I think its bloody alarming that so many low earning people still believe that its the benefit claimants and immigrants that have caused our present economic crisis. This party and Labour before them have taken advantage of a pliable media to put blame on the feckless underclasses, whilst the wealthy have walked away from any blame scot free. It’s a classic case of divide and rule.

Only 3% of the welfare budget goes to the unemployed and only 0.7% of that is claimed fraudulently. Benefit fraud costs our country an estimated £1 billion a year whereas tax evasion costs our country a staggering £70 billion; so when our government tell us they are cutting £12 billion of our welfare payouts, what they are actually doing is taking money away from the working poor and pensioners.

[Livia]

People who work and who are attempting to find work should be fully supported. If you've not found work in two years you should be given a job, and you should do it until you find something more suitable for yourself. No more long-term arse-sitting.

[user104658]

People who work and who are attempting to find work should be fully supported. If you've not found work in two years you should be given a job, and you should do it until you find something more suitable for yourself. No more long-term arse-sitting.

Yeah, the government are going to be all over that one. Take the UK's 1.8 million unemployed, and instead of giving them £70 a week jobseeker's allowance, create work for them and pay them the £250 a week minimum wage.

It's a brilliant idea in theory but for some reason, I can't imagine it happening.

[joeysteele]

Yeah, the government are going to be all over that one. Take the UK's 1.8 million unemployed, and instead of giving them £70 a week jobseeker's allowance, create work for them and pay them the £250 a week minimum wage.

It's a brilliant idea in theory but for some reason, I can't imagine it happening.

This rotten govt brought in ESA with 2 groupings,the support group for long very long term/permanent health conditions and disabilities and the WRAG group for those who may be able to do some work a year or 2 down the line.

Now they are moving the goalposts again, those deemed unfit for work from 2017 as to new claimants but who are felt could work in a year to 2 years down the line, are going to see the ESA rate slashed by at least £25 per week and bring it in line with jobseekers.
Yet these are people still deemed unfit for work at this time by the DWP.

Another absolute disgrace and the benefit bashing goes on and on, a say again a surplus founded on and built in any part of from the sick, disabled, poor and vulnerable should be a total disgrace.

It is all well and good to say people should be in work rather than be unemployed but with far fewer real full time jobs available and still 1.8 million unemployed, until you have the reverse of those figures, everyone in real full employment is pie in the sky.

This govt may well eventually be economically more confident but has not a scrap of decency as to its social policy making and really protecting the vulnerable.
I will put all my energy into getting this shower of s...e removed at the next election,no matter who may take over as long as they have decency. compassion and a social conscience at the heart of their policymaking.

[arista]

A Frank Field plan
will modify this
On next monday

[user104658]

A Frank Field plan
will modify this
On next monday

Yes, I did read that there have been suggestions that the HoL might try to block this or have it amended and even that there are several Tory MP's who aren't inclined to support reductions for those in work. Maybe some of them are semi-reasonable after all...

It is utter madness when you think about it. How can they really justify more sweeping cuts for those who are IN full time employment? What more can you really ask of people? It's not a question of not wanting to or not being bothered - as is the argument with those not working (not one that is often true, but still, there's some logic to it) - but someone already working full time hours isn't going to turn down the opportunity to be paid more for them. Having higher pay if you're already working full time is a question of education, experience, intelligence, ability and availability. No one is going to be able to jump into higher paid work over night and some people frankly just don't have the ability level to be paid much above the minimum wage and never will have. If those people are still up in the morning, out to work often hard full time hours... how can you justify taking more? Just, how? It makes no sense at all.

Surely it's more likely to make people just consider giving up. They come along saying "If you work hard then you will do well", then mere months later, "actually it doesn't matter if you work hard, your quality of life is still going to drop significantly. Sorry lol."

[Livia]

Yeah, the government are going to be all over that one. Take the UK's 1.8 million unemployed, and instead of giving them £70 a week jobseeker's allowance, create work for them and pay them the £250 a week minimum wage.

It's a brilliant idea in theory but for some reason, I can't imagine it happening.

I'm not talking about GIVING them £250 a week, I'm talking about setting them to work for £250 a week, actively doing something to contribute while still looking for whatever it is they would be happier doing.

[King Gizzard]

I do not, waterhog

[joeysteele]

Yes, I did read that there have been suggestions that the HoL might try to block this or have it amended and even that there are several Tory MP's who aren't inclined to support reductions for those in work. Maybe some of them are semi-reasonable after all...

It is utter madness when you think about it. How can they really justify more sweeping cuts for those who are IN full time employment? What more can you really ask of people? It's not a question of not wanting to or not being bothered - as is the argument with those not working (not one that is often true, but still, there's some logic to it) - but someone already working full time hours isn't going to turn down the opportunity to be paid more for them. Having higher pay if you're already working full time is a question of education, experience, intelligence, ability and availability. No one is going to be able to jump into higher paid work over night and some people frankly just don't have the ability level to be paid much above the minimum wage and never will have. If those people are still up in the morning, out to work often hard full time hours... how can you justify taking more? Just, how? It makes no sense at all.

Surely it's more likely to make people just consider giving up. They come along saying "If you work hard then you will do well", then mere months later, "actually it doesn't matter if you work hard, your quality of life is still going to drop significantly. Sorry lol."

A good many are TS,I know of a good number who would love Osborne to climb down on this but he and this hopeless PM won't listen.

The sad things is they are when outside their party decent people but they will not vote against their party even when they really believe it is wrong on an issue.

That is a real sad state as to politics.

[user104658]

I'm not talking about GIVING them £250 a week, I'm talking about setting them to work for £250 a week, actively doing something to contribute while still looking for whatever it is they would be happier doing.

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

[joeysteele]

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

Well said and spot on.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

There are a lot of people out there who really do need to be employed in accordance with their experience and qualifications though. When we found ourselves in that situation a few years ago, the first thing we did was sit down and work out how long we could hold out before declaring ourselves personally bankrupt. I was still working full time but the loss of one income inevitably meant the loss of our home. Steve needed time to make the commitment to find the sort of work he needed but no job centre in the land was going to permit him to do that. Fortunately for us we have parents who helped us through the rough times. I have to say though, it gave us such a shake up that once he was back in secure employment we decided to rid ourselves of a hefty mortgage and start living a much more frugal lifestyle. If this ever happens again we'll be ready for it.

