It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tax Credit Cuts Delayed As Govt Defeated

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Well now, the House of Lords have voted to delay the cuts to Tax Credits, having debated for a large chunk of the day, on what was the right thing to do here.

They have voted with a conscience and to be honest, I always thought the House of Lords was a complete waste of time. This is the first time since 1909, that the Lords have voted against the elected Government of the day. However, this could now have repercussions for the Lords.

The Tories have threatened with installing more Conservative Lords in future, in order to ensure that there is no repeat of this. Will they now go ahead with the threat?

In my opinion, Tax Credits need to be removed,as in all reality, it is subsidising employers. However, whilst I agree with the sentiments, we need to ensure that workers are fairly remunerated before removing their Tax Credits.

No one should be worse off financially if they are working 16+ hours per week, than they are in receipt of welfare. Unfortunately many families would be worse off for the next two to three years, before the so called living wage will be payable at a hourly rate of £9.

Cameron stated in the BBC debate, just prior to the General Election, that Tax Credits would not be affected by the £12 Billion savings they were looking to make from the welfare budget.

Cameron and Osborne should be ashamed of their actions relating to this particular decision. The party of the working man? Yeah, of course.

news.sky.com...




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

The problem stems back to Thatchers removal of the legally binding index link between inflation and wages, wages fell as a result but she could not touch the link to benefits as they had to keep pace with the COST of living so that poorest whom were dependant upon them could actually survive (unlike NOW).

Over the past thirty years wages have in real terms fallen to about only a third of what they were for the lowest earners and that is being optimisic as in real term's the gulf is probably higher than that but at the same time wage inequality has grown with management and especially upper management gaining wage rises that have far outstripped the rate of inflation over that period, in some cases by several hundred percent as we know.

Tax credits was Tory Light's (New Labour) answer to the growing inequality as they strived to appear to be still the friend of the people and it worked for many family's, in fact is became essential due to the widening disparity between wage rise and inflation.

Over the past thiry years Tax's have been implemented that these government's called fair when in fact they were anything but and these have consolidated an increase in Taxation to the poorest while reducing taxation over that period on the wealthiest, something that took three times as long to do in the US and they are far more right wing biased than we are.

The paltry removal of the taxation from those whom earn very low wages is a mockery as the government is simply playing the old Roman game of throw the denarii to the starving crowd of plebians, they will recoup that tax and more by increasing tax on charges (which unfairly burdens' the poorest even more), energy bill's and other thing's so that even if they pay less or no income tax these poorest earners will still end up paying more tax overall by the end of the Tory governments current term in office and a higher percentage of there earnings will still end up going on tax but it will be hidden tax.

Even most Tory Lord's realise that what the Evil little twits whom now run there party are doing is creating a void there party will likely never recover from, they know the public are not half as thick as these same Twit's think we are and that there thinly veiled and fraudulant as well as illegal methods of discriminating against the poorest votors by making it virtually impossible for them to vote under the guise of So called electoral reform is also going to come back to bite them on the arse very hard indeed.

But even in the house of Lord's that is made up of mainly former politicians there are some whom are simply out of touch or else just plain inhumanely evil, hence the fact nearly half of them voted in favour of the Tory's awful and quite franky utterly evil and unnecesary policy.

Thank God some of the Lord's at least are in part 'at least' Decent unlike the lower house.

edit on 26-10-2015 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Lets see

Cameron/Osboune get shown to be lying sociopathic scum-bags that they are.

Badly thought out tax credit reform gets kicked into touch (at least for while)

Constitutional reform gets put back on the agenda.

Yep really is a win-win-win result. At least until the Osborne just goes ahead with the cuts anyway.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
No one should be worse off financially if they are working 16+ hours per week, than they are in receipt of welfare.


Your country should reduce its amount paid by welfare, then.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
No one should be worse off financially if they are working 16+ hours per week, than they are in receipt of welfare.


Your country should reduce its amount paid by welfare, then.


Because its better to make more people poor than more people better off?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

No, because it's best to give people a reason to get off their ass and work for it.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ScepticScot

No, because it's best to give people a reason to get off their ass and work for it.

You think most people on welfare are on it because they are lazy?
However I do agree that that work should pay more than welfare, I just happen to think having higher wages is a better way of achieving this than by punishing people on welfare the vast majority of whom are certainly not on it by choice.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6 tax credits are all part of the welfare bill, the biggest welfare cost is pensions( which is classed as welfare)which would be political suicide to cut.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I do not know how it is where you are, but the vast majority of the reason that there are many unemployed here in the UK, has to do with how few jobs there are knocking about. Also, tax credits are payable to people who are IN work, to supplement their earnings, because it is understood that too few jobs pay a wage that even the most hard working and frugal person could manage to live on without assistance. Rents are too high, food too expensive, wages too low, energy costs too high, and so on.

Yes, wages should be higher, and prices on everything from the gas that runs our ovens, to the electricity which powers our lighting, from the food we put in our mouths, to the fuel we put in our cars should be lower. But refusing to deal with the situation as it actually IS will see millions suffer. That is not acceptable. The £9.00 minimum wage will be utterly insufficient to make a positive difference to peoples lives, by the time it comes in, because prices are just going up on virtually everything, and that minimum wage will not track with inflation, which kicks the can down the road, and means that there will be no nett effect.

