colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 So I am trying to imagine what your circumstances would have to be to qualify for more than £26,000 pa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2012 I don't think there's anything wrong with the principle of the thing. I'd say most people would think there needs to be a max limit on the amount the state will provide to anyone with no means of support (wage). I also think that for the vast vast majority of unemployed people and benefit cliamants, a limit of 26K (approx equivalent of 35K wages, less tax and NI etc.) ought to be sufficient to allow them to live without major hardship - certainly better than many people in work, who have to manage on less. There may be a small number of families in the S.East who may struggle because of rents being high. Same thing happens to people with jobs. Which is a shame for both. Maybe there should be a regional adjustment, or special circs taken into account. Thing is though, this is more about political message than saving money. The savings will be tiny compared to the benefits bill overall. If it leads to homelessness, then the costs will go up. The political message isn't necessarily bad. What's bad is that there are more urgent areas that need sorting, yet because this appeals widely to most people they'll do it. All 3 parties support the idea. Much more problematic for them to tackle genuine "unfairness" in the massive gap between haves and have nots. Much more problematic to get people working and off benefits when there are fewer jobs available - depending on location between 5 and 20 people for every vacancy. The timing is political, not financial. Do it when there are as many or more vacancies as jobs, and broadly there's not much wrong with it in principle, as all parties say. Playing a (popular) tune while Rome burns, is what they're doing, though, to take our little minds off the huge fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think this is one of the few times when this could be tackled. If any party tried it in boom years the other parties, regardless of whether they thought it was right or not, would just object to it as a vote catcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 ...a limit of 26K (approx equivalent of 35K wages, less tax and NI etc.).. Though not including working tax credits, child tax credits or child benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I have just checked and it appears there would be no working tax credits if you earned £35k, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I have just checked and it appears there would be no working tax credits if you earned £35k, Could there be child tax credits? Would there be child benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sorry, I didnt get that far, someone came to the door. I guess there would be the other benefits, but it was a long winded form and I aint got the time to do it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The crazy thing is one of my PAs earns 8k a year with me, and whatever benefits she gets. She just applied for a job starting at 18k. If she gets it she will be WORSE off financially. How is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sorry, I didnt get that far, someone came to the door. I guess there would be the other benefits, but it was a long winded form and I aint got the time to do it again Here's an example from a booklet produced by Monmouthsire Independent financial advisors (don't come to me if they're wrong ). Example 9.3 − Family calculation Peter Jones and Ann Williams have two children aged six and eight. Both work full-time (more than 30 hours a week) and they pay £340 a week for childcare. Their joint annual income is £50,000. Their full entitlement to CTC and WTC, disregarding their income, is: WTC £ Basic 1,920 Additional adult 1,950 30-hour element 790 Childcare (£300 × 0.7 × 52) 10,920 CTC Family element 545 Child element × 2 5,110 Total award 21,235 Their annual income is £50,000. This exceeds the £6,420 threshold by £43,580. So their maximum tax credit award is reduced by £17,867.80 (£43,580 × 0.41), giving a tax credit award of £3,367.20 (£21,235 − £17,867.80). The award consists entirely of CTC (£545 + £2,822.20) payable to the main carer, because the non-childcare elements of WTC are reduced first, followed by the childcare elements. Apologies for the formatting - can't be fagged to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Example 9.3 − Family calculation Peter Jones and Ann Williams have two children aged six and eight. Both work full-time (more than 30 hours a week) can't really see why they should receive anything in that example tbh ..a £50k household income is hardly breadline is it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 25, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25, 2012 Peter Jones and Ann Williams have two children aged six and eight. Both work full-time (more than 30 hours a week) Jesus Christ! They brought back child labour even sooner than I expected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Why would they be paying £340 a week for childcare for two children of school age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Why would they be paying £340 a week for childcare for two children of school age? I don't think they actually exist. :winkold: It's an example family to flesh out how tax credits are calculated. There is more information in the booklet on thresholds, ceilings (as hinted at by the childcare line in the calculation), tapering and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I bet Ed wishes he had lost now seeing how David is doing what all politicians do so well; making a fortune in business. Its been reported its over £500000 (including being a non-exec director at Sunderland). He’s also set up a company to deal with this....* _____________ * Yes I know they are all as bad as each other, that some Tory has probably made millions more, and Vince Cable was earning zillions before he entered government.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ed showed today why he'll never win an election in this country (excluding the one that was bought for him of course) his script writers actually gave him a good line when he asked the Tory Bench how many of them would benefit from the 50p tax cut yet he still somehow managed to look awkward during the delivery and by repeating it another 4 times I actually started to feel embarrassed for him ... hang on in there David your chance is coming soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 he's useless. he's just another bland, career politician with non-descript views. although labour can afford to buy their time. but it all needs bloody scrapped. party politics doesn't work any more. lets stop pretending it does. when is the referendum on the mayors for big cities business? that could see the start of greater devolvement of power and less of this london centric punch and judy gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 He has made some great gags..! He said to Scameron " at least you can afford your own horse now...!" "After asking members of the cabinet to raise their hands if they would personally benefit from the top-rate tax cut (they declined to oblige), he dropped a sly reference to the popular TV show Downton Abbey. "We all think it's a costume drama," he said. "They think it's a fly-on-the-wall documentary." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Missed the horse line ... Tbf that's not a bad one He suffers from Brown syndrome though in that he never quite looks comfortable with his delivery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Its the easiest joke in the world though, so loved by some on here. Look at the Tories they've got a few quid..... zzzzz. Its a fairly safe bet most of the Labour front bench benefitted from the reduction in top rate yesterday as well. As for the "Granny Tax" you cant cut what someone hasn't got. Its a reduction in what they WOULD have had, so noone is actually worse off in real terms. They are just not as well off as they thought they would be. Besides the rise in basic state pension will ofset this anyway won't it? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 As for the "Granny Tax" you cant cut what someone hasn't got. All announced tax changes regard things that people haven't got yet. It still doesn't stop something being a tax increase or a tax decrease. Its a reduction in what they WOULD have had, so noone is actually worse off in real terms. The claim is that they won't be worse off in cash terms but that would appear to be comparing a pensioner now (in this financial year) versus a pensioner in two years' time. Besides the rise in basic state pension will ofset this anyway won't it? :? I see that's how Cable, Alexander and Osborne have been putting it. I would suggest that this is not the most advisable line to take. It could end up being similar to Labour's 75p rise and 10% tax rate boobs being rolled in to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts