[the truth]

the argument for keeping them

millions of low paying jobs means you need tax credits to top up the low wages to earn a living wage, it acts as in incentive and a bridge to get off benefits and into work.,,,,if youre offered a job only earning say £200 a week, people wont risk coming off benefits to earn £200 a week. so they stay on benefits with housing benefits

the argument against keeping them

4 billion of tax payers money , we allegedly need to cut back these payments to pay off our trillion pound public debts...this 4 billion will reduce our debts and the interest on our debts. but who is this money owed to?
the fact is more people are being kicked off benefits and will have to work to survive....3000+ who were recently taken off incapacity have died within weeks and this ditn make the bbc headlines?

ive often wondered what happens to long term unemployed in other countries and in America?

the tories claim the rise in living wage and the fall in tax credits and benefits, will raise people out of poverty put more money in peoples pockets and grow the economy.

how do you see this argeument? for or against?

[user104658]

They are required for as long as there is a gulf between the cost of living and the wages that are on offer. As things stand right now, without help, someone working full-time (with overtime) in a low-wage job can barely pay rent and utilities let alone live any reasonable sort of life. That situation, is unworkable. There's no justification for it. It's like saying "If you want a good quality of life, work hard! Oh, you ARE working hard and it's still impossible? Oh... well... never mind."

Now, in THEORY, I am all for increased wages / reduced income tax and N.I rather than tax credits, IF those increases result in an overall income that is the same as or better than what would be achieved with pay + tax credits. This is for several reasons. One is that it's better, if at all possible, to avoid having to rely on the government for support simply because there is a constant risk that they will sanction you, **** you over, or decide that you've accidentally had to much and send you a bill claiming it back. The second is for finance reasons; if your overall income is £18k and that's £12k pay and £6k working tax credits, you can realistically expect to get a mortgage of no more than around £50,000. If your income is exactly the same, £18000, but all of it is wages then you could push for £75,000+.

So yeah - basically an ideal world would be one where the wages on offer mean that Tax Credits are not required for working people. But we do not live in an ideal world, and removing them simply means a country where people work their fingers to the bone but still live in relative poverty. I don't see why anyone would want that. When someone is working hard then it's only right that they have a passable quality of life.

The proposed Tory cuts also do not reflect what I've said above - the cuts in tax credits, even with minimum wage increases factored in, result in a net loss of over £100 a month for many working families. Money that many just don't have.

[kirklancaster]

I have not the neccessary time at present to fully respond Truth on an excellent question, but I will say this;

No one on Benefits - no matter what reason - should EVER receive more income than someone who works for a living.

Whether we 'raise the bridge' or 'lower the water' is irrelevant as far as I am concerned, just as long as a disparity is established and maintained. It is OVERDUE.

[Kizzy]

This is what is causing the new social divide, those who are working but still welfare dependent. Why is the threshold before paying tax ever higher and this seen as a good thing? That means that there are less tax payers so the burden on those who do pay tax is greater... they then become resentful towards those on lower incomes as they are not contributing, this is the modern day 'us and them'.
Everyday people with families doing everyday jobs that keep the UK ticking but ultimately 'unskilled' therefore low paid, these 'top ups' from WTC should arguably come from employers and maybe this is where the new minimum wage comes into play to reduce the burden on govt?

[bots]

there are loads of anomalies in these systems, that must end up being more costly because of the effort required in administering them. The same thing applies in things like prescription charges. The only people that pay prescription charges are those that fund everyone else to get it for free, so why not just raise that tax element a little bit more and make it free for everyone. An entire level of administration gone in a single swipe.

Similarly tax credits. Make sure that everyone has a basic level of subsistence by raising taxes slightly, and remove another over complicated and ultimately unnecessary system.

[the truth]

in the short to medium term. people will simply be too scared to get off benefits ..then again as it stands many people can only work 15 hours and get tax credit top ups...if they work more they start losing benefits ....so were kind of stuck atm