[arista]

"Quite a bit of this budget is in line with Labours position in the election."

Yes some of it, Joey.
but Ed Miliband was a terrible leader
hated more than Michael Foot

[arista]

This is a Great Budget TS

You can have 2 kids
and get child benefit.


But for any having 3 kids
NO.


Very Fair

You must budget your Life ahead
and not have loads of kids to get benefits.
Not all are doing that, But some are

[arista]

At the Bentley Factory in Coventry
they like the budget


Ref: SkyNewsHD

[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.

[reece(:]

BYE at the maintenance grant axing. Their snubbing of the poor is more evident than ever.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by reece(:

bye at the maintenance grant axing. Their snubbing of the poor is more evident than ever.

that does seem reeally bad, how much is the interest on these loans compared to grants

[MTVN]

I don't have an issue with the maintenance grant going really. Poorer students are going to be having more money from these loans helping with their cost of living which the grants were often inadequate for. Yes you'll have to pay it back but then you're going to be a graduate, you will earn more on average to make it worth it and I do actually agree with Osborne that it's fairer for the graduate to pay back that loan rather than the taxpayer who will often be earning less than them.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I don't have an issue with the maintenance grant going really. Poorer students are going to be having more money from these loans helping with their cost of living which the grants were often inadequate for. Yes you'll have to pay it back but then you're going to be a graduate, you will earn more on average to make it worth it and I do actually agree with Osborne that it's fairer for the graduate to pay back that loan rather than the taxpayer who will often be earning less than them.

It does seem fairer. However, I think that education should be free for home students who should be offered a full grant if they get the grades to go to uni. Labour should never have introduced fees and the Tories should never have raised them.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I don't have an issue with the maintenance grant going really. Poorer students are going to be having more money from these loans helping with their cost of living which the grants were often inadequate for. Yes you'll have to pay it back but then you're going to be a graduate, you will earn more on average to make it worth it and I do actually agree with Osborne that it's fairer for the graduate to pay back that loan rather than the taxpayer who will often be earning less than them.

Ah it's ok you saying that now your uni education is over, it's those who either had free or very low debt that begrudge anyone else been given a hand up it seems which is quite sad.
Is it another example of 'I'm alright jack?' I have my degree and my decent job so screw you...
Anyone from a low income family can expect to leave uni with a degree and a debt of £51,000 now.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ah it's ok you saying that now your uni education is over, it's those who either had free or very low debt that begrudge anyone else been given a hand up it seems which is quite sad.
Is it another example of 'I'm alright jack?' I have my degree and my decent job so screw you...
Anyone from a low income family can expect to leave uni with a degree and a debt of £51,000 now.

Indeed, it's a hell of a lot of money to be paying back even for a graduate who gets a good job. Even if they commit to paying back £3000 a year it's going to take them until they're at least in their mid 40's.

And that, of course, is if we're in bizarro-land where every graduate has above average earnings or even any sort of graduate career at all. Many will simply have that debt sitting gathering interest forever, or be paying it at a low rate every single month until they retire.

The alternative being to create a drone workforce "race to the bottom" society where only a few privileged people bother with higher education at all.

I just hope that tuition remains free in Scotland for at least another 15 to 20 years, I would be utterly horrified to see my kids saddled with that sort of debt.

My own student debt is depressing enough, still sat at around £12000 and chipping at my payslip every month. I can't imagine being saddled with four times that, or more.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ah it's ok you saying that now your uni education is over, it's those who either had free or very low debt that begrudge anyone else been given a hand up it seems which is quite sad.
Is it another example of 'I'm alright jack?' I have my degree and my decent job so screw you...
Anyone from a low income family can expect to leave uni with a degree and a debt of £51,000 now.

Indeed, it's a hell of a lot of money to be paying back even for a graduate who gets a good job. Even if they commit to paying back £3000 a year it's going to take them until they're at least in their mid 40's.

And that, of course, is if we're in bizarro-land where every graduate has above average earnings or even any sort of graduate career at all. Many will simply have that debt sitting gathering interest forever, or be paying it at a low rate every single month until they retire.

The alternative being to create a drone workforce "race to the bottom" society where only a few privileged people bother with higher education at all.

I just hope that tuition remains free in Scotland for at least another 15 to 20 years, I would be utterly horrified to see my kids saddled with that sort of debt.

My own student debt is depressing enough, still sat at around £12000 and chipping at my payslip every month. I can't imagine being saddled with four times that, or more.

[Marsh.]

****ing scum!


That is all.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

****ing scum!


That is all.

Work Hard

Never Give Up

[the truth]

as long as those loan rates aren't too steep. plus what happens to kids who fall out of the degree course get sick or get a poor grade pass? they may not be on big wages and will owe a fortune in loans? lot of pressure that on young people trying to better themselves

[Livia]

Originally Posted by the truth

as long as those loan rates aren't too steep. plus what happens to kids who fall out of the degree course get sick or get a poor grade pass? they may not be on big wages and will owe a fortune in loans? lot of pressure that on young people trying to better themselves

I think I'm right in saying that you don't have to pay them back until your salary reaches a certain threshold.

[JoshBB]

The maintenance grant switch to a maintenance loan is a stupid idea, bad for social mobility.

Raising the personal allowance to £11,000 a good idea, although with inflation it is probably not that much different at all.

Introducing a benefit cap, awful.. this will put families on benefits in huge poverty.

And the £37bn further cuts are likely to obliterate our welfare state.. I honestly don't see how they can even cut it further than they have without uproar tbh

[user104658]

tl;dr

Households classed as "The Working Poor", with children (any number, one or more), will be between £100 and £150 a month worse off. I haven't been able to find any scenario where this is not the case. It's a ****ing disgrace no matter which way you paint it. They have decided to take a huge chunk of the budget deficit from the worst off people. Not the junkies or "dole scum" - but the poorest people who are still working full-time.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

tl;dr

Households classed as "The Working Poor", with children (any number, one or more), will be between £100 and £150 a month worse off. I haven't been able to find any scenario where this is not the case. It's a ****ing disgrace no matter which way you paint it. They have decided to take a huge chunk of the budget deficit from the worst off people. Not the junkies or "dole scum" - but the poorest people who are still working full-time.

the limit on people breeding for benefits being reduced is great...but the reduction of working tax credits is a bit of a mystery especially in poorer areas where the economies are light years different to london

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

the limit on people breeding for benefits being reduced is great...but the reduction of working tax credits is a bit of a mystery especially in poorer areas where the economies are light years different to london

It's absolutely mad. It's one of the only parts of the budget that's bad, which is surprising, but it's SO bad when you really look into it that it manages to make up for that all by itself. It affects working families but it gets worse - depending on variables, it will cost working single mothers £100+ a month?? People who are doing what they are constantly being told is the "right thing" by going out to work and yet they are still punished.

The Tories have tried to sidestep people criticising it by pointing at their "£9 living wage" promise, and that would ALMOST be ok (almost, people would still be worse off) *if* the tax credit cuts were being phased in hand-in-hand with wage increases, but they're not. £9 min wage. Great. In 2020. Tax credits is being slashed as of 2016, a full four years earlier, and you can guarantee that they'll have chipped away more of it by the time 2020 rolls around, which combined with inflation, will leave the £9 "living wage" a laughable, paltry minimum wage as ever - and that's IF the £9 wage actually materialises. I have a suspicion that it won't. It's a joke... it's all smoke and mirrors.

[the truth]

lots of people wil be given self employed work to negate minimum wage