[Livia]

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

No... the government wouldn't be giving them anything. They would be placing them into a job. There are lots of jobs about... not the greatest, highest paying, most satisfying jobs in the world but they would pay the bills till something better came along. And they would pay more than benefits, consequently cutting the bill for tax payers. There are people who are unemployed as a lifestyle, don't try to pretend there aren't.

Why are you amused? I'm amused that you once again totally misconstrued the point I was making and countered it with taking the piss. You're the one who mentioned "dream jobs". I said, till something better came along, something they may be happier doing. I don't see how you could misunderstand that, but you did.

[DemolitionRed]

And the latest is, Ian Drunken Smith blows £8.5M on fluffy animated monster as he slashes vital help for disabled people.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-blows-85m-6673199#ICID


That's enough to pay for 1,725 young people to get housing benefit for a year.
Or enough to remove 18,813 people from the bedroom tax for a year.
Or enough to let 448 disabled people live independently, instead of in a care home for a year.

[DemolitionRed]

Out of interest Livia, what are your views on the continued culling of legal aid? Do you believe we should all have access to the law?

[user104658]

No... the government wouldn't be giving them anything. They would be placing them into a job. There are lots of jobs about... not the greatest, highest paying, most satisfying jobs in the world but they would pay the bills till something better came along. And they would pay more than benefits, consequently cutting the bill for tax payers. There are people who are unemployed as a lifestyle, don't try to pretend there aren't.

Why are you amused? I'm amused that you once again totally misconstrued the point I was making and countered it with taking the piss. You're the one who mentioned "dream jobs". I said, till something better came along, something they may be happier doing. I don't see how you could misunderstand that, but you did.
There are not 1.8 million jobs available in the UK Livia. There is, at any one time, about 1/3 of that.

[Livia]

There are not 1.8 million jobs available in the UK Livia. There is, at any one time, about 1/3 of that.

Heaven forfend we should get a third of those people working then. There's always a lot of talk about immigrants claiming benefits but quite honestly, I've hardly met any that don't already have a job, lots of them menial, unsocial hours etc... but they're working.

There are lots and lots of people unemployed and desperately trying to get their lives back on track and they should get all the help they need. But there are a lot who don't intend to work because they're quite comfortable. It's madness...

[Livia]

Out of interest Livia, what are your views on the continued culling of legal aid? Do you believe we should all have access to the law?

I deplore it. I continually hear of people who are awarded legal aid despite having huge capital, property, business... and yet ordinary people on an ordinary wage don't seem to qualify. The law should be equally available to everyone, whether you have money or not.

I don't support everything the Tories do. I don't support everything any party does. In my opinion Legal Aid should be untouchable, and so should benefits for the disabled, the NHS, free Further and Higher Education and tax credits for working families.

[DemolitionRed]

I deplore it. I continually hear of people who are awarded legal aid despite having huge capital, property, business... and yet ordinary people on an ordinary wage don't seem to qualify. The law should be equally available to everyone, whether you have money or not.

I don't support everything the Tories do. I don't support everything any party does. In my opinion Legal Aid should be untouchable, and so should benefits for the disabled, the NHS, free Further and Higher Education and tax credits for working families.

:clap1:

[user104658]

Heaven forfend we should get a third of those people working then. There's always a lot of talk about immigrants claiming benefits but quite honestly, I've hardly met any that don't already have a job, lots of them menial, unsocial hours etc... but they're working.

There are lots and lots of people unemployed and desperately trying to get their lives back on track and they should get all the help they need. But there are a lot who don't intend to work because they're quite comfortable. It's madness...

I'm not denying that there are people who simply have no intention of being in work, I'm just saying that of all of the unemployed, the vast majority desperately want any job. It's obviously not quite as simple as you're making out. For one, I rarely hear of an employer struggling to fill vacancies when they have them... there are plenty of applicants for every position and - certainly around here at least - min wage vacancies are filled within a week of being advertised and have dozens if not hundreds of applicants.

Nowhere is getting "no applicants". If someone is struggling to fill a job position, it's because no one who has tried for the job has been qualified / experienced enough to fill the role. I don't see how the government stepping in to shoehorn a random jobseeker into that job would help anyone either. You'd have someone struggling to do the job, and a business forced to take an employee who is potentially incompetent in the role? I mean, thinking of entry level where I am, which pays only marginally above minimum wage... I can only imagine what would happen if the govt. tried to send in any old jobseeker.

The problem being that "low paid", these days, doesn't mean "anyone can do it". Even at entry level at mine you need to have two things to work where I work; 1) A reasonable level of intelligence (some maths ability, especially) and 2) Skin a foot thick and a decent death stare.

Even being selective we've had really bad hiring decisions. Kids who either struggle with the training and can't be signed off as competent, or ones who are fine with the technical role but crumble as soon as they have to deal with an... *ahem*... "customer query" (AKA deathmatch).

TL;DR - Businesses aren't struggling to fill their vacancies on their own and they don't need the government to step in, blundering around forcing decisions that could damage turnover.

[GiRTh]

Theres gona be a lot of conservative leaning young families that will be hit hard by these proposals so I'm all for it. Anything to curb Tories popularity.

[Kizzy]

Great post TS funny how a thread on working people being lied to by the govt has been manipulated to be about the 'feckless' unemployed.
Not considering the fortnightly meetings, the daily job searches, the 13 week review, 26 week review and the work programme.
Here is some information on that.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-employment/2010-to-2015-government-policy-employment

[the truth]

the 15 hour trap though has encouraged people not to work for fear of losing their benefits, it was a system that simply wasn't thought through

[Kizzy]

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/14443/production/_86211038_imapct_tax_credits_624_v3.png

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34572807

wrbu6NFazfU

[GiRTh]

Just as expected, working mums will get shafted by these new cuts. Do the Tories realise Working mums tend to vote? A bold step by the Tories that should bounce back very nicely to bite them in the ass.

[joeysteele]

Just as expected, workng mums will get shafted by these new cuts. Do the Tories realise Working mums tend to vote? A bold step by the Tories that should bounce back very nicely to bite them in the ass.

We can hope for that.

Sadly however, meantime people suffer from having entitlements put in place for them being taken away from them.

Absolute disgrace.

[Kizzy]

I've said it before and I truly believe they don't care if they are elected next time... they will have bled the country dry and sold anything of any value off by then.

[joeysteele]

I've said it before and I truly believe they don't care if they are elected next time... they will have bled the country dry and sold anything of any value off by then.

David Cameron doesn't care for sure, because he is off before the 2020 election.
No matter what he does in the next few years, the voters are not getting the chance to kick him out in an election.

