FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > tax credit defeat ?
tax credit defeat ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *eavenNhell OP Couple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
so the house of lords have voted to mitigate the effects of the tax credit cuts and also to delay the implementation og said cuts . a major blow to the government and start of a constitutional crisis or a welcome intervention on behalf of the people worst effected ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhell OP Couple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"It's the government working as it should.
Although Tony B Liar did fill the upper chamber with his mates  "
to re balance all of thatcher/majors friends who had flooded the lords before hand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It was really unpopular with their voters wasn't it? They forgot they were on benefits.
Hope they remember what their government was gonna do to them.
Almost wish they'd done it, coz pensioners would've been next and, then the Cons wouldn't get voted in for an other couple of generations again.
Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse.  Lets hope they have good memories next time they're allowed to vote in a general election.
Whole system needs shaking up really, but not in a way that fucks us all over more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *MaleMan
over a year ago
|
politics in action, constitutional evolution even as normally the lords are fingered to agree with parliarment
Of course when things don't smoothly go the way of the House of P it's deemed a crisis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I find it strange that a proportion of those 3 million people who would have been badly affected by these tax credit cuts voted conservative. Was it stupidity? Ignorance? A slip of the pen?
Did they honesty believe conservatives would give a flying fuck about the poorest and most vulnerable in society?
Ha! Lesson learnt for the next election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse. "
you're 'avin a giraffe 'aint ya? all they'll do now is cut themselves a new arse and they'll fuck that instead.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse.
you're 'avin a giraffe 'aint ya? all they'll do now is cut themselves a new arse and they'll fuck that instead. "
We're about to chop their dick off so they can't.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse.
you're 'avin a giraffe 'aint ya? all they'll do now is cut themselves a new arse and they'll fuck that instead.
We're about to chop their dick off so they can't. "
seven more will grow in its place  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse.
you're 'avin a giraffe 'aint ya? all they'll do now is cut themselves a new arse and they'll fuck that instead.
We're about to chop their dick off so they can't.
seven more will grow in its place "
These new dicks will be nice dicks and submissive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"I find it strange that a proportion of those 3 million people who would have been badly affected by these tax credit cuts voted conservative. Was it stupidity? Ignorance? A slip of the pen?
Did they honesty believe conservatives would give a flying fuck about the poorest and most vulnerable in society?
Ha! Lesson learnt for the next election. "
People do not learn that is why democracy does not work as it should.Next election people will decide who to vote for on events of that time,not on the present.Five years is a long time in politics and life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?"
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I find it strange that a proportion of those 3 million people who would have been badly affected by these tax credit cuts voted conservative. Was it stupidity? Ignorance? A slip of the pen?
Did they honesty believe conservatives would give a flying fuck about the poorest and most vulnerable in society?
Ha! Lesson learnt for the next election. "
They fell for Tory lies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inkyHnSCouple
over a year ago
The Council of Elrond |
Its shocking Labour choose to abstain than stop the tax credits from happening altogether.
Twice Labour have chosen to abstain once in the House of commons now in the house of lords. Delaying is not getting rid of this brutal cuts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its shocking Labour choose to abstain than stop the tax credits from happening altogether.
Twice Labour have chosen to abstain once in the House of commons now in the house of lords. Delaying is not getting rid of this brutal cuts. "
That's because labour agree with the financial plan.
Tbh I think it's sensible reduce working tax credits and raise the minimum wage to make up for it.
As it stands the government is funding businesses by topping up their sub par wages. This needs to stop the bill needs to be moved from the tax payer back to the employer.
Although I do not like a bunch of unelected bishops and land owners having this kind of power I think the Lords should be an elected house but with a long term (say 8 years) and be done by proportional representation (as the issue of a strong local voice is not needed being purely national)
Also the house of Lords isn't meant to interfere with fiscal policy this could lead to a rash desicion.
As we saw with the implimentation if EVEL as an emergency answer to the west Lothian question after the snp promised to stop the tradition of abstaining from English only matters and to interfere as much as possible with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"These new dicks will be nice dicks and submissive.
i like your optomism ..... but deep down you know they'll be really long and massively thick, like anacondas...... only with lots more teeth"
My optimism...yeah. 
...Kind of tuned out after you said really long and massively thick... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas. "
We still have lots of manufacturing it's just we make very high end expensive things like aeroplanes, nuclear reactor components, military equipment, optics, telecommunications and survailence equipment (our electronic warfare stuff is the best on the market), satalites, engines, if reaction engines gets its sabre engine working between them and rolls Royce the UK would have the high end jet turbine market nailed.
Which is a good thing we make very high value added products in very good working conditions instead of shit products in shit conditions.
Typically I find the people calling for us to return to "manufacturing " tat are the people who never plan to work in those places and never have.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas.
We still have lots of manufacturing it's just we make very high end expensive things like aeroplanes, nuclear reactor components, military equipment, optics, telecommunications and survailence equipment (our electronic warfare stuff is the best on the market), satalites, engines, if reaction engines gets its sabre engine working between them and rolls Royce the UK would have the high end jet turbine market nailed.
