The Tories had their plans kicked into the long grass by the Lords last night. I am no fan of the existence of the Lords but if they are going to stand for anything then protecting the most vulnerable in society as they come under direct attack is a decent place to start. Even Tory peers (eg Nigel Lawson) were critical. Restructure the benefits system - fine. But leave millions of working families in poverty while you go about it? Wrong. The Tories have seriously misjudged the mood of the country on this. They have a majority in the Commons but no more popular support than they had before the election. This poverty creating policy made no appearance in their manifesto and worse still Cameron expressly said no such thing would happen under his government. They have shown remarkable arrogance and complacency. If they respond now by bleating about constitutional precedent instead of doing the right thing and ditching their scandalous plans they will get a further kicking in due course. The anti-austerity train is gathering momentum.
Teflon Cameron gets such an easy ride from the Tory media. He stated straight out that Child Tax Credits were safe. Clegg got crucified for years over tuition fees but the Tories just shrug these things off. Screw the poorest workers but leave subsidies to the biggest farmers untouched. What a great world.
There is something wrong, when only a generation ago most working families with a full time dad and part time mum with kids could have a fair selection for mortgages. These days 2 full time working parents cant afford to get on the ladder. Buy to let landlords have killed the chances of millions of people for their own prosperity.
As for the minimum wage living wage argument. It will pale into insignificance when everything across the board becomes more expensive to produce and buy. But who wins?, well if a theoretical company sells something for a quid the treasury gets 20p, if they're selling it now at 2 quid because of market forces inflating prices because of wage costs, the treasury now gets 40p. Winner = government, and I haven't even mentioned increase revenue from paye, national insurance etc
I'm personally glad the old duffers in the Lords have put Osbourne's breaks on for him, even if it is temporarily. The Govt should be going after the chavvy t**ts that fill the world up with kids & expect us the taxpayer to look after them, & the workshy of which there are many (despite what the do-gooders say). Instead the evil capitalist empire are hell bent in recreating Victorian Britain where the rich get richer (you know the rest). The national "living wage" will be nowhere near enough to compensate working families for the tax credits cuts, despite what the tories say.
Still, I suppose the British people voted them in (out of self interest in a lot of cases), there is no credible alternative ATM, so the tories have in effect a democratic dictatorship so us minions just have to take whats coming for the foreseeable future!!!
Hi guy's. I see this as a double edged sword really. I'm all for helping the vulnerable and less well off, believe me, I've been there and its not a nice place to be, so any help that working families can get should be encouraged. But I'm not sure tax credits are the answer, it only seems to get bosses off the hook from paying a reasonable wage, confident in the knowledge that the weary old tax payer will pick up the difference; either that or they just employ migrant workers who are happy to get whatever is on offer and prepared to rough it, and then say he cant get British workers for the money because of the benefit system and they are lazy.
I think a decent minimum wage would be a better consideration, (havent done the maths so have no economic evidence to prove this point) but there is the argument that business would go bust if the wage costs increase, but I would have thought a shrewd business would take this into consideration when setting up their financial forecast so should be factored in. In addition there is the argument that a well paid workforce is a happy workforce, feeling valued and valuing the employer, which tends to show in better productivity and quality. I cant see how keeping working people in the country in grinding poverty with little workplace security or decent conditions can be helpful for the health of the economy or the population in general, except to overload the NHS with stress related illness.
Hi guy's. I see this as a double edged sword really. I'm all for helping the vulnerable and less well off, believe me, I've been there and its not a nice place to be, so any help that working families can get should be encouraged. But I'm not sure tax credits are the answer, it only seems to get bosses off the hook from paying a reasonable wage, confident in the knowledge that the weary old tax payer will pick up the difference; either that or they just employ migrant workers who are happy to get whatever is on offer and prepared to rough it, and then say he cant get British workers for the money because of the benefit system and they are lazy.
I think a decent minimum wage would be a better consideration, (havent done the maths so have no economic evidence to prove this point) but there is the argument that business would go bust if the wage costs increase, but I would have thought a shrewd business would take this into consideration when setting up their financial forecast so should be factored in. In addition there is the argument that a well paid workforce is a happy workforce, feeling valued and valuing the employer, which tends to show in better productivity and quality. I cant see how keeping working people in the country in grinding poverty with little workplace security or decent conditions can be helpful for the health of the economy or the population in general, except to overload the NHS with stress related illness.