At least even being a desperate situation politically John Major still faced the electorate.

[GiRTh]

I'm suprised by the graph in the link Kizzy provided that shows only the richest will benefit from these cuts. Everyone else pretty much gets shafted. This feels like Thatchers is back.

Surely the Tories realsie they cant do this. This is polictical suicide that should cost them the next election. Particularily when you got the left leaning Corbyn who will be proposing to help all the people who have been hit by these cuts.

There may be many constituents focussed on topics like immigration but when you start taking money out of people pockets then all other issues dont count.

[Kizzy]

Thatcher looks like a saint next to this lot :/

[GiRTh]

Thatcher looks like a saint next to this lot :/If they implement this then they are worse than Thatcher.

[DemolitionRed]

Thatcher looks like a saint next to this lot :/

Laughs, that's exactly what I was going to say Kizzy!

[user104658]

It seems that part of the Scotland deal going through will include the power to "top up" tax credits north of the border. Good news for families in Scotland but also yet another potential source of division and resentment when less well off families in England are struggling just as much. Often more because of things that are already in place such as free prescriptions and of course the big one, University tuition fees.

[the truth]

with respect youre all missing a key point......the minimum wage will not be affordable , a living wage isn't even enforceable, in most areas of Britain for the lowest skilled jobs.
that means thousands of job cuts. how can a small business employing 30 people suddenly afford to pay an extra 25% in wages? in deprived areas? where does this 25% come from? thin air? it wont happen, it cant happen, people will be sacked
meanwhile the number of people arriving on our shores will increase even further when the minimum wage is the highest in Europe and higher than many countries pay their highly skilled workers.....all of which sees more immigration allied to these tens of thousands of job losses in poorest areas because of the unrealistic unaffordable minimum wage rises.

[Kizzy]

with respect youre all missing a key point......the minimum wage will not be affordable , a living wage isn't even enforceable, in most areas of Britain for the lowest skilled jobs.
that means thousands of job cuts. how can a small business employing 30 people suddenly afford to pay an extra 25% in wages? in deprived areas? where does this 25% come from? thin air? it wont happen, it cant happen, people will be sacked
meanwhile the number of people arriving on our shores will increase even further when the minimum wage is the highest in Europe and higher than many countries pay their highly skilled workers.....all of which sees more immigration allied to these tens of thousands of job losses in poorest areas because of the unrealistic unaffordable minimum wage rises.

Tax relief for employers will offset it won't it?

[the truth]

Tax relief for employers will offset it won't it?

eh? offset a 25% wage bill increase? this is utter madness, its what I call politically correct business, where all basic economics and simple truths are banned from public debate. yes lets all pay the poorest £20 an hour minimum wage were nice people etc its drivel

[Kizzy]

eh? offset a 25% wage bill increase? this is utter madness, its what I call politically correct business, where all basic economics and simple truths are banned from public debate. yes lets all pay the poorest £20 an hour minimum wage were nice people etc its drivel

£20ph?.... that's not happening, I meant the cut in corporation tax.

Corporation tax and the new National Living Wage were the main talking points from the July Budget for businesses of all sizes but the implications for small firms aren't straightforward.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced that the rate of corporation tax would fall to 19pc in 2017 and 18pc in 2020, the lowest in the G20. For start-ups and many UK small firms, which only generate a marginal profit, this is unlikely to have a big impact.
The National Living Wage was the "rabbit in the hat" moment of the address. As of April 2016, the Government is introducing a new minimum wage of £7.20, which will rise to £9 by 2020.
Small firms or businesses employing a significant number of staff on the minimum wage are likely to feel this change most keenly, although there are some new measures from the Government to reduce the impact on the most vulnerable businesses.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726603/Budget-2015-How-will-it-affect-small-and-medium-sized-businesses.html

[the truth]

the implications are simple for small business, they are knackered and will have to lose tens of thousands of employees. ruining our small shops, town centres even moreso and enslaving us even more to massive corporations

[joeysteele]

the implications are simple for small business, they are knackered and will have to lose tens of thousands of employees. ruining our small shops, town centres even moreso and enslaving us even more to massive corporations

You are right the truth in that.

[Kizzy]

When was the decision made for the 4billion creamed from tax credits would be among the 12 billion of welfare savings?
It wasn't in the manifesto....

'In his Today programme interview Matthew Hancock, the Cabinet Office minister, suggested that peers would trigger a constitutional crisis if they voted to delay the implementation of the tax credit cuts. (See 9.10am.) Here are some of the other points he made.

Hancock said that Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary, has said that it would be unprecedented for the Lords to block or delay the tax credit cuts.
On this programme on Friday, Robin Butler has said that the three blocking measures are all unprecedented, the conventions say that the Lords does not block financial measures that effect the budget of the country. And so, yes of course that means the finance bill, but it also means things like this that are over £4bn of public spending. This is obviously a financial matter. But don’t take it from me, you know, take it from Robin Butler who is possibly one of the greatest constitutional experts in the country.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/26/tax-credit-cuts-debate-hancock-tells-peers-not-to-trigger-constitutional-crisis-politics-live

[joeysteele]

When was the decision made for the 4billion creamed from tax credits would be among the 12 billion of welfare savings?
It wasn't in the manifesto....

'In his Today programme interview Matthew Hancock, the Cabinet Office minister, suggested that peers would trigger a constitutional crisis if they voted to delay the implementation of the tax credit cuts. (See 9.10am.) Here are some of the other points he made.

Hancock said that Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary, has said that it would be unprecedented for the Lords to block or delay the tax credit cuts.
On this programme on Friday, Robin Butler has said that the three blocking measures are all unprecedented, the conventions say that the Lords does not block financial measures that effect the budget of the country. And so, yes of course that means the finance bill, but it also means things like this that are over £4bn of public spending. This is obviously a financial matter. But don’t take it from me, you know, take it from Robin Butler who is possibly one of the greatest constitutional experts in the country.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/26/tax-credit-cuts-debate-hancock-tells-peers-not-to-trigger-constitutional-crisis-politics-live

Look at the faces of some of these cabinet Ministers when challenged on the tax credits pledge given by Cameron in the debates and the election campaign.

They know full well he deceived the voters again, got away with it unbelievably, sadly they don't care either just as likely most of those who voted for this lying PM don't care either as to the people affected and the injustice of the policy the way it has been set out to take place.

People were warned as to the deceit and conning qualities of this PM, you and I did plenty of that on here, falling on deaf ears very sadly.

