@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
The NMW/NLW rises by £1456 in April. The workers will notice.
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
Tories have done an astonishingly good job in weaning the electorate off them without adverse political impacts.
6.3m families in 2009/2010. 4.5m families in 2013/2014.
It will go under 4m soon.
These cuts are going to send tens of thousands in to a spiral of debt that it will be impossible to get out of...as a result of the way that it is structured it is nigh on impossible to earn your way out of debt because for every pound the recipient earns in salary they will lose 80 pence (48% tax credits, 12% NIC an 20% PAYE) and more importantly for Osborne it hits those on £20k+ with kids
These changes will lead to major behavioural change.
For starters they will encourage couples on low to middle incomes to stay together - because they will know that if they split the huge subsidy for single parents with children will no longer be so generous.
That's an interesting point I hadn't considered before.
Might even also ease pressure on housing, although a lot the most egregious benefit fraud cases are those where a 'single' mother moves in with a man but doesn't declare this to the authorities.
I think no Conservative politician dare says this because it would be politically incorrect.
What it boils down to is that up to now people with children can happily split up knowing that there is a colossal subsidy for any single earner with children. In future that subsidy comes down - and down significantly.
Everyone on the TV goes on about tax credits subsidising low pay but they don't - anyone on just £15k without children doesn't get them anyway (before changes).
And if there are two parents together and they both work on £16,500 each then even with 2 children they get nothing (before the changes - that falls to £14,500 each post changes).
Tax credits were introduced by Brown as a means of targeting money to poor households in an effort to improve the life chances of children...and yes, they have become a trap and yes, they need to be reformed. But to slash them like this will do a great deal of harm to a lot of families...Tory ministers accept that it is politically damaging which is why they lied about the cuts before the election.
I don't recall this. When did they lie about cuts?
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
Tories have done an astonishingly good job in weaning the electorate off them without adverse political impacts.
6.3m families in 2009/2010. 4.5m families in 2013/2014.
It will go under 4m soon.
These cuts are going to send tens of thousands in to a spiral of debt that it will be impossible to get out of...as a result of the way that it is structured it is nigh on impossible to earn your way out of debt because for every pound the recipient earns in salary they will lose 80 pence (48% tax credits, 12% NIC an 20% PAYE) and more importantly for Osborne it hits those on £20k+ with kids
Sorry, but that is bollocks. What is the debt you talk about?
No mention of the increased minimum wage, or of the massive rise in personal allowances since 2010. No-one working less than 30 hours on minimum wage is paying any income tax at all.
Under the last Labour government, working 24 hours a week could leave you worse off than working 16 - where is the incentive there to do more work?
Another Tory who doesn't know the first thing about these tax credit cuts. A parent with one child earning £16,380 will be £1,850 worse off next year (after PAYE uplift). For every extra pound that person earns to make up the difference they will lose 80% of it. How can that be an incentive to work?
What's the alternative? If it's better then there is no incentive.
The alternative is to phase the changes in over a period of time - this is NOTHING to do with deficit reduction. If it is then why is Osborne cutting corporation tax by 2% to 18%.- what sort of economist reduces one of his main income streams when trying to reduce the deficit
Cutting CT has been aggressively used by some to increase revenue substantially although I'm not suggesting that this is the sum total of the motivation here. Stick to what you understand
You forget that the increases in minimum wage are already going to reduce company profits and therefore depress the CT take for the Treasury
Oh, wow, that seems really expensive for Osborne. So much could happen - there could be a Leave. I don't know enough about this market, but of the four prices, I'd back May. She is the only proper right-wing candidate of the four and members are liable to go back to the old religion, especially if Corbyn or McDonnell is leader.
May is not that right wing. She is very pro-EU for a start.
OK, she is definitely more right-wing than Osborne. Or Johnson. Javid is like the Tory Jarvis to me, almost an anagram actually, both blank slates being backed for their back stories.
As someone on the right of the party, I currently prefer Osborne to May. He is more eurosceptic and he has actually achieved conservative policies in office, with substantial deficit reduction, a curbing of benefits and the beginning of tax cuts. May has just overseen immigration going up and up.
