[user104658]

The changes to WTC if they're accurate are a disaster for working families, it's not "great" at all and it's certainly not targeting those who aren't willing to work.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The changes to WTC if they're accurate are a disaster for working families, it's not "great" at all and it's certainly not targeting those who aren't willing to work.

How do you target people not willing to work? According to many posts on this forum, those people simply don't exist.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

How do you target people not willing to work? According to many posts on this forum, those people simply don't exist.

Nice try at a diversion, but they are targeting people who are actually working full time with this one. So now it's not just a case of "you must be working or you're scrounging scum", but also "even if you are working, if it's not a high paying job you're still scrounging scum".

[the truth]

Originally Posted by toy soldier

nice try at a diversion, but they are targeting people who are actually working full time with this one. So now it's not just a case of "you must be working or you're scrounging scum", but also "even if you are working, if it's not a high paying job you're still scrounging scum".

are you referring to work tax credits

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nice try at a diversion, but they are targeting people who are actually working full time with this one. So now it's not just a case of "you must be working or you're scrounging scum", but also "even if you are working, if it's not a high paying job you're still scrounging scum".

I wasn't trying to be diversionary. It is true that the suggestion that there are people out there living on welfare who just don't have any intention of getting a job and have chosen benefits as a lifestyle, has been flatly refuted on this forum many times. Even though the sad fact is that there are lots and lots of people too comfortable sitting on their arse spending my tax.

They're targeting people who are working, yes. They're saying that after 2017 they will not pay you to have more than 2 children. That seems fair to me. If you want more kids, pay for them yourself. They're also telling employers that they have to pay their workers a living wage and not have them subsidised by the tax payer. Sounds fair enough to me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

are you referring to work tax credits

Yes, I was wrong when I said they're not affected because I missed it buried in the rest of the budget, most people seem to have missed it because of how it's phrased and because they don't know what it actually means...

Originally Posted by Livia

They're targeting people who are working, yes. They're saying that after 2017 they will not pay you to have more than 2 children. That seems fair to me. If you want more kids, pay for them yourself. They're also telling employers that they have to pay their workers a living wage and not have them subsidised by the tax payer. Sounds fair enough to me.

I'm not talking about Child Tax Credits or the cap for the number of children, I'm specifically talking about this, which I (and most people) seem to have missed on first glance at the budget:

"Income threshold for tax credits to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850"

Essentially, how this works is that you have a "maximum allowance" for WTC. Currently, for every £1 you earn above £6,420 you deduct 41p from what you actually get. That is being changed to £3,850.

An illustrative example for someone earning £13000, assuming a maximum WTC of £4500 a year (rough figures for full time minimum wage):

Current: [4500 - (12000 - 6420) x 0.41] = £2212.20 annual WTC

New budget: [4500 - (12000 - 3850) x 0.41] = £1158.50 annual WTC

A reduction of £1053.70 annually, just under £90 a month. For the lowest income people who are going out and working full time. Great work George. Slipped that one in there without anyone really noticing.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes, I was wrong when I said they're not affected because I missed it buried in the rest of the budget, most people seem to have missed it because of how it's phrased and because they don't know what it actually means...



I'm not talking about Child Tax Credits or the cap for the number of children, I'm specifically talking about this, which I (and most people) seem to have missed on first glance at the budget:

"Income threshold for tax credits to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850"

Essentially, how this works is that you have a "maximum allowance" for WTC. Currently, for every £1 you earn above £6,420 you deduct 41p from what you actually get. That is being changed to £3,850.

An illustrative example for someone earning £13000, assuming a maximum WTC of £4500 a year (rough figures for full time minimum wage):

Current: [4500 - (12000 - 6420) x 0.41] = £2212.20 annual WTC

New budget: [4500 - (12000 - 3850) x 0.41] = £1158.50 annual WTC

A reduction of £1053.70 annually, just under £90 a month. For the lowest income people who are going out and working full time. Great work George. Slipped that one in there without anyone really noticing.

SCRATCH THIS EXAMPLE

I have also just noticed that even further buried in the plans, the taper rate is being changed from 41p in the £1 to 48p in the £1. That changes the scenario to the following:


An illustrative example for someone earning £13000, assuming a maximum WTC of £4500 a year (rough figures for full time minimum wage):

Current: [4500 - (12000 - 6420) x 0.41] = £2212.20 annual WTC

New budget: [4500 - (12000 - 3850) x 0.48] = £588 annual WTC

A reduction of £1624.20 annually, just over £135 a month

For WORKING families on low wages. To whom £135 a month is a lot of money. They are 100% targetting low wage working people more than anyone else, and they are burying it under a pile of rhetoric for those of us with our eyes open to dig out. Not holding my breath for this to actually be properly reported anywhere.