Now they ignore just about every independent organisation who are showing the losses people will have to endure.He got an overall majority by a total fluke and now he can con and lie and deceive voters all he likes until he goes.
Knowing he will not be facing the voters again anyway as he is running off.

This PM is a total disgrace to the office of PM in my view, the worst we have likely ever had in modern electoral times.

[Kizzy]

Newly elected tory MPs will be getting some right shtick in their constituencies too, how are they going to with any credibility justify the knives in the backs of these 'strivers'?

It's all part of the plan to proletarianise the workforce, this govt and the last have been a literal power vacuum... it's all at the top.

[Livia]

Hopeful the Lords will overturn this unfair and frankly suicidal plan.

[kirklancaster]

Hopeful the Lords will overturn this unfair and frankly suicidal plan.

They will, Liv, they will.

[Kizzy]

Is this what used to be called an ' impact assessment'?

'The impact of George Osborne’s changes to tax credits have been underlined by research that suggests two-thirds of working tax credit recipients will be worse off in 2020.

The findings were revealed as the House of Lords prepares to debate the changes – amid warnings from the government that it would provoke a constitutional crisis if peers voted to block the reforms.

The research conducted by Policy in Practice, a group that works with local authorities on welfare changes, is based on analysis of more than 100,000 households of working-age in receipt of housing benefit and council tax support, and also takes into account the impact of the national living wage at £9 an hour, and a personal tax allowance of £12,500.'

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/26/working-tax-credits-two-thirds-will-be-worse-off-in-2020-research-finds

[user104658]

Their argument is that the new wage will compensate for the drop in Tax Credits. If that is the case (though plenty of studies show that it isn't entirely true), then they should wait until the new wage is fully in place before changing the Tax Credits rules. It's pretty much that simple, surely.

of course that only applies to people who are actually on the minimum wage. There are plenty of single-incomehouseholds where the earner is getting £9 an hour already and still gets tax credits. People in that situation will lose tax credits whilst not benefiting at all from the "Living Wage", unless their employer increases their income in line with it (i.e. keeps them the "same amount above" - so increases their hourly rate to roughly £11.50). Those people will benefit slightly from the tax threshold increase but nowhere near enough to offset the cuts.

The taper rate change also brings back the old "promotion dilemma". Let's say Bob is on minimum wage and gets Tax Credits. He gets offered a supervisory role - an extra £2 an hour but more pressure, more stress, and worse hours. Now let's also say for the sake of argument that Bob has a family and / or other caring responsibilities - he's not just a career driven yuppie - who would be well advised to snap up any progression opportunity without too much consideration.

IF Bob can take this role and actually benefit from the increased wages then he's probably going to take it. But if taking the role only means that he's going to have most of the gained income taken out of Tax Credits? Much less likely to take it on.

tl;dr - It's not just that work should always pay. MORE work should always pay more, and career progression should likewise always pay more. That's what's being threatened by the income threshold & taper rate changes. And I can't get past the feeling that that's because so long as people are "working" - doing something, anything at all - then the current government don't care at all if people are developing or progressing - even though that's something that the Tores have always claimed to stand for.

[Kazanne]

The tax credit cuts will make a massive difference to me and Jay,we get help now ,but come April we will lose it all.I will be looking for a second job.

[Cherie]

The tax credit cuts will make a massive difference to me and Jay,we get help now ,but come April we will lose it all.I will be looking for a second job.


Are you a Tory Kaz, how do you feel about this backtracking by the government?

[user104658]

I personlly think the backtracking is the worst part? If they had been open about it from the start, that they think the current levels are too high, then it would still have been typical Tory thinking BUT at least honest. The fact that he he said - and said straight up, not in an ambiguous way - that this in-work money would be safe from cuts and then has just blatantly and immediately reduced them... it's insane. There's having scummy policies, there's twisting things in a dishonest fashion... that always goes on in all parties... but a straight up bare-faced lie? "Vote for me, I will NOT do this. Thanks for voting teehee actually I'm going to do it :hehe: "

AND it's not like this is two or three years down the line when maybe it could be argued that old promises have to be looked at because of changing circumstances. IMO, this must have been part of the plans already in the works before the 2015 election campaign even started.

[Shaun]

In a word: no

[Cherie]

I personlly think the backtracking is the worst part? If they had been open about it from the start, that they think the current levels are too high, then it would still have been typical Tory thinking BUT at least honest. The fact that he he said - and said straight up, not in an ambiguous way - that this in-work money would be safe from cuts and then has just blatantly and immediately reduced them... it's insane. There's having scummy policies, there's twisting things in a dishonest fashion... that always goes on in all parties... but a straight up bare-faced lie? "Vote for me, I will NOT do this. Thanks for voting teehee actually I'm going to do it :hehe: "

AND it's not like this is two or three years down the line when maybe it could be argued that old promises have to be looked at because of changing circumstances. IMO, this must have been part of the plans already in the works before the 2015 election campaign even started.


Precisely I struggled with who to vote for this time as None of them are to be trusted, I feel bad for anyone who took them at their word and will now find themselves worse off no wonder people just give up on voting, backing hard working families indeed :nono:

[Kizzy]

It was due to them not being pressed on just how the 12 billion was to be found, they wormed their way out of the question every time it was posed... It was just assumed that the burden would be borne by the unemployed, it was a gamble that hasn't paid off.

[user104658]

It was due to them not being pressed on just how the 12 billion was to be found, they wormed their way out of the question every time it was posed... It was just assumed that the burden would be borne by the unemployed, it was a gamble that hasn't paid off.

The fact is that there aren't enough unemployed people to cover the budget cuts and balance the books even if they were to strip every last penny from every last one of them. To run a budget surplus they will --have-- to take it from either working people or from business. And it's the Tories, so they will con tinue to work their way from the bottom. First target after the unemployed was always going to be low-income households.

[Cherie]

It was due to them not being pressed on just how the 12 billion was to be found, they wormed their way out of the question every time it was posed... It was just assumed that the burden would be borne by the unemployed, it was a gamble that hasn't paid off.


Didn't he point blank say they wouldn't be touched, I think there is a clip somewhere on this thread. I haven't been eligible for tax credits since I went back to work full time, it's part timers with children who are too old for free places that will be hit most

[Kizzy]

'Lord Campbell-Savours, the Labour peer, asks if David Cameron was telling the truth in the election campaign when he said tax credits would not be cut. Or was he misleading the public?