The Javid-Jarvis comparison is probably a good one right now, but let us wait and see how they each impress. I currently like Hammond a lot right now. Paterson might be interesting if LEAVE wins.
I'm not sure Osborne is the right guiy for that job. Decent at No.11 but something doesn't quite fit.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian forces now number about 3500. Most are services troops but there is a decent contingent of fighting forces and most notably a very well balanced set of helicopters for air assault operations.
Much more significant though is the due presence of an anti aircraft vessel equipped with the rumoured very capable (even though they are largely not combat tested) S300 long range anti aircraft missiles. If that thing parks up off Tartus it creates an air screen that heavily restricts other countries freedom of operation for fear of an accident. In short, you have to either a) talk to the Russians and manage air movements with them (which no-one wants to do) or b) ignore it and tell the Russians if they open fire their cruiser will disappear in a puff of smoke.
No doubt the West will pick the former and Putin, yet again, bluffs his way to making countries far more powerful look useless.
This vessels potential presence serves a particular issue for the Royal Air Force who fly east (often over Israel)on their way to Iraq from Cyprus.
There are two jokers in the pack. One is the response of the Gulf states who so far, under US pressure haven't supplied decent MANPADS to Syrian insurgents. Its a blindingly obvious way to cause the Russians pain and given there is renewed talk of Jihad going on down in Riyadh, its under consideration.
The second is Israel who have a singular approach of protecting their own security. They do have surprises for the situation, if they have to act. Militarily Russia's ability to carry out true expeditionary warfare, i.e not just driving over from their own border is very limited so there is little doubt the Israelis would have few issues imposing their will on the situation if required. The Russian's know this and whilst stepping up to a few lines, are reportedly coy about stepping over it.
Or simply Syria matters more to Russia that to the Americans, so is Yemen to Saudi Arabia than Syria. This whole situation is actually very simple, no one wants a war with Russia over something valuable mainly for Russia, and I can see the Russians supplying the Yemen rebels against the Saudis if the Saudis supply the Syrian rebels against the Russians.
1. Anyone who thinks Russia will actually fight in the region against the West may forget it. They won't, its the West's weakness that allows Putin to run around like he is doing now. He is a hollow man but no one is calling him out. Putting the forces he has in Syria there for a long stay will stretch the Russian capability. The idea that the Russians are some mighty outfit is a crock.
2. The Russians better hurry up then because the Houthis are in severe difficulties.
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
.
I mean the alternative to working more for the person on £15k.
There is none!
Well the incentive is to work more.
Take that example of the single parent on £16,380 - she would have to earn an extra £5,796 a year just to maintain that family income at this years levels
Can you explain how the reduction is more than a single parent with 1 child in full time education on that wage would get? What other assumptions are you making? This is complicated and there are a lot of very misleading numbers being thrown around.
Edit from the HMRC calculator: Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:- Child Tax Credit £1617.85 Childcare element of Working Tax Credit £0.00 Sub total £1617.85 Working Tax Credit (less the childcare element of Working Tax Credit) £0.00 Note: The childcare element of Working Tax Credit will always be paid direct to the person who is mainly responsible for caring for the child or children, alongside payments of Child Tax Credit. Total £1617.85 This is based on your household income of £16380.00.
Not sure where your numbers come from - a single parent earning £16,380 gets far, far, far more than £1,617 of tax credits.
The Telegraph calculator says they get £4,021 (before changes). Plus of course £1,076 child benefit as well.
The size of tax credits is truly eye watering - which is of course the problem.
that figure is the award from today to 5 April 2016 not the entire year
That is right but we are almost exactly half way through the financial year so the annual figure would be £3234 not 4021. The Telegraph may be including CB although it does not indicate that.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Not sure that the C2's in North Warks or Bury will be very enamoured by the unwashed class warriors of Islington.
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
.
I mean the alternative to working more for the person on £15k.
There is none!
Well the incentive is to work more.
Take that example of the single parent on £16,380 - she would have to earn an extra £5,796 a year just to maintain that family income at this years levels
Can you explain how the reduction is more than a single parent with 1 child in full time education on that wage would get? What other assumptions are you making? This is complicated and there are a lot of very misleading numbers being thrown around.