Its a bloody shell game.

In any case, unless wages go up to the point where someone in employment cannot find themselves destitute except by their own foolishness (which most certainly is not the situation in this country now, I can assure you) then some government assistance will HAVE to make up the difference, or this entire nation will fail as a state. Those are the stakes. Pulling the rug out from under hard working people does not create and maintain stability or security for the nation, and instead promotes its decay and speeds its destruction.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
No one should be worse off financially if they are working 16+ hours per week, than they are in receipt of welfare.


Your country should reduce its amount paid by welfare, then.


And then with the high costs of living in the UK many vulnerable people will find themselves starving



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
You mean people like this? www.independent.co.uk...

OR do you mean the lazy people in the steel industry where whole communities are going to break down because that is the industry they rely on uk.reuters.com...

This rule was actually bought in to deal with the growing number of people who have more than 2 children and expect the state to pay for each and every one of them. People like thislikewww.telegraph.co.uk... to: burdman30ott6

and to stop people from poorer countries in the EU coming here to work because the in work benefits are so high
www.express.co.uk...

This is one of the big reasons why a lot of people in the UK want to renegotiate our relationship with the EU or leave. Its madness. The EU was fine when all the Countries were on an equal footing, but once poorer Countries like Poland started to join it became imbalanced. Obviously, we here in the UK would be able to go over to Poland and claim benefits but those benefits are nothing like what Polish people receive here. One of my closest friends is Polish, she came here 8 years ago, she said wages in Poland are terrible. Her mum works 60 hours a week and receives about £200 a month. My friend says sometimes she feels ashamed of her fellow man because some do come here to just claim all they can because of our generous benefits system.

Then we have our own Brits who just completely use the system such as here www.kentonline.co.uk... For years now these sort of people have known if they keep having children they will gain about £80 a week in benefits (tax credits and child benefit per child).

So I understand what the Conservatives are trying to do but unfortunately they are taking it out on the poorest people in society, especially single parents who are working www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Basically, if we could stop people sending benefits home to children who don't even live here, and stop people being able to claim benefits as soon as they come to the UK, this would save some money without having to take it out of the poorest British people.

I lived in Jersey for 7 years and I wasn't allowed to claim anything there until I had lived there 15 years. After 15 years I would have received what was called qualifications and I would have been allowed to apply for social housing, cheaper private rented accommodation and benefits. Until that time I had to live in bedsit land where I was charged astronomical rents, as anyone not born in Jersey had to do. Also in Jersey if an employer wanted to employ someone not from Jersey (like myself) they had to buy a special licence which cost a few thousand. This was to ensure that Jersey people got offered the jobs first, that wages weren't undercut by outsiders and only when people with the skills needed couldn't be found on the Island would employers then hire someone like myself who had the necessary skills they were short of. I was basically treated like a second class citizen, but it was my choice whether I wanted to live and work there or not. After 7 years I had had enough and came back home. This should be the kind of stance we take in UK to get our finances in order and to protect our infrastructure but obviously we can only do this if we leave the EU. It would mean we could hire nurses, doctors etc, people who we really need and not have cheap labour coming into the Country undercutting wages as is happening now.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Yes, wages should be higher, and prices on everything from the gas that runs our ovens, to the electricity which powers our lighting, from the food we put in our mouths, to the fuel we put in our cars should be lower.


You realize these two concepts are in logical opposition of each other, right? If you want the workers paid more to do their jobs, then the product they produce is going to cost more at the register. That's economics 101.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Subsidies and welfare increase the cost of living. It's a nasty cycle.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: crazyewok

Subsidies and welfare increase the cost of living. It's a nasty cycle.


True which is why I favour a gradual decrease in welfare

What the government plans is such a sudden cut it would plunge millions into real poverty. Hense why it got blocked.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree in theory, but political systems (outside of a continuous monarchy or dictatorship) are incompatible with "gradual" plans. Look at the USA and the late 90's balanced budget plan which lasted all of one election cycle before the new overlords took a massive crap on it and went back to spending like thieves on a bender.

I believe that is a major reason why extremism is becoming more common in politics and among voters. Gradual never sees itself through to the end and future plans consistently turn out to be lies and bullcrap, so the people start demanding instant decisions and immediate results.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well that is one diffrence between our two countrys.

The house of lords gives the government some continuity. So long range plans can be better implemented and sudden changes that can be detrimental can be blocked or at least renewed.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
With one important reservation.
It has been a long-term principle, re-inforced by the crisis of 1909, that the Lords does not interfere with financial measures and leaves that side of things to the Commons.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
While I do agree that their is a serious lack of long-term planning in government I don't think that extremism is becoming more common in politics, at least not the main parties. Up to election of the new labour leader there had been no real differences between the main parties in the UK for over twenty years. I don't see US politicians as much different.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Economics as it runs these days does not work so simply.