Stowell says the Tories were very clear that they would be introducing welfare cuts, and that these would be aimed at working-age claimants.

But they were also clear that there would be a new settlement on welfare.'

Trying to wriggle out of the fact he stated that tax credits would not be touched.

[Kizzy]

It's nowhere near Christmas and the lords are leaping :hehe:

[Kizzy]

The Lib Dem peer Lady Manzoor is speaking now.

Here is the text of her motion. This one is “fatal” in Lord-speak, because it would stop the regulations becoming law.

to move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September.”

She quotes the Institute for Fiscal Studies figures saying 3m families could lose £1,000 a year under these changes.

Under these changes, the taper rates that people could get to keep just 7p for every extra £1 they earn, she says.

Lord Cormack, a Conservative, asks Manzoor how the Lib Dems square what they are doing tonight with their opposition to an unelected Lords, and their belief in the primacy of the Commons.

Manzoor says she will address that in her speech later.


Ooooooh.... excitin!

[Kizzy]

Lady Meacher, a crossbencher, is proposing her amendment now. Here is what it says.

to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government lay a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action.”

She says she thought a fatal amendment would be going too far.

MPs are debating the tax credit cuts in the Commons again on Thursday, she says. She says eight Conservative MPs have already indicated that they will oppose the measures in the debate (which is on a backbench motion). That means the government has already lost its majority, she says.

Dammit! Is she really going to trust them to vote against on thurs?... I can't see them doing it, no way would they go against the cabinet. and the PM.

[bots]

if the government want to, they will push this through irrespective of what the lords do, so, in the scheme of things their debate is rather pointless

[arista]

Lady Meacher, a crossbencher, is proposing her amendment now. Here is what it says.

to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government lay a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action.”

She says she thought a fatal amendment would be going too far.

MPs are debating the tax credit cuts in the Commons again on Thursday, she says. She says eight Conservative MPs have already indicated that they will oppose the measures in the debate (which is on a backbench motion). That means the government has already lost its majority, she says.

Dammit! Is she really going to trust them to vote against on thurs?... I can't see them doing it, no way would they go against the cabinet. and the PM.


Its all down to the numbers of Lords voting
is it not


In time for Live Ch4HD News at 7PM tonight
Crick give me the dirty double crossing truth

[Kizzy]

Hollis is now turning to the government’s impact analysis. (See 3.29pm.) It is not an analysis, and it does not look at impact, she says.

:/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/Secondary-Legislation-Scrutiny-Committee/DraftTaxCreditsRegs2015-ImpactAssessment.pdf

[Kizzy]

if the government want to, they will push this through irrespective of what the lords do, so, in the scheme of things their debate is rather pointless

Oh... we should just scrap the whole law making debacle then if the govt can do as they please then?

[bots]

Oh... we should just scrap the whole law making debacle then if the govt can do as they please then?

i'm just saying that the government can, the lords can bounce it back a couple of times, but if the government want it implemented, it will happen. The lords can't block anything, they can merely delay

[Kizzy]

i'm just saying that the government can, the lords can bounce it back a couple of times, but if the government want it implemented, it will happen. The lords can't block anything, they can merely delay

And a fatal motion would mean what in this scenario?...

[bots]

And a fatal motion would mean what in this scenario?...

All the lords can do is delay, nothing more

Parliament Act 1911

The result was the Parliament Act 1911, which removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years. The Act also reduced the maximum lifespan of a Parliament from seven years to five years.

Parliament Act 1949

The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the Lords' delaying powers to one year.

[arista]

if the government want to, they will push this through irrespective of what the lords do, so, in the scheme of things their debate is rather pointless


But the Lords
some members want to stop the Cogs turning
on it.


Its the numbers against it that can Stop it.
not been done for a 100years or something


They are live Online
and the Parliament Ch. on TV
now,
if you can stand their Slowness



Its the Bishops who are the Trouble makers.

[Kizzy]

Live from the lords...
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d2940d3c-9a8e-4348-939f-7bb6dff6d398

[bots]

But the Lords
some members want to stop the Cogs turning
on it.


Its the numbers against it that can Stop it.
not been done for a 100years or something


They are live Online
and the Parliament Ch. on TV
now,
if you can stand their Slowness



Its the Bishops who are the Trouble makers.


Again, i will state that all the lords can do is delay things. The government may change its mind, but if they don't they can push it through eventually no matter what the lords think on it.

[Kizzy]

'APPENDIX 2: DEBATING NEGATIVE INSTRUMENTS

The Procedure Committee recently agreed a new procedure for debating negative statutory instruments (SIs). This Appendix reminds Members of the three options now available for debating negative SIs.

Prayer motion (fatal)

A Member can table a "prayer" against a negative SI. Under the standard negative procedure, the SI is annulled if the prayer motion is agreed by the House within 40 days of the SI being laid. The 40-day clock stops running for recesses of more than four days.
Prayer
Title of SI Baroness X to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the [Regulations/Order], laid before the House on [date], be annulled (SI 2009/xxxx).

The Government Chief Whip endeavours to find time for any Member who tables a prayer in the "Motions relating to delegated legislation" section of the House of Lords Business document and contacts his office with fair notice before the expiry of the 40-day period.'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldmerit/80/8005.htm

[bots]

the government just creates more tory peers, if the lords think they can mess with them

[Kizzy]

They may attempt to yet that tactic might be expected and exposed.

[bots]

They may attempt to yet that tactic might be expected and exposed.

I think the proposed tax credits changes suck, but if the government have the will to push it, they will do it.

[Kizzy]

Well, we shall see.

[arista]

Again, i will state that all the lords can do is delay things. The government may change its mind, but if they don't they can push it through eventually no matter what the lords think on it.


Of Course
slow the cogs up.

[Jay.]

The tax credit cuts will make a massive difference to me and Jay,we get help now ,but come April we will lose it all.I will be looking for a second job.

Exactly, we are in agreement here.

[Kizzy]

Motion to totally reject tax credit cuts defeated by majority of 211

The first amendment, to reject the tax credit cuts for good (the “fatal” one), has been defeated by 310 votes to 99 - a majority of 211.

Well, that was a waste of time wonder what will if anything happen on Thursday.

[MB.]

:facepalm:

[JoshBB]

Kizzy, that was only the libdem version of the amendment. Labour's one and the crossbench ones haven't been voted on yet.

[bots]

Motion to totally reject tax credit cuts defeated by majority of 211

The first amendment, to reject the tax credit cuts for good (the “fatal” one), has been defeated by 310 votes to 99 - a majority of 211.