Edit from the HMRC calculator: Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:- Child Tax Credit £1617.85 Childcare element of Working Tax Credit £0.00 Sub total £1617.85 Working Tax Credit (less the childcare element of Working Tax Credit) £0.00 Note: The childcare element of Working Tax Credit will always be paid direct to the person who is mainly responsible for caring for the child or children, alongside payments of Child Tax Credit. Total £1617.85 This is based on your household income of £16380.00.
Not sure where your numbers come from - a single parent earning £16,380 gets far, far, far more than £1,617 of tax credits.
The Telegraph calculator says they get £4,021 (before changes). Plus of course £1,076 child benefit as well.
The size of tax credits is truly eye watering - which is of course the problem.
that figure is the award from today to 5 April 2016 not the entire year
That is right but we are almost exactly half way through the financial year so the annual figure would be £3234 not 4021. The Telegraph may be including CB although it does not indicate that.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
Tories have done an astonishingly good job in weaning the electorate off them without adverse political impacts.
6.3m families in 2009/2010. 4.5m families in 2013/2014.
It will go under 4m soon.
These cuts are going to send tens of thousands in to a spiral of debt that it will be impossible to get out of...as a result of the way that it is structured it is nigh on impossible to earn your way out of debt because for every pound the recipient earns in salary they will lose 80 pence (48% tax credits, 12% NIC an 20% PAYE) and more importantly for Osborne it hits those on £20k+ with kids
Sorry, but that is bollocks. What is the debt you talk about?
No mention of the increased minimum wage, or of the massive rise in personal allowances since 2010. No-one working less than 30 hours on minimum wage is paying any income tax at all.
Under the last Labour government, working 24 hours a week could leave you worse off than working 16 - where is the incentive there to do more work?
Another Tory who doesn't know the first thing about these tax credit cuts. A parent with one child earning £16,380 will be £1,850 worse off next year (after PAYE uplift). For every extra pound that person earns to make up the difference they will lose 80% of it. How can that be an incentive to work?
What's the alternative? If it's better then there is no incentive.
The alternative is to phase the changes in over a period of time - this is NOTHING to do with deficit reduction. If it is then why is Osborne cutting corporation tax by 2% to 18%.- what sort of economist reduces one of his main income streams when trying to reduce the deficit
Cutting CT has been aggressively used by some to increase revenue substantially although I'm not suggesting that this is the sum total of the motivation here. Stick to what you understand
You forget that the increases in minimum wage are already going to reduce company profits and therefore depress the CT take for the Treasury
You seemingly forget that increased wages increase employers' NI.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
You sure you're not thinking of child benefit restrictions on higher rate tax payers rather than tax credits?
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
Tories have done an astonishingly good job in weaning the electorate off them without adverse political impacts.
6.3m families in 2009/2010. 4.5m families in 2013/2014.
It will go under 4m soon.
These cuts are going to send tens of thousands in to a spiral of debt that it will be impossible to get out of...as a result of the way that it is structured it is nigh on impossible to earn your way out of debt because for every pound the recipient earns in salary they will lose 80 pence (48% tax credits, 12% NIC an 20% PAYE) and more importantly for Osborne it hits those on £20k+ with kids
Sorry, but that is bollocks. What is the debt you talk about?
No mention of the increased minimum wage, or of the massive rise in personal allowances since 2010. No-one working less than 30 hours on minimum wage is paying any income tax at all.
Under the last Labour government, working 24 hours a week could leave you worse off than working 16 - where is the incentive there to do more work?
Another Tory who doesn't know the first thing about these tax credit cuts. A parent with one child earning £16,380 will be £1,850 worse off next year (after PAYE uplift). For every extra pound that person earns to make up the difference they will lose 80% of it. How can that be an incentive to work?
What's the alternative? If it's better then there is no incentive.
The alternative is to phase the changes in over a period of time - this is NOTHING to do with deficit reduction. If it is then why is Osborne cutting corporation tax by 2% to 18%.- what sort of economist reduces one of his main income streams when trying to reduce the deficit
Cutting CT has been aggressively used by some to increase revenue substantially although I'm not suggesting that this is the sum total of the motivation here. Stick to what you understand
You forget that the increases in minimum wage are already going to reduce company profits and therefore depress the CT take for the Treasury
You seemingly forget that increased wages increase employers' NI.
