Normally have not much time for the House of Lords, but pleased with the news tonight, that they have made the right decision about working tax credits. I think if that had gone ahead was have caused a lot of problems, not for me, but for people that work and need help.
Agree, seems utterly unfair to penalise people who work and are doing vital jobs. To make them pay for the deficit that they have not caused. Neither is it the fault of the workers that for many years employers have got away with not paying a decent wage that can feed a family.
I hated the implied suggestion that low paid workers could get a better paid job just like that, now that the economy is (really?) doing so much better. Therefore it must be down to the poorer workers being stupid and staying in their jobs as carers, shop assistants, classroom assistants, caterers, delivery drivers and similar. There have been some hateful comments on the box from the government and from some right wing MPs over the last few days.
And how stupid of all of us not realising that this one was on the cards, given that it was not mentioned before the recent election! It seems utterly strange that of all people the lords seem to have a better grasp on the effects of this than the government, but at least somebody does :wave:
Oh dear this is the sort of topic that will raise so many strong views I hope it does not end up with A4A members falling out !!
This for a start is one of those issues the media like as they can really stir things up and have plenty of time or column inches of content for many days.
If I asked the average tax payer should they subsidise firms to pay the wages of their staff the answer I am sure would be a resounding no.
On the other hand if I asked should we give support to the unemployed to get into work the answer would be yes.
This tax credit system had amongst other ideological principles the object of making people better off working than sitting at home living on benefits and hopefully move up the pay scale so tax credits are no longer needed.
However I personally know of people that have refused a pay rise to keep their tax credits.
So this legislation was meant to tackle firms paying low wages and the tax payer supporting their profits.
When this was announced several major employers came forward and announced pay increases whilst others have recently been fined for paying under the current minimum wage.
Of course things are never simple as increasing wages will eventually mean we will be paying more for goods or services and it will make it harder for firms starting up in certain sectors to survive.
The big question is if this legislation had gone forward as it was set out is would it of forced firms to raise wages quicker?
If there is a transition period will it just delay firms raising wages and allow then to have bigger profits for longer?
And now we yet again come up with the big question regarding the House of Lords........
Looks like they have finally earned their keep.
Not sure why the conservatives want to plunge working families with children back into poverty. It is totally not right that they should bear the brunt of the austerity.
I do think we should have an elected second house, to add a second level of review of policy and so not have an unelected second house.
Not clear though whether people work fewer hours so they can get more tax credits or companies pay less wages because they are topped up so maximising profits at the tax payers expense.
I do know someone who cut their hours and so got more housing benefit and tax credits.
I am not sure that people on the minimum wage have a huge choice. It would be interesting to know how many of them work in the public sector or are connected to the public sector. My daughter is in a care home funded by the local authority who want them to pay the staff as little as possible. So some of the low pay is driven by the government themselves. Problem is the job actually requires more than the minimum commitment and thought processes.
Sadly it's still going to happen- just maybe a bit more slowly than Osbourne wanted!
Surely the ideal way is to encourage extra effort/widen the appeal of committing to fulltime (44hrs) employment for all who can do it. Those who are inclined or only choose , say ,21hours should accept that this is their choice of income level without the supposition that those on 44 hours will subsidise the gentle lifestyle. Government should introduce a level of negative taxation ,by paye , to top up fulltime earnings proportionately to hours, not wage rate ,towards the untaxed personal allowance, which is a moveable level.Therefore those earning 44hours x "minimum wage" should receive more than those doing 22 hours at a higher rate. Taxation must be simplyfied, made fairer and used more cost effectively.
The choice to bring endless offspring into the world should be a personal choice moderated by the means of support of the parents, not a charge upon the rest of us. The other , unacceptable to many, reality is that nobody should be given anything. The assumptions that give rise to the notion of poverty, are subjective and long ago exceeded the basics of decent, self sufficient life support. While everybody will have their aspirations, these must be met by personal effort, not the welfare state.
Not sure that this has made George Osborne very popular. I am sure the money situation is easy when you are a millionaire. This seems to me a bit like let them eat cake.
I agree that people should strive to get full time employment but it is not always possible. Disability and caring can affect the situation. Personally would like to see more done for carers.
I always rather admired Michael Portillo when he took part in a TV programme and tried to live with a family on a minimal income.
The other thing I would like to see is a tax on the cash earners. I see people paying huge sums of cash in shops and have little doubt that much of it has been earned without tax being paid. I know someone who is a landlord and always demands payment in cash. Why?
The problem is that tax revenues are down yet demands for money and services from the tax payer are up. Sources that used to pay loads of tax now yield just a trickle. Big earners evade, small earners work for cash, young people are unemployed or working part time, middle aged people are downshifting, baby boomers are retiring early on their final salary pensions etc etc.
The majority aren't paying much tax these days yet we are still demanding all the tax-funded services we got when there were loads of jobs and everyone was hit with PAYE. It's not really sustainable is it?
QuoteThe problem is that tax revenues are down yet demands for money and services from the tax payer are up.
Sources that used to pay loads of tax now yield just a trickle.
Big earners evade, small earners work for cash, young people are unemployed or working part time, middle aged people are downshifting, baby boomers are retiring early on their final salary pensions etc etc.
The majority aren't paying much tax these days yet we are still demanding all the tax-funded services we got when there were loads of jobs and everyone was hit with PAYE.
It's not really sustainable is it?
Agreed!
QuoteBig earners evade, small earners work for cash
This is the area that should be addressed.
Not that I blame the small earners its the people that pay them that are part of the problem, but then again I guess they may be among the big earners!