Well, that was a waste of time wonder what will if anything happen on Thursday.

its all about gentlemen's agreements, so I'm not surprised. I still believe the government would be wise to at least tone down their proposals. If they don't it will haunt them later

[MB.]

Delayed in the House of Lords by 307 votes to 277

[arista]

Delayed in the House of Lords by 307 votes to 277


Yes 30 days delay

[joeysteele]

Osborne will be foolish to brush aside these defeats for this disgraceful measure.

[Kizzy]

Government defeated in Lords on tax credits - Summary and analysis

'George Osborne, the chancellor, has signalled that the government is going to partially back down over tax credits after peers inflicted a double defeat on the government, voting for amendments to delay implementation of the tax credit cuts until ministers have produced a scheme for “full transitional protection” for those who will lose out. (See 7.56pm and 8.54pm.) Osborne said that he “would listen” and that he would respond to the peers’ demands with some sort of transitional arrangements.

He would give details in the autumn statement, he said. At this stage it is not clear quite what he means, or how extensive those transitional arrangements might be, but the new measures will still have to get through parliament and anything less than a substantial package would be likely to fail. The debate showed quite how much opposition there now is in the Conservative party to the current plans. Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor and a figure usually supportive of Osborne, joined those in the Lords saying the tax credit cuts policy needs to be amended. Lawson said the lowest earners needed greater protection.

(See 7.26am.) During the debate Lady Meacher, a crossbencher, claimed that some Tory MPs were now “livid” about the proposals and that the government had lost its majority for them in the Commons. Until now ministers have indicated that they will not abandon the cuts, but that they will introduce alternative measures to mitigate the impact on those who might lose out. Whether that would amount to a U-turn or not is a matter for debate, although experts have said that the only effective way to compensate the losers is to amend the way the cuts will be implemented.'

[kirklancaster]

I was confident of this outcome because these cuts are singularly the biggest faux pas this government has taken thus far.

[Kizzy]

Here is the key quote from George Osborne.

Tonight unelected Labour and Liberal lords have defeated a financial matter passed by the elected House of Commons and David Cameron and I are clear that this raises constitutional issues that need to be dealt with.

However, it has happened and now we must address the consequences of that. I said I would listen and that is precisely what I intend to do. I believe we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to save to secure our economy, while at the same time helping in the transition. That is what I intend to do at the autumn statement. I’m determined to deliver that lower welfare, higher wage economy that we were elected to deliver and that the British people want to see.

They were not elected to deliver this, and the British don't want it.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/10/26/426468/default/v1/telegraph-1-563x750.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/10/26/426477/default/v2/guardian-1-563x750.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/10/26/426481/default/v2/indie-1-442x589.jpg


OK Hog

[joeysteele]

Talked to my Dad about this last night, he reminded me of the past when the Lords repeatedly held up Labour legislation while the Conservatives applauded and supported same in doing so.
He is ashamed of the Conservative party's hypocrisy on this.

Good move by the Lords, this has been probably now held up for 3 years now and if his plans are near in tatters, then Osborne should have been more decent, fair and just in the first place and not try to abuse power.

[bots]

Talked to my Dad about thisl ast night, he reminded me of the past when the Lords repeatedly held up Labour legislation while the Conservatives applauded and supported same in doing so.
He is shammed of the Conservative party's hypocrisy on this.

Good move by the Lords, this has been probably now held up for 3 years now and if his plans are near in tatters, then Osborne should have been more decent, fair and just in the first place and not try to abuse power.

Thing is Joey, there is nothing democratic about the lords, it never has been. Its just a like minded gentlemen's club type of thing. The Tories and Labour have been using and abusing it for years as it takes their fancy.

It needs to be an elected house, then it can actually perform a meaningful function.

On the subject at hand, the tax credits, if the government don't realise by now that its a mistake then they deserve all they get. Its one thing to make a bad judgement call, its another to persist down the same road with head in sand.

[waterhog]

well said bitontheside - it will be interesting to see the proposed changes.

[Kizzy]

Thing is Joey, there is nothing democratic about the lords, it never has been. Its just a like minded gentlemen's club type of thing. The Tories and Labour have been using and abusing it for years as it takes their fancy.

It needs to be an elected house, then it can actually perform a meaningful function.

On the subject at hand, the tax credits, if the government don't realise by now that its a mistake then they deserve all they get. Its one thing to make a bad judgement call, its another to persist down the same road with head in sand.

halving the Lords did that in 1999, 'life peers' can be bought, how democratic is that and how can you elect a judiciary?

[arista]

Talked to my Dad about thisl ast night, he reminded me of the past when the Lords repeatedly held up Labour legislation while the Conservatives applauded and supported same in doing so.
He is shammed of the Conservative party's hypocrisy on this.

Good move by the Lords, this has been probably now held up for 3 years now and if his plans are near in tatters, then Osborne should have been more decent, fair and just in the first place and not try to abuse power.


No Joey
The Poxy Labour Peer Snorting Coke
with Hookers

The Fecking Lords
need to be Dealt With
HARD

[Kizzy]

No Joey
The Poxy Labour Peer Snorting Coke
with Hookers

The Fecking Lords
need to be Dealt With
HARD

Isn't there a pic of George Osborne doing this too?

[arista]

Isn't there a pic of George Osborne doing this too?


I am not interested in his College Days
He is trying to sort our money out.

The House Of Lords will be Hand Cuffed
in some way forward

[Kizzy]

being discussed live now

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/27/tax-credit-cuts-defeat-lords-osborne-grayling-tax-credits-defeat-grayling-says-politics-live

'@JohnmcdonnellMP identified how @George_Osborne will dig out of hole: go for less excessive surplus target, currently £10bn 1/2'

Hang on... the surplus target is 10 billion? So of the 12 billion of cuts he 'needs' to make only 2 billion is to be ploughed back into the economy?

[the truth]

obviously the working tax credits needed revision. this business of only being able to work 15 hours or face losing some benefits is crazy. osbourne failed to find a middle ground. the working tax credit is a great idea for the millions living in poorer areas on low wages. low wages depend on the hourly wage and the hours available.

in many non contract jobs the hours are limited. osbourne must understand the enormous wealth gap between London and the north and wales and n Ireland. the difference is staggering at over £25,000 per person difference in the average gdp per head. that's the difference between the 3rd richest economy per head (London) and wales the poorest per head in Europe.

back to the drawing board George Gideon osbourne

[the truth]

working people need money in their pockets , they are the highest spenders as a proportion of their income and its spending that stimulates an economy. known as the accelator effect. hes already raised vat on the poor so they have less to spend. hes given more to the mega rich and they spend less as a proportion, as most of that goes into savings pensions etc

[Kizzy]

'John Bercow, the Commons speaker, has dismissed suggestions that there was anything inappropriate about the way peers voted to delay the government’s planned tax credit cuts last night. Ministers have argued that this was unconstitutional, and Downing Street is launching a review of relations between the Lords and the Commons. But, in response to points of order about this from several MP, Bercow said that there was “no procedural impropriety”.

[user104658]

Good move by the Lords, this has been probably now held up for 3 years now and if his plans are near in tatters, then Osborne should have been more decent, fair and just in the first place and not try to abuse power.

Exactly. He could probably have gotten away with slightly increasing the taper rate (to go hand in hand with tax threshold increases) and even even perhaps dropping the threshold to what he wanted to for child tax credits, but only for children born after April 2016. I don't think he'd have had any problem getting that through. It also has "transitional protection" built-in.

But he overplayed his hand, was over-confident, under the mistaken belief that the Tories getting into majority government is a sign that people are ready to accept "pretty much anything".

[user104658]

working people need money in their pockets , they are the highest spenders as a proportion of their income and its spending that stimulates an economy. known as the accelator effect. hes already raised vat on the poor so they have less to spend. hes given more to the mega rich and they spend less as a proportion, as most of that goes into savings pensions etc

I've always argued this; people who only have a "reasonable amount" to live on spend what they earn. Spend the bulk on essentials and then whatever's left over on the luxuries that make working life bearable. Money in the hands of normal working people is FAR better for the economy than anything else.

Money that goes to the rich sits in savings for years, goes into global investments, or is simply spent on large one-off luxuries - USUALLY OUT OF THE COUNTRY - or in the UK purchased as a tax write-off. It's dead money.

I maintain that this is a fundamental flaw in much of the discussion regarding benefits as a whole, when it comes down the the statistics and figures. People talk about "X Billion £ in benefits" like that money goes into the accounts of claimants and then magically evapourates never to be seen again. Money doesn't just "disappear". The largest chunk of those X billions spent on benefits is being injected straight back into the active economy as quickly as it's paid into claimants accounts. Compare this to the money being stolen by large corps. through tax avoidance: dead money. It's never spent. They don't even often use it to expand and create jobs. It floats right to the top and into the pockets of people who will simply watch their balances inflate and never actually spend.

[the truth]

osbourne got it wrong on working tax credits....Im not so sure on child tax credits as I don't know exactly what people with children get altogether.....I assume its family allowance, housing benefits and income support? is that right?
its NEVER explained clearly on any show exactly how much people get

found this so far

Child benefit: You should be able to claim £20.30 a week for your first child and £13.40 a week for subsequent children

Single person
Aged 16 to 24 £57.90
Aged 25 or over £73.10
Lone parent
Aged 16 to 17 £57.90
Aged 18 or over £73.10
Couple
With both people under 18 £57.90
With one person under 18 and the other aged 18 to 24 £57.90
With one person under 18 and the other aged 25 or over £73.10
With both people aged 18 or over £114.85

housing benefits

[user104658]

osbourne got it wrong on working tax credits....Im not so sure on child tax credits as I don't know exactly what people with children get altogether.....I assume its family allowance, housing benefits and income support? is that right?
its NEVER explained clearly on any show exactly how much people get

found this so far

Child benefit: You should be able to claim £20.30 a week for your first child and £13.40 a week for subsequent children

Single person
Aged 16 to 24 £57.90
Aged 25 or over £73.10
Lone parent
Aged 16 to 17 £57.90
Aged 18 or over £73.10
Couple
With both people under 18 £57.90
With one person under 18 and the other aged 18 to 24 £57.90
With one person under 18 and the other aged 25 or over £73.10
With both people aged 18 or over £114.85

housing benefits

The only differences between Child Tax Credits and WTC is that you A) Need to have kids to get them and B) still get them (at full rate) even if not working.

Other than that, it was all still going to be subject to the same cuts for working people (increased taper rates, lowered threshold) so actually if you were getting both CTC and WTC and working, your income could drop even MORE with the cuts. i.e. if the drop was enough to take you out of WTC entitlement completely - it would then also start eating into CTC entitlement. It's one of the worst parts, really. Working families were (are, this will still happen eventually) going to be the worst affected.

[DemolitionRed]

John McDonnell said; Can I remind the House, the 3m people out there, who have done everything asked of them, bringing up their children, going to work, this is not a constitutional matter. They will lose £1,300 a year. Given what happened in the other place last night, can I reassure the chancellor that if he brings forward proposals to reverse the cuts to tax credits fairly and in full, he will not be attacked by this side of the House. Indeed he will be applauded. But can he assure us that whatever proposals he brings forward, he will not support any that an independent assessment demonstrates will cause any child to be forced to live below the poverty line.

Osborne responded "I’m of course happy to [listen to] any proposals that he puts forward. But let me make this point; there is a difference between those who say ‘We want to make no savings to welfare at all, we want to abolish things like the benefits cap, we’re not prepared to make savings at all to the tax credit system’; and those who have said, ‘Yes, we do want to move to a lower welfare society, but we want help in the transition.’ Now, if he has proposals to help in the transition, of course I will listen to them. But if he is again promoting uncapped welfare and unlimited borrowing, then I’m afraid I don’t think the British people are going to listen to him."

In other words, Osborne refused to give that assurance.

[joeysteele]

Exactly. He could probably have gotten away with slightly increasing the taper rate (to go hand in hand with tax threshold increases) and even even perhaps dropping the threshold to what he wanted to for child tax credits, but only for children born after April 2016. I don't think he'd have had any problem getting that through. It also has "transitional protection" built-in.

But he overplayed his hand, was over-confident, under the mistaken belief that the Tories getting into majority government is a sign that people are ready to accept "pretty much anything".

I totally agree again TS.

[DemolitionRed]

So what now? Will the government abandon its deficit reduction target or will it start implementing large cuts on public services? It can't touch pensions and it can only make minimal changes to child benefits. The only logical move is to cut spending on public services and that's already at an all time low.

For all those who supported the government deficit targets, they also supported cuts on tax credit and cuts on public services or maybe they just didn't understand how this deficit was going to be paid off.

