Ian Duncan Smith condemns tax credits as 'not fit for purpose'!

[Cyclone]

At the end of the day anyone who works should pay Tax. If the excuses are there to claim tax credits then how can that job be valid ? Think!!!

 

---------- Post added 01-01-2013 at 23:40 ----------

 

 

Max stick to your word. Children do fare better when a parent is there to supervise ! Forget what posters on here suggest ! Some dont seem to be in the position where bringing up kids is paramount ! They think only of earning a living ! At the expense of doing what you should be doing eg Looking after your kids !!! ONLY YOU can bring up your kids properly and YOU are responsible for them

 

Do you not think that earning an income in order to actually have a comfortable life is providing for them?

Kids are at school for the majority of the day after the age of 4, between 2 people with some flexibility, and maybe a grandparent or two, it shouldn't be that difficult to fit working and bringing up children into a household. Indeed, it's the most common form of organising a house now, the old fashioned idea that women should stay at home is dead and buried apart from with a few anachronisms on here.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2013 at 09:57 ----------

 

£42k combined and given credits! Jesus! How the other half live! Kids or not (that was your choice) people struggle on sooo much less who cant get such well paid jobs and dont get benefits which make up to anyway near that. I dont think on that salary you should be getting credits or benefits.

 

Blame the system, not the people who are claiming what the system says they can claim.

 

£250 a month doesn't seem like a huge amount though, it's about equivalent to JSA for one person.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2013 at 09:59 ----------

 

Everyone wants something for nothing so-to-speak, they'd all take out without putting anything in. People who say otherwise are liars and that's the way it is. Get over it.

 

We might all wish that we could have something for nothing, but hopefully most of us are adult to realise that it can't work.

In which case we have to try to make the rules as fair and as sustainable as possible.

[I1L2T3]

The idea that wages/benefits can be topped up by government isn't new. Supplementary Benefit for example was introduced in 1966. The way the top-ups are given out changed when tax credits were introduced. Using the tax system to do it is bonkers, won't argue with that.

 

But whatever way top-ups are given out doesn't change the fact they will still be needed even when UC comes in. Basic living costs for the unemployed and workers alike are still way too high.

[vinyl]

People who generalise are normally a bit dim.

 

Isn't that a bit of a generalisation?

[charlie_boy]

Do you not think that earning an income in order to actually have a comfortable life is providing for them?

Kids are at school for the majority of the day after the age of 4, between 2 people with some flexibility, and maybe a grandparent or two, it shouldn't be that difficult to fit working and bringing up children into a household. Indeed, it's the most common form of organising a house now, the old fashioned idea that women should stay at home is dead and buried apart from with a few anachronisms on here.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2013 at 09:57 ----------

 

 

Blame the system, not the people who are claiming what the system says they can claim.

 

£250 a month doesn't seem like a huge amount though, it's about equivalent to JSA for one person.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2013 at 09:59 ----------

 

 

We might all wish that we could have something for nothing, but hopefully most of us are adult to realise that it can't work.

In which case we have to try to make the rules as fair and as sustainable as possible.

 

To people on £42k £250 a mth isnt a lot. Bit people with hardly anything £250 isnt enough to help them with private rent and all other bills on low wages. They need to not given it to the example above (families on £42k!) and help people who chose a low waged job over jsa!-who cant get high paid jobs) and who arent helped by council or benefits

[Cyclone]

Isn't that a bit of a generalisation?

 

Indeed, it was supposed to be ironic.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2013 at 14:53 ----------

 

To people on £42k £250 a mth isnt a lot. Bit people with hardly anything £250 isnt enough to help them with private rent and all other bills on low wages. They need to not given it to the example above (families on £42k!) and help people who chose a low waged job over jsa!-who cant get high paid jobs) and who arent helped by council or benefits

A dual income family on 42k are earning less than the average wage...

 

CTC is dependent on income isn't it, it's CB (Child Benefit) that was not means tested (but now is I think).

[I1L2T3]

CTC is dependent on income isn't it, it's CB (Child Benefit) that was not means tested (but now is I think).

 

Correct. CTC is means tested and soon CB will be too, for any family with at least one parent earning over £50,000.

 

I'm guessing that means if two parents earn £49,999.99 each they can still get CB on an income of almost £100,000. Like it has been designed to provoke outrage further down the line.

 

My family income is in the top 25% nationally and I have qualms about claiming CB - the government can have it back later in university tuition fees.

 

Back to tax credits though. Need to do more research but somebody at work told me today that when the credits are removed most unemployed people will actually get a yearly rise, small but they will get a rise. Only a small number of families will have their benefits capped. The group that will be hit hardest is the working poor.

 

So, if you get tax credits down and like to look down your nose at the shirkers you might need to revise your attitude because Ian Duncan Smith is going to make your life much more like theirs. And you're helping him do it. Not only Turkeys vote for Christmas it seems.

[Cyclone]

Yeah, I remember the thread about means testing CB at the time and the common feeling that it ought to be household income that was assessed.

[I1L2T3]

Yeah, I remember the thread about means testing CB at the time and the common feeling that it ought to be household income that was assessed.

 

They may be able at some point. They're getting the technology ready to do real-time income tracking for universal credit. Looks like a dog's dinner though:

 

http://www.payrollworld.com/article/14692/magazine/staggering-number-of-rti-hashes-not-matching-despite-hmrc-claims

 

If I'm reading this correctly the system has to integrate with any bank that wages can be paid into, and every employer has to provide PAYE information in real-time to HMRC.

 

That's potentially hundreds of thousands of integrations to achieve as businesses with 10+ employees will have to use RTI-capable commercial payroll software. Plus extra work for smaller businesses to regularly provide PAYE info through a HMRC portal.

 

Banks then have to feed in BACS data and that is linked up to PAYE information provided by employers.

 

There you have it - universal credit is an attempt at integrating millions of employer systems, the banks, HMRC systems and quite possibly many other government systems, all in real-time.

 

It is cast-iron guaranteed not to work properly for quite some time after it is implemented. It may never fully work at all.

[L00b]

Yeah, I remember the thread about means testing CB at the time and the common feeling that it ought to be household income that was assessed.

This is the French income tax system, and the very reason why Hollande's 75% tax (incorrectly designed to apply to individual income) was ruled unconstitutional last weekend.

[Cyclone]

This is the French income tax system, and the very reason why Hollande's 75% tax (incorrectly designed to apply to individual income) was ruled unconstitutional last weekend.

 

I was only talking about means testing a household benefit (CB), not making income tax a household tax.