George Osbourne Planning Tax credit cuts: Fair?

[spilldig]

that's called benefit fraud. Nothing to do with legitimately claiming WTC.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 10:59 ----------

 

 

It's just so damn complicated.

Wouldnt it be much simpler to have a living wage and child care provision and remove WTC / CTC entirely.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 11:06 ----------

 

 

according to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/working-tax-credit#who-qualifies-for-working-tax-credit

 

it's only single people with children, couples with children, disabled and 60+ that work 16 hours.

for single people aged 25-59 it's 30 hours.

 

I guess if you have children, you possibly need the extra time spare?

 

I'd also say the reason you will get that answer at ASDA is because over 90% of the workforce is on minimum wage.

 

If ASDA simply paid a living wage, it would remove the need to play the system and encourage workers to take more hours.

I agree. It is benefit fraud, and it was the stupid system that allowed it. If he had been taxed as he should,solely on his income. No fraud. No complicated system.

[I1L2T3]

Having taken a break from commenting on this to try and digest exactly what is going on I have to say this is one of the most disgusting, opportunistic and depressing political episodes I can remember. We have the spectacle of

 

1. A PM who doesn't understand what policies he is trying to get implemented, brutally exposed for it by a less than spectatular opposite number at PMQs

 

2. A Labour front bench who basically detest the idea of the (unelected) Lords using the Lords to break parliamentary convention to defeat the government. Not sure if this is an act of stupidity or genius by them yet.

 

3. The Tory party who actually like the idea of an unelected Lords (let's face it they would get all the hereditary naturally Tory-supporting peers that are still alive back into the Lords if they could) promoting the idea of an unelected Lords as a bad thing just because it suits them to use that argument now.

 

4. The Tories trying once again to rush in policy that is not joined-up, not properly costed and could be interpreted as vindictive. Bedroom Tax Part 2.

 

5. The depressing sight of the parties once again diverging on welfare. To his credit IDS does have ideas that in theory should bring the parties closer together if implemented properly, but we have the depressing sight of Labour using welfare as a flashpoint again.

 

Terrible times really.

[Alan Ladd]

Controversial Al, care to explain?

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 16:38 ----------

 

 

youre dreaming. I work on a 1000% mark up.

what must tesco etc work on? 4000%?

 

The better companies will survive nicely. Profits are unpaid wages.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 16:38 ----------

 

 

youre dreaming. I work on a 1000% mark up.

what must tesco etc work on? 4000%?

 

The better companies will survive nicely. Profits are unpaid wages.

 

The average level of inflation over the last ten years is tiny compared to the previous 10, 20 30 40 or 50.

 

The "danger" is deflation.

[Cyclone]

I don't agree with David Cameron on all that much, but he's just got it right on

PMs questions, "the bill was defeated by an alliance of the unelected and the unelectable."

 

The conservatives have been happy enough with how the Lords work in the past...

Just happens to be this time that they're not getting the free ride they'd like, and suddenly it's "unconstitutional" for the Lords to do exactly what they are supposed to do.

[I1L2T3]

The conservatives have been happy enough with how the Lords work in the past...

Just happens to be this time that they're not getting the free ride they'd like, and suddenly it's "unconstitutional" for the Lords to do exactly what they are supposed to do.

 

Spot on. It's sheer hypocrisy.

 

I'm wondering if Labour and the LibDems have laid a trap for the Tories. Corbyn and McDonnell make no secret of their disdain for the unelected nature of the Lords. Now they've got Cameron singing from the same hymn sheet, in public at least.

 

Cameron should have stuck to the line about convention being broken and should not have mentioned the Lords being unelected. Could have let a rather nasty genie out of the bottle there because Tory instinct would be to reverse the Lords reforms since 1999 in an instant if they could. Basically exactly the opposite of what Cameron has just said.

[999tigger]

Having taken a break from commenting on this to try and digest exactly what is going on I have to say this is one of the most disgusting, opportunistic and depressing political episodes I can remember. We have the spectacle of

 

1. A PM who doesn't understand what policies he is trying to get implemented, brutally exposed for it by a less than spectatular opposite number at PMQs

 

2. A Labour front bench who basically detest the idea of the (unelected) Lords using the Lords to break parliamentary convention to defeat the government. Not sure if this is an act of stupidity or genius by them yet.

 

3. The Tory party who actually like the idea of an unelected Lords (let's face it they would get all the hereditary naturally Tory-supporting peers that are still alive back into the Lords if they could) promoting the idea of an unelected Lords as a bad thing just because it suits them to use that argument now.