For a start, the reason prices go up is bugger all to do with what the working people get paid, and has not been for some time. The two real price boosters are as follows.
1)
Commodities, that is where the percentages take off. Report a possible global grain shortage, and bread becomes unreasonably expensive. Under report the number of barrels of oil lying about underground in a given location and all of a sudden every litre at the pumps gets boosted in price. Set an oilfield burning, and you have to mortgage your next drive into town, your next shower, bath, or having the heating on.
2)
Over paid executives at present take more of the percentage of total pay in large companies, than has ever been seen before, despite the fact that they are by far the least necessary individuals in the company, incapable of performing any of the roles below their position, in all but a statistically irrelevant number of cases. People do not work their way to the top of companies by and large these days. They do showy, big, temporarily impressive things, and get themselves headhunted into bigger and better positions. That does not make them the best people for a given job, just the most interesting candidate. Put simply, the only people more utterly redundant in company structure, than over paid executive officers, are the total morons who headhunted them in the first place. You show me a person being paid more than a million pounds in a year to do ANY job, and I will show you a person who is not only far from being worth the money, but a person who knows it, and gets off on getting away with it.

Meanwhile, over worked, and underpaid staff at the bottom, whose efforts are the only thing that actually makes a company work worth a damn, get crapped on from a height, cannot afford to feed their families reliably, heat their homes, and so on and so forth. Literally, the scale of the pay at the top, is one of the primary factors which means that people lower down get less than they are worth. If those at the top took a twenty percent pay cut, which they could well afford, since that would still leave many of them being overpaid by many hundreds of thousands, or even millions of pounds, and that surplus were paid to the real powerhouses of industry, then things would be balanced, and the economy could be fed from the top, and from the bottom, and achieve balance and stability. Never happens, and the only real reason for that is greed, pure, simple, primal and senseless greed.

After these two factors, the others pale into total statistical irrelevance.

And on the issue of welfare...

Half the reason we even have a problem paying our welfare bills are nothing to do with the people on welfare, the number of them, or the number of pounds sterling it costs to keep that system working. The taxman likes to go after the little guy, and go after them hard. A person makes one genuine mistake with their paperwork, and they could get a ruinous, fine, leading to the loss of a business or a family home, or a jail term, or both. Google, Starbucks, those are two big names which have been bought up in recent years over this, but they got irrelevant fines, and let's face it, the government did not really want to go after them. It was only the austerity situation that forced their hand, a situation they INVENTED, to the cost of all of the citizens in our nation.

The companies that supply government with goods and services though, routinely overcharge for those goods and services by hundreds of percent, and then, not happy with fleecing the taxpayer once, go ahead and bank off shore, and do not pay the proper amount of tax. The people who supply Her Majesties Revenue and Customs (the tax department), for example, have been getting away with this for at least two decades, although the names of the companies under which they have achieved it have changed, but the game is the same, the players all known, and no one bats an eye. That's right, the people who own the buildings out of which our tax department operate, the people who have exclusive rights to supply the tax department with all their physical resources, maintenance needs, those people, that company, what ever they are calling it this year, are all on the take BIG TIME, and nothing will ever be done, because someone with a big name is calling the shots.

That is to say, that the government department responsible for ensuring our nations taxes are collected correctly, are colluding with, or at the very least aware of but powerless to stop their own department from being SKINNED to the tune of TENS OF BILLIONS OF POUNDS A YEAR, by a private company. No one held to account, no one even questioned. That is just ONE government department. There are countless departments in our government. Myriad appendages and tendrils. Each of them has its very own cancer, to match the one which sits firmly upon the arteries of our tax system. We loose more from individual departments every year, in what amounts to treasonous levels of theft, than we ever do from having a few too many welfare cheques going out in a given year, by a bloody mile and a half.

The system is corrupt, broken, manipulated and starved by the parasites who claim to run it on our behalf, and by the people whose riches have paid for their silence in such matters. The idea that rising wages means rising prices, the idea that welfare increases cannot be supported by taxation, are propaganda emplaced in the minds of the people, for the purpose of keeping them contained and controlled, so that they are easier to rob. Between the manipulation of my people by forces they understand either poorly, or not at all, and the scale of the rot, it is a problem which even the folk who are aware of it and loathe it, are ill equipped to even BEGIN to deal with.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Meanwhile at today's PMQ's, Cameron refused to answer a simple question that was put to him six times by Jeremy Corbyn.

The question was 'Will any of the three million families, in receipt of tax credits, be worse off come April the 1st next year'.

It was interesting to see Cameron immediately resort to name calling, by calling Corbyn a 'Deficit denier', whilst all the while denying the public a simple answer to a simple question. When Corbyn de decided to put the same question to him from a concerned citizen, the entire Tory bench just laughed and mocked Corbyn. What a surprise!!

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, at least they are attempting to act like responsible adults and not resorting to the politics we have been subjected to in the past, where both sides engage in a slanging match and we are left none the wiser. Although in this instance, we were left with no answer, it spoke volumes about the disarray the Tories financial plans are in.

It is refreshing to see this kind of politics, it's just a shame that the Tories do not appear capable of doing the same thing.



edit on 28/10/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join