Not if they are low enough paid to be below the threshold
I'm not sure Osborne is the right guiy for that job. Decent at No.11 but something doesn't quite fit.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian forces now number about 3500. Most are services troops but there is a decent contingent of fighting forces and most notably a very well balanced set of helicopters for air assault operations.
There are two jokers in the pack. One is the response of the Gulf states who so far, under US pressure haven't supplied decent MANPADS to Syrian insurgents. Its a blindingly obvious way to cause the Russians pain and given there is renewed talk of Jihad going on down in Riyadh, its under consideration.
The second is Israel who have a singular approach of protecting their own security. They do have surprises for the situation, if they have to act. Militarily Russia's ability to carry out true expeditionary warfare, i.e not just driving over from their own border is very limited so there is little doubt the Israelis would have few issues imposing their will on the situation if required. The Russian's know this and whilst stepping up to a few lines, are reportedly coy about stepping over it.
Or simply Syria matters more to Russia that to the Americans, so is Yemen to Saudi Arabia than Syria. This whole situation is actually very simple, no one wants a war with Russia over something valuable mainly for Russia, and I can see the Russians supplying the Yemen rebels against the Saudis if the Saudis supply the Syrian rebels against the Russians.
1. Anyone who thinks Russia will actually fight in the region against the West may forget it. They won't, its the West's weakness that allows Putin to run around like he is doing now. He is a hollow man but no one is calling him out. Putting the forces he has in Syria there for a long stay will stretch the Russian capability. The idea that the Russians are some mighty outfit is a crock.
2. The Russians better hurry up then because the Houthis are in severe difficulties.
I disagree because in practice no one thinks Syria is so valuable to risk a war with Russia, Russia puts a higher value to Syria than the one the West puts, hence the present situation. Also the Saudis will never be able to strategically beat the Yemen rebels because it's a very mountainous country and the rebel areas are militant Shia's, the best case for the Saudis is Afghanistan in a war that never ends.
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
Another Tory who doesn't know the first thing about these tax credit cuts. A parent with one child earning £16,380 will be £1,850 worse off next year (after PAYE uplift). For every extra pound that person earns to make up the difference they will lose 80% of it. How can that be an incentive to work?
What's the alternative? If it's better then there is no incentive.
The alternative is to phase the changes in over a period of time - this is NOTHING to do with deficit reduction. If it is then why is Osborne cutting corporation tax by 2% to 18%.- what sort of economist reduces one of his main income streams when trying to reduce the deficit
Evidence of the past five years has shown that cutting corporation tax increases the take - Arthur Laffer's theory in action. The more it's cut, the more companies will base themselves in the UK and pay tax here, and the less tax avoidance they will engage in.
Haha...and you believe that? So you think Vodaphone and Boots and Starbucks will grow a social conscence and start paying UK tax. How do you explain the £140,000 inheritance cuts
Ireland and Cyprus have the lowest European CT rate, 12.5%. I think that that might indicate that they certainly believe that lower rates increase yield. You green eyed lefties do certainly take the biscuit when it comes to money. Still I guess you don't need to know do you.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
You sure you're not thinking of child benefit restrictions on higher rate tax payers rather than tax credits?
I suggest you watch Cameron on Newsnight to it on the iplayer.
They aren't not backing down on this. - it's a done deal.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
That was a vote against the SNP, you can drive people so much before they bite you back like in 1997.
I'm not sure Osborne is the right guiy for that job. Decent at No.11 but something doesn't quite fit.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian forces now number about 3500. Most are services troops but there is a decent contingent of fighting forces and most notably a very well balanced set of helicopters for air assault operations.
Much more significant though is the due presence of an anti aircraft vessel equipped with the rumoured very capable (even though they are largely not combat tested) S300 long range anti aircraft missiles. If that thing parks up off Tartus it creates an air screen that heavily restricts other countries freedom of operation for fear of an accident. In short, you have to either a) talk to the Russians and manage air movements with them (which no-one wants to do) or b) ignore it and tell the Russians if they open fire their cruiser will disappear in a puff of smoke.