 

4. The Tories trying once again to rush in policy that is not joined-up, not properly costed and could be interpreted as vindictive. Bedroom Tax Part 2.

 

5. The depressing sight of the parties once again diverging on welfare. To his credit IDS does have ideas that in theory should bring the parties closer together if implemented properly, but we have the depressing sight of Labour using welfare as a flashpoint again.

 

Terrible times really.

 

I cant see why you are so surprised. It is just politics and one party implementing a policy they were elected for . It doesnt really have to be joined up because it wont affect them much. Iy would be the same if the roles were reversed.

 

Welfare is always a flashpoint because it defines one of the fundamental differences between the parties. I cant see how they have any choice but to defend the people they think are some of their core followers?

 

 

Do you mean IDS and Universal credit? Its taking him a long time to implement. Will it be completed during this parliament?

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 12:36 ----------

 

The conservatives have been happy enough with how the Lords work in the past...

Just happens to be this time that they're not getting the free ride they'd like, and suddenly it's "unconstitutional" for the Lords to do exactly what they are supposed to do.

 

Correct except it was about a finance bill, which is new ground. Politicians are hypocrites quelle surprise.

[truman]

 

 

 

No. I agree with Cyclone on this point. You seem to think its all workers. Although they are important, other aspects are the shareholders via the business putting their capital at risk, which creates the opportunity to make profit..

 

OK I may be being a bit stupid here but,apart from the initial investment(s) at the beginning of a company how does a share holders money help a company? Hypothetically I hold 200 Tesco shares..I sell them..all the proceeds go to me,Tesco won't get anything from my sale..surely only I and my stockbroker will see anything from this transaction? Unless a company issues further shares of course...but wouldn't that water down the value of the existing ones?

[999tigger]

I agree. It is benefit fraud, and it was the stupid system that allowed it. If he had been taxed as he should,solely on his income. No fraud. No complicated system.

 

You don't think tax fraud happens?

[I1L2T3]

I cant see why you are so surprised. It is just politics and one party implementing a policy they were elected for . It doesnt really have to be joined up because it wont affect them much. Iy would be the same if the roles were reversed.

 

Welfare is always a flashpoint because it defines one of the fundamental differences between the parties. I cant see how they have any choice but to defend the people they think are some of their core followers?

 

 

Do you mean IDS and Universal credit? Its taking him a long time to implement. Will it be completed during this parliament?

 

Did I say I was surprised?

 

UC is a terrible deeply flawed implementation of a basically good idea: simplification of the benefits system.

 

So I don't mean UC but rather the concept behind it.

 

Tax credits reform is overdue and much needed. I 100% back the need for it but I can't support the Tory implementation of the reform, nor for that matter Labour's alternatives.

 

And it follows that I support the basic ideas that are driving IDS's (and the Treasury) plans I can't imagine worse implementations of what has been put forward. And I'm severely disappointed with the opposition's response.

[999tigger]

OK I may be being a bit stupid here but,apart from the initial investment(s) at the beginning of a company how does a share holders money help a company? Hypothetically I hold 200 Tesco shares..I sell them..all the proceeds go to me,Tesco won't get anything from my sale..surely only I and my stockbroker will see anything from this transaction? Unless a company issues further shares of course...but wouldn't that water down the value of the existing ones?

 

1. The value is in them having the money you invested in the shares for the time you had them, lets say ten years. During that time the company could have invested that money to open new stores and increased sales. Lets say during those ten years it opened ten stores. Without your initial loan of money it could not have done that. It may also have generated profits and assests which add to its balance sheet making the company more valuable.

 

2. So when you sell your shares you get your money back,someone buys your shares for what they think they are worth. The risk you take is that during that time an unsuccessful company could have lost money and your shares could lose value or become worthless. The new shareholders take your place. When a company gets mature then the initial share investment becomes insignificant and a company develops its own assets and will be considered string enough to be given loans in its own right. Thats because the ongoing business is worth money in excess of the original investment.

 

3. The advantage of shareholders funds is its cheap money which doesnt command interest and is paid back through the price of the share. There are advantages and disadvantages to how a company will finance itself, but they normally use a mixture of bank loans, debentures and shares. As you said if a company creates more shares it will weaken the price becayse its splitting its value between more shareholders, just as if it buys back shares it will mean fewer owners.

 

Apple was started on $250,000 seed money in 1977, its now worth more than $1 trillion

and has $203 billion in a cash warchest.

 

If toy had invested $990 on Apple's initial public offering (IPO) date on Dec. 12, 1980 would have generated over $300,000 after stock splits and excluding dividends.