Yes, it's all vastly complex. I did think when Brown brought them in it was daft. Listened to the professor from Bath University on the Today programme. He's the leading expert and he went through all the alternatives like minimum wage and personal allowances etc and showed that they don't work to help the group who'll be most affected. We've got ourselves in a bloody daft situation where nearly everything - rents, farm prices, wages - are distorted by subsidies. Housing benefit for example really benefits buy-to-let landlords who can charge higher rents while the taxpayer picks up the bill. The country is a frigging shambles but there are no easy solutions.
Hi guy's. I see this as a double edged sword really. I'm all for helping the vulnerable and less well off, believe me, I've been there and its not a nice place to be, so any help that working families can get should be encouraged. But I'm not sure tax credits are the answer, it only seems to get bosses off the hook from paying a reasonable wage, confident in the knowledge that the weary old tax payer will pick up the difference; either that or they just employ migrant workers who are happy to get whatever is on offer and prepared to rough it, and then say he cant get British workers for the money because of the benefit system and they are lazy.
I think a decent minimum wage would be a better consideration, (havent done the maths so have no economic evidence to prove this point) but there is the argument that business would go bust if the wage costs increase, but I would have thought a shrewd business would take this into consideration when setting up their financial forecast so should be factored in. In addition there is the argument that a well paid workforce is a happy workforce, feeling valued and valuing the employer, which tends to show in better productivity and quality. I cant see how keeping working people in the country in grinding poverty with little workplace security or decent conditions can be helpful for the health of the economy or the population in general, except to overload the NHS with stress related illness.
Yes, it's all vastly complex. I did think when Brown brought them in it was daft. Listened to the professor from Bath University on the Today programme. He's the leading expert and he went through all the alternatives like minimum wage and personal allowances etc and showed that they don't work to help the group who'll be most affected. We've got ourselves in a bloody daft situation where nearly everything - rents, farm prices, wages - are distorted by subsidies. Housing benefit for example really benefits buy-to-let landlords who can charge higher rents while the taxpayer picks up the bill. The country is a frigging shambles but there are no easy solutions.
Totally agree with you ridgeway kid. Its ironic though that 30 years ago Thatcherism started to destroy British manufacturing industry and would not help by giving subsidies, saying that the 'Market Forces' would decide, this was despite the markets being rigged by other countries subsidising and supporting their own industry. Now what's left is owned by foreign countries and we offer such generous subsidies to keep them here which enables them to run their home industries cheaper. The railways is a prime example. Madness utter madness.
Personally I think that greed has caused the inability of youngsters to get on the property ladder.
25 years ago when me and my wife bought the house it was you can borrow 3 times the highest earner plus 1 times the lowest earner. That kept a lid on prices. Now it's 5 times the combined. Hence all disposable income goes to the banks.
The banks collectively inflated house prices by allowing stupid lending. Then in 2008 they choked...but prices didn't plummet as much as they should have to correct it.
In 2008 we bought a second house which I now rent out to a couple who couldn't get the deposit together. Hopefully soon they can save enough to get their own house and wecan help another couple
I agree that tax credits were a curious solution. They were subsidies to enable working families to live decently and to bridge the gap between the ever wealthier wealthy and the relatively poor. A quick fix without making real economic adjustments. Be that as it may, removing them at a stroke without giving people the opportunity to replace the income for three years to come (even if you think that the 'living wage' will achieve that goal which is doubtful) is reprehensible.
Back in the late 80's I had a year or so where I was only earning just above the benefit cap. I can't remember what the top.up was called but it amounted to as much again in my wage. Without it , I wouldn't have had any self respect. Neither would I have been helpful to my family and in the long term , I would not have been able to retrain and go on to earn above the threshold and be a very good consumer.
Back in the late 80's I had a year or so where I was only earning just above the benefit cap. I can't remember what the top.up was called but it amounted to as much again in my wage. Without it , I wouldn't have had any self respect. Neither would I have been helpful to my family and in the long term , I would not have been able to retrain and go on to earn above the threshold and be a very good consumer.
Which is exactly what should be done in a decent society, offer help, support and encouragement. Yes it costs money but it worked for you and can only benefit society if applied correctly.