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/b...usinesses.html

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.

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/...-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.

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.

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

They will, Liv, they will.

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/201...research-finds

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.

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?

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.

In a word: no

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:

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.

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

'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.

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

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!

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.

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

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