No doubt the West will pick the former and Putin, yet again, bluffs his way to making countries far more powerful look useless.
This vessels potential presence serves a particular issue for the Royal Air Force who fly east (often over Israel)on their way to Iraq from Cyprus.
There are two jokers in the pack. One is the response of the Gulf states who so far, under US pressure haven't supplied decent MANPADS to Syrian insurgents. Its a blindingly obvious way to cause the Russians pain and given there is renewed talk of Jihad going on down in Riyadh, its under consideration.
The second is Israel who have a singular approach of protecting their own security. They do have surprises for the situation, if they have to act. Militarily Russia's ability to carry out true expeditionary warfare, i.e not just driving over from their own border is very limited so there is little doubt the Israelis would have few issues imposing their will on the situation if required. The Russian's know this and whilst stepping up to a few lines, are reportedly coy about stepping over it.
A link to Debka.com or any similar greyline intelligence website would serve just as well as this Andy Mcnabb-esque cobblers. The delivery is comical.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
Nowhere close to all tax credit recipients would've voted Labour earlier this year - again, these are not dole layabouts who are concentrated in core Labour seats, these are the "aspirational" striving class who've decided elections ever since Thatcher.
But if the Tories want to hand over that whole 20% of the public who are on tax credits over to Labour (on top of the solidly Labour students, the unemployed and the liberal middle-class) then that's their funeral.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
You sure you're not thinking of child benefit restrictions on higher rate tax payers rather than tax credits?
I suggest you watch Cameron on Newsnight to it on the iplayer.
They aren't not backing down on this. - it's a done deal.
I don't doubt it...I recall watching him in the pre-election TV debates saying he wasn't going to cut tax credits...he's a cynical lying Tory. I still think it will create a lot of problems for the Tories in the next few years
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
You sure you're not thinking of child benefit restrictions on higher rate tax payers rather than tax credits?
I'm absolutely sure. 100+%. I know that nearly 2 million families were taken off tax credits in the last parliament.
I'm not sure Osborne is the right guiy for that job. Decent at No.11 but something doesn't quite fit.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian forces now number about 3500. Most are services troops but there is a decent contingent of fighting forces and most notably a very well balanced set of helicopters for air assault operations.
There are two jokers in the pack. One is the response of the Gulf states who so far, under US pressure haven't supplied decent MANPADS to Syrian insurgents. Its a blindingly obvious way to cause the Russians pain and given there is renewed talk of Jihad going on down in Riyadh, its under consideration.
The second is Israel who have a singular approach of protecting their own security. They do have surprises for the situation, if they have to act. Militarily Russia's ability to carry out true expeditionary warfare, i.e not just driving over from their own border is very limited so there is little doubt the Israelis would have few issues imposing their will on the situation if required. The Russian's know this and whilst stepping up to a few lines, are reportedly coy about stepping over it.
Or simply Syria matters more to Russia that to the Americans, so is Yemen to Saudi Arabia than Syria. This whole situation is actually very simple, no one wants a war with Russia over something valuable mainly for Russia, and I can see the Russians supplying the Yemen rebels against the Saudis if the Saudis supply the Syrian rebels against the Russians.
1. Anyone who thinks Russia will actually fight in the region against the West may forget it. They won't, its the West's weakness that allows Putin to run around like he is doing now. He is a hollow man but no one is calling him out. Putting the forces he has in Syria there for a long stay will stretch the Russian capability. The idea that the Russians are some mighty outfit is a crock.
2. The Russians better hurry up then because the Houthis are in severe difficulties.
I disagree because in practice no one thinks Syria is so valuable to risk a war with Russia, Russia puts a higher value to Syria than the one the West puts, hence the present situation. Also the Saudis will never be able to strategically beat the Yemen rebels because it's a very mountainous country and the rebel areas are militant Shia's, the best case for the Saudis is Afghanistan in a war that never ends.