[bots]

If i were the government, I would reduce the cuts, say that they listened to the people, and then when they don't make their targets, they now have a get out of jail free card ... job done

[DemolitionRed]

Andrew Lloyd Webber flew over from NY to support the tax credit cuts vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/27/andrew-lloyd-webber-tax-credit-cuts-vote_n_8396570.html?1445935617

Despicable man.

[Kizzy]

'The United Nations has launched an investigation into whether welfare cuts have disproportionally hit marginalised groups in Britain such as single parents, ethnic minorities and children.

It follows a separate confidential human rights inquiry by the UN into alleged violations of disability rights following welfare reforms, though this second investigation will be held in public and is more akin to a routine checkup rather than a response to an emergency situation.
The UN’s committee on the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (CESCR) announced on Wednesday that it planned to ask the government how it has “ensured austerity measures ... do not disproportionately affect, in particular, disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and groups”.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/29/un-investigate-impact-welfare-cuts-vulnerable-uk-groups

[DemolitionRed]

Good one Kizzy! thanks for the link.

[the truth]

the tories had the publics backing at first to reduce the breed for benefits culture.....I think they are right to try and amend the whole sorry business of people only working 15 hours a week.,...but to attack the sickest the disabled is farking unforgivable....incidentally this business of the lords...Cameron has put in over 200 new peers and is now getting an unelected peer to investigate why unelected peers should have no powers....the irony is unreal

[Kizzy]

Because he wants a peerage to mean nothing, he has created peers from people he has used to further the conservatives, thanks for the donations here is your cloak.
It could too be argued that he has created a 'Trojan horse', they are plants, as long as they toe the party line they're ok.
If not the govt will do their best to remove them.

[Kizzy]

Just when you think they can't get any lower....

'Thousands of struggling families who have been overpaid tax credits in error could face demands for repayment from private debt collectors.

Louise Haigh, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, has discovered figures in the House of Commons Library showing that 600,000 people received £700m additional tax credits in error in 2013-14. Although this is less than in previous years, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) appointed a private sector contractor last November to chase debts that the tax authority has previously struggled to recoup through its own inspectors.

David Gauke, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, told Ms Haigh this summer that HMRC seeks to “recover all overpayments of tax credits no matter how they have arisen, as they do with all debts”. This means that debt collectors can ultimately go after claimants who have been overpaid through no fault of their own. '

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-credits-private-debt-collectors-to-fetch-back-payments-made-in-error-a6716391.html

[joeysteele]

Just when you think they can't get any lower....

'Thousands of struggling families who have been overpaid tax credits in error could face demands for repayment from private debt collectors.

Louise Haigh, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, has discovered figures in the House of Commons Library showing that 600,000 people received £700m additional tax credits in error in 2013-14. Although this is less than in previous years, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) appointed a private sector contractor last November to chase debts that the tax authority has previously struggled to recoup through its own inspectors.

David Gauke, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, told Ms Haigh this summer that HMRC seeks to “recover all overpayments of tax credits no matter how they have arisen, as they do with all debts”. This means that debt collectors can ultimately go after claimants who have been overpaid through no fault of their own. '

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-credits-private-debt-collectors-to-fetch-back-payments-made-in-error-a6716391.html

They can sink lower Kizzy, just watch them until that slender overall majority finally disappears.
Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[user104658]

Does this mean if people have been underpaid, they can hire debt collectors to recover it?

[Kizzy]

What about this 'tax credit'?

GEORGE OSBORNE insists it is right to cut tax credits for millions of families because the state cannot afford to subsidise the low wages paid by employers – but might the chancellor’s view be distorted by his experience of his family furnishings firm, Osborne & Little Group, of which he owns 15 percent?
The latest annual accounts, filed two weeks ago to Companies House, show that the unnamed highest-paid director – almost certainly his baronet father Sir Peter – enjoyed an inflation-busting 18 percent salary increase to £684,000 from £580,000 a year earlier, despite a flat financial performance. Evidently there is no need for tax credits chez Osborne.
Precisely zero “United Kingdom corporation tax”
Osborne & Little reported a pre-tax profit of £722,000 on turnover of £34m and incurred a corporation tax charge of £179,000. But the accounts for the year to March 2015 show it ended up paying precisely zero “United Kingdom corporation tax” as the company was able to claim for “timing differences” from previous years that offset the £179,000.

In fact, Osborne & Little has not had to pay any UK corporation tax for the last SEVEN years as it has claimed variously for “capital allowances”, “adjustments in respect of prior years” and historic losses – even as the company generated a total of over £200m in sales between April 2008 and March 2015.

Osborne & Little actually received a corporation tax credit of £12,000 in the year to March 2010, and the last time it handed over any corporation tax was for the year ending March 2008. And some wonder why the Treasury’s coffers are running low!'

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1404/hp-sauce]

[DemolitionRed]

That man lives in a parallel universe.

And here is an old video of him advocating tax dodgery! :hehe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/16/george-osborne-how-to-avoid-tax_n_6691256.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[Kizzy]

Lucky basts Scots! TS I think you'll be chuffed!

'Gordon Brown, the Labour former prime minister, has said that amendments tabled by the government to the Scotland bill today mean that “the Vow”, the promise of further devolution to Scotland made by the three main UK parties just before the independence referendum, has now been implemented. In a statement he said:
Major Conservative amendments tabled today to the Scotland bill would mean that, if passed into law, the Smith Commission recommendations - which arose from The Vow, signed by the three main UK party leaders in September 2014 - have now been delivered and Scotland can now develop its own social model, including repealing the Tory tax credit cuts.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/02/kids-company-living-wage-johnson-up-to-940-an-hour-boris-johnson-announces-politics-live#comments

[Kizzy]

U turn?.....

'George Osborne should abandon his planned cuts to tax credits and look for the £4.4bn in revenue elsewhere, according to the Resolution Foundation.

The thinktank was one of the first to warn of the political damage cuts that tax credits could inflict on the chancellor if he pressed ahead with the timetable set out in the summer budget. It has been looking for an alternative way for the cuts to proceed in order to mitigate the effects and has concluded that there is no effective way of simply tweaking the cuts. It instead proposes changes to taxation thresholds and pensions in an attempt to find the £4.4bn.

The foundation warns that phasing in the cuts would still leave 2.7 million families worse off and only shift the burden towards the end of parliament. It also cautions that transitional arrangements such as only imposing the cuts on new tax credit claimants will save very little and will undermine the universal credit scheme by creating perverse incentives to work.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/05/george-osborne-can-find-44bn-without-cutting-tax-credits-says-thinktank