Which is a good thing we make very high value added products in very good working conditions instead of shit products in shit conditions.
Typically I find the people calling for us to return to "manufacturing " tat are the people who never plan to work in those places and never have.
"
Aren't they thinking about employment for a large number of people that manufacturing brings? What has replaced our industrial production? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked. "
The government is raising the free child care alowanxe to 35 hours a week yes.
And the national minimum wage is being raised too albeit more slowly than I'd like.
However you also have to realise that employees are part of the situation and negotiate their pay with a tax credit cut their unions should be pressing for an increase as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas.
We still have lots of manufacturing it's just we make very high end expensive things like aeroplanes, nuclear reactor components, military equipment, optics, telecommunications and survailence equipment (our electronic warfare stuff is the best on the market), satalites, engines, if reaction engines gets its sabre engine working between them and rolls Royce the UK would have the high end jet turbine market nailed.
Which is a good thing we make very high value added products in very good working conditions instead of shit products in shit conditions.
Typically I find the people calling for us to return to "manufacturing " tat are the people who never plan to work in those places and never have.
"
Do those industries employ a lot of people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas.
We still have lots of manufacturing it's just we make very high end expensive things like aeroplanes, nuclear reactor components, military equipment, optics, telecommunications and survailence equipment (our electronic warfare stuff is the best on the market), satalites, engines, if reaction engines gets its sabre engine working between them and rolls Royce the UK would have the high end jet turbine market nailed.
Which is a good thing we make very high value added products in very good working conditions instead of shit products in shit conditions.
Typically I find the people calling for us to return to "manufacturing " tat are the people who never plan to work in those places and never have.
Aren't they thinking about employment for a large number of people that manufacturing brings? What has replaced our industrial production? "
We still have industrial production much of it world leading.
Lots of jobs paying barely minimum wage to make tat won't work here
But skilled labour making high value products works very well.
If we're going to expand our manufacturing sector this is the area we need to look at not massive factories trying to replicate workhouses but modern facilities with well paid well trained staff
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's the right result and thank goodness we have a restraining influence upon a government that lies before an election and then tries to force through law that punishes the electorate.
There should be a constitutional crisis where the prime minister lies to regain office - it should bring the government and him down. There is no other issue here apart from a smokescreen to distract you from this real issue of the fraud upon the electorate, prior to the election. Total scum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It was really unpopular with their voters wasn't it? They forgot they were on benefits.
Hope they remember what their government was gonna do to them.
Almost wish they'd done it, coz pensioners would've been next and, then the Cons wouldn't get voted in for an other couple of generations again.
Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse. Lets hope they have good memories next time they're allowed to vote in a general election.
Whole system needs shaking up really, but not in a way that fucks us all over more."
Didn't you hear Dr Liam Fox say that they should cut pensioner benefits such as winter fuel payments asap, because some of them will be dead by the next election, and the rest of them will be too old to remember which party cut the benefits!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965
Lovely huh? What a loving, caring GP he muzt have been. I think I would ratherbe treated by Shipman! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas.
We still have lots of manufacturing it's just we make very high end expensive things like aeroplanes, nuclear reactor components, military equipment, optics, telecommunications and survailence equipment (our electronic warfare stuff is the best on the market), satalites, engines, if reaction engines gets its sabre engine working between them and rolls Royce the UK would have the high end jet turbine market nailed.
Which is a good thing we make very high value added products in very good working conditions instead of shit products in shit conditions.
Typically I find the people calling for us to return to "manufacturing " tat are the people who never plan to work in those places and never have.
Do those industries employ a lot of people? "
Yes millions.
And then along side them we have design engineers, logistics staff etc all the suppliers and feeder companies that grow up around these major industries.
You make some tat not much is needed you make an aeroplane or a nuclear reactor and then you need chemical companies, metal work companies, transport, bolt producers, loom producers, paint and sealent suppliers, jig manufacturers, loads and loads of support companies grow around a large facility
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
The government is raising the free child care alowanxe to 35 hours a week yes.
And the national minimum wage is being raised too albeit more slowly than I'd like.
However you also have to realise that employees are part of the situation and negotiate their pay with a tax credit cut their unions should be pressing for an increase as well."
People who don't have extra hours to work and are not on minimum wage but have higher rents will not see the benefits,and will be out of pocket possibly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was really unpopular with their voters wasn't it? They forgot they were on benefits.
Hope they remember what their government was gonna do to them.
Almost wish they'd done it, coz pensioners would've been next and, then the Cons wouldn't get voted in for an other couple of generations again.
Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse. Lets hope they have good memories next time they're allowed to vote in a general election.
Whole system needs shaking up really, but not in a way that fucks us all over more.
Didn't you hear Dr Liam Fox say that they should cut pensioner benefits such as winter fuel payments asap, because some of them will be dead by the next election, and the rest of them will be too old to remember which party cut the benefits!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965
Lovely huh? What a loving, caring GP he muzt have been. I think I would ratherbe treated by Shipman! "
Out of curiosity why do you feel