Most insurgencies end in containment exhaustion & politics, not in total destruction of one or the other party and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. The fact are the Houthis are very much on the back foot and are likely to stay that way for the time coming.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
You green eyed leftie nutters are all the same, you've never worked and have no intention of doing so when you can ponce for as much as you will ever be worth. I bet it's not your fault either.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
You green eyed leftie nutters are all the same, you've never worked and have no intention of doing so when you can ponce for as much as you will ever be worth. I bet it's not your fault either.
But of course the 20-year SWPers with eggs are the only nasty people in politics.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
You sure you're not thinking of child benefit restrictions on higher rate tax payers rather than tax credits?
I suggest you watch Cameron on Newsnight to it on the iplayer.
They aren't not backing down on this. - it's a done deal.
"Though cowards flinch and traitors jeer, we'll keep the blue flag flying here!"
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
How much of the money I earn do you think it appropriate that I be allowed to keep?
Would we not first have to establish if it is possible for anyone to 'earn' more than a certain amount, regardless of whether they are remunerated beyond that? I believe that is part of how the thinking goes.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
Someone's spoiling the mood. Naughty Boris.
A desperate throw of the dice from someone who's realised his chances of leading are becoming ever more remote. Still, playing silly beggars won't go down well with many in his party. Johnson reminds me of Farage for some reason.
I think Boris is wearing a bit thin with the party. Is he thinking of doing a Corbyn?
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
Nowhere close to all tax credit recipients would've voted Labour earlier this year - again, these are not dole layabouts who are concentrated in core Labour seats, these are the "aspirational" striving class who've decided elections ever since Thatcher.
But if the Tories want to hand over that whole 20% of the public who are on tax credits over to Labour (on top of the solidly Labour students, the unemployed and the liberal middle-class) then that's their funeral.
That's why Labour will lose again. An unwillingness to really dig. These people, if they vote, aren't Tories in any substantial number.
Nearly half of people on tax credits are unemployed. They aren't additional people, they're the same bunch.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
You green eyed leftie nutters are all the same, you've never worked and have no intention of doing so when you can ponce for as much as you will ever be worth. I bet it's not your fault either.
You're mad...I'm neither lefty nor green-eyed. I work in financial services, have done for 35 years...you know nothing about me but I can tell a lot about you from your comments. Firstly I can tell that you are a very poor judge of character and secondly I can tell that you are a sad git.
Allegra Stratton said that she knows of Cabinet ministers who are angry about the tax credit cuts (Michael Gove, given the tenor of his recent comments?), and she expects a U-turn.
But in the Autumn Statement he'll announce a further increase in the personal allowance for 2016/17 - ie in time for when Tax Credit changes come in.
PA is due to rise to £11,000 in April 2016 (currently £10,600).
How about he pushes that to say £11,250 or £11,300 - would give everyone (earning above that) an extra £100 or £120.
Obviously won't fully compensate but sends big signal re helping lower paid.
Most people who are poor enough for tax credits are already not paying tax - the problem is their wages are so low to start with (tax credits are essentially a negative income tax).
Allegra Stratton said that she knows of Cabinet ministers who are angry about the tax credit cuts (Michael Gove, given the tenor of his recent comments?), and she expects a U-turn.
Gove was shown up to be a liar too before the GE saying there was no need to cut tax credits
But in the Autumn Statement he'll announce a further increase in the personal allowance for 2016/17 - ie in time for when Tax Credit changes come in.
PA is due to rise to £11,000 in April 2016 (currently £10,600).
How about he pushes that to say £11,250 or £11,300 - would give everyone (earning above that) an extra £100 or £120.
Obviously won't fully compensate but sends big signal re helping lower paid.
Most people who are poor enough for tax credits are already not paying tax - the problem is their wages are so low to start with (tax credits are essentially a negative income tax).
Part time workers you mean ? They should work more hours.
Allegra Stratton said that she knows of Cabinet ministers who are angry about the tax credit cuts (Michael Gove, given the tenor of his recent comments?), and she expects a U-turn.
Gove was shown up to be a liar too before the GE saying there was no need to cut tax credits
How was it up to him? He was Chief Whip, not manifesto writer.
But in the Autumn Statement he'll announce a further increase in the personal allowance for 2016/17 - ie in time for when Tax Credit changes come in.
PA is due to rise to £11,000 in April 2016 (currently £10,600).
How about he pushes that to say £11,250 or £11,300 - would give everyone (earning above that) an extra £100 or £120.
Obviously won't fully compensate but sends big signal re helping lower paid.
Most people who are poor enough for tax credits are already not paying tax - the problem is their wages are so low to start with (tax credits are essentially a negative income tax).
Part time workers you mean ? They should work more hours.
For a part-time Tesco worker, how do you think it would work out for them if they marched up to their boss and just demanded more hours?
Allegra Stratton said that she knows of Cabinet ministers who are angry about the tax credit cuts (Michael Gove, given the tenor of his recent comments?), and she expects a U-turn.
Gove was shown up to be a liar too before the GE saying there was no need to cut tax credits
How was it up to him? He was Chief Whip, not manifesto writer.
Well forgive me if I am wrong but if a minister comes on the radio and flatly denies that there were plans to cut tax credits when he knew that there were then he's a liar....Cameron did the same on the debates
But in the Autumn Statement he'll announce a further increase in the personal allowance for 2016/17 - ie in time for when Tax Credit changes come in.
PA is due to rise to £11,000 in April 2016 (currently £10,600).
How about he pushes that to say £11,250 or £11,300 - would give everyone (earning above that) an extra £100 or £120.
Obviously won't fully compensate but sends big signal re helping lower paid.
Most people who are poor enough for tax credits are already not paying tax - the problem is their wages are so low to start with (tax credits are essentially a negative income tax).
Part time workers you mean ? They should work more hours.
For a part-time Tesco worker, how do you think it would work out for them if they marched up to their boss and just demanded more hours?
They could try asking nicely. The heading round to Morrisons, Asda etc with a CV in hand.
@bbclaurak: Ouch! Boris will attack govt plans to cut tax credits tmrw saying poorest and hardest working must be protected
If it's on the front page of the Sun, Tory voters will take notice.
What does it have to do with Sun readers?
85% of the electorate do not receive tax credits.
I cements the view of a very significant number of voters that the Tories are a bunch of shits who care very very little about the 60% who didn't vote for them
It cements the views of people who don't like the Tories to start with. C'est la vie.
Except tax credits are mainly concentrated in the crucial C2 demographic which traditionally decides elections.
In most marginal seats, the % of people on tax credits is bigger than the Tory majority.
Who do you seriously believe tax credit recipients vote for, if indeed they are either registered or eligible to vote?
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
You sure you're not thinking of child benefit restrictions on higher rate tax payers rather than tax credits?
I'm absolutely sure. 100+%. I know that nearly 2 million families were taken off tax credits in the last parliament.
This guy obviously knows his stuff - 100% plus! No wonder he's good on economics.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
You green eyed leftie nutters are all the same, you've never worked and have no intention of doing so when you can ponce for as much as you will ever be worth. I bet it's not your fault either.
But of course the 20-year SWPers with eggs are the only nasty people in politics.
But they have a good claim on being the nastiest and a better claim on being the only green eyed ones.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
You green eyed leftie nutters are all the same, you've never worked and have no intention of doing so when you can ponce for as much as you will ever be worth. I bet it's not your fault either.
You're mad...I'm neither lefty nor green-eyed. I work in financial services, have done for 35 years...you know nothing about me but I can tell a lot about you from your comments. Firstly I can tell that you are a very poor judge of character and secondly I can tell that you are a sad git.
You're right about my judgment. 35 years in financial services? It's worse than I thought. You're either a back office muppet or you're not good enough or bent enough to have accrued enough money to be concerned about Inheritance Tax.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
How much of the money I earn do you think it appropriate that I be allowed to keep?
Would we not first have to establish if it is possible for anyone to 'earn' more than a certain amount, regardless of whether they are remunerated beyond that? I believe that is part of how the thinking goes.
The problem with Inheritance Tax is precisely the opposite...the value of the family home has almost certainly not been achieved through hard work, instead it is the result of the parents being the beneficiaries of an extraordinary boom in property prices. Nothing to do with hard work because a feckless individual who spent their entire life living off the state in a home purchased by their family would have benefited financially by EXACTLY the same as those who "worked hard".
You green eyed leftie nutters are all the same, you've never worked and have no intention of doing so when you can ponce for as much as you will ever be worth. I bet it's not your fault either.
You're mad...I'm neither lefty nor green-eyed. I work in financial services, have done for 35 years...you know nothing about me but I can tell a lot about you from your comments. Firstly I can tell that you are a very poor judge of character and secondly I can tell that you are a sad git.
You're right about my judgment. 35 years in financial services? It's worse than I thought. You're either a back office muppet or you're not good enough or bent enough to have accrued enough money to be concerned about Inheritance Tax.
Allegra Stratton said that she knows of Cabinet ministers who are angry about the tax credit cuts (Michael Gove, given the tenor of his recent comments?), and she expects a U-turn.
Gove was shown up to be a liar too before the GE saying there was no need to cut tax credits
How was it up to him? He was Chief Whip, not manifesto writer.
Well forgive me if I am wrong but if a minister comes on the radio and flatly denies that there were plans to cut tax credits when he knew that there were then he's a liar....Cameron did the same on the debates
You're forgiven. 35 years in financial services is enough. Did you work for the Co-op Bank?
I'm still not convinced that the Tax Credit issue won't come back to haunt Osborne...I've wittered on here about it months ago about the impact of these cuts that are truly eye-watering
Another Tory who doesn't know the first thing about these tax credit cuts. A parent with one child earning £16,380 will be £1,850 worse off next year (after PAYE uplift). For every extra pound that person earns to make up the difference they will lose 80% of it. How can that be an incentive to work?
What's the alternative? If it's better then there is no incentive.
The alternative is to phase the changes in over a period of time - this is NOTHING to do with deficit reduction. If it is then why is Osborne cutting corporation tax by 2% to 18%.- what sort of economist reduces one of his main income streams when trying to reduce the deficit
I mean the alternative to working more for the person on £15k.
There is none!
Well the incentive is to work more.
Take that example of the single parent on £16,380 - she would have to earn an extra £5,796 a year just to maintain that family income at this years levels
Can you explain how the reduction is more than a single parent with 1 child in full time education on that wage would get? What other assumptions are you making? This is complicated and there are a lot of very misleading numbers being thrown around.
Edit from the HMRC calculator: Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:- Child Tax Credit £1617.85 Childcare element of Working Tax Credit £0.00 Sub total £1617.85 Working Tax Credit (less the childcare element of Working Tax Credit) £0.00 Note: The childcare element of Working Tax Credit will always be paid direct to the person who is mainly responsible for caring for the child or children, alongside payments of Child Tax Credit. Total £1617.85 This is based on your household income of £16380.00.
Using the HMRC calculator I got £2015.31 with a ten year old child.
Comments
Try again.
The Javid-Jarvis comparison is probably a good one right now, but let us wait and see how they each impress. I currently like Hammond a lot right now. Paterson might be interesting if LEAVE wins.
2. The Russians better hurry up then because the Houthis are in severe difficulties.
1.8m middle income families had the entitlement withdrawn between 2010 and 2015. The government vote and vote share went up.
Also the Saudis will never be able to strategically beat the Yemen rebels because it's a very mountainous country and the rebel areas are militant Shia's, the best case for the Saudis is Afghanistan in a war that never ends.
They aren't not backing down on this. - it's a done deal.
And with that goodnight.
But if the Tories want to hand over that whole 20% of the public who are on tax credits over to Labour (on top of the solidly Labour students, the unemployed and the liberal middle-class) then that's their funeral.
Nearly half of people on tax credits are unemployed. They aren't additional people, they're the same bunch.
Osborne will stick to Tax Credit changes.
But in the Autumn Statement he'll announce a further increase in the personal allowance for 2016/17 - ie in time for when Tax Credit changes come in.
PA is due to rise to £11,000 in April 2016 (currently £10,600).
How about he pushes that to say £11,250 or £11,300 - would give everyone (earning above that) an extra £100 or £120.
Obviously won't fully compensate but sends big signal re helping lower paid.
Can hard-working families get a veto on the tax credit cuts?
Great article and a very good example of how youth get radicalised.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
Not the state funding part time lifestyles that Kraken and Danny want.
Good night all.