[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

[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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

We all know why you don't like drowning Livia.

... A Bloodless death.



Also from the chatter I'm hearing now, there apparently will be cuts to working tax credits, namely the lower limit for getting maximum (basically halved) and the rate at which it scales. Which is a bit of a mess, really, completely undermines the whole "making work pay" mantra. It depends how quickly they bring it in I suppose. If it's hand in hand with wage increases then it won't affect people too much (though will nullify the benefit of increased pay...) but if WTC is cut before wages increase, then full-time-low-pay families will be losing hundreds per month that they really can't afford.

Yeah, I see all that. I think it's right though, to increase wages to save the government - and by government, I mean the taxpayer - subsidising companies many of whom make large profits and yet pay minimum wage. It can't go on because it's not sustainable.

I think this has been a good budget for Osborne.

[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.

[Toy Soldier]

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

[reece(:]

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

[Marsh.]

****ing scum!


That is all.

[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

[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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

****ing scum!


That is all.

Work Hard

Never Give Up

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Toy Soldier]

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.

[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

[Toy Soldier]

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.

[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 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

[Toy Soldier]

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

[Kizzy]

I wonder how all the tory voters with more than two kids and a low paid job are feeling now? Especially if they own their own home.

Here's a budget calculator, who's better/worse off?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946

Huff post say it best... Despicable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mark...b_7759984.html

[arista]

If they are twins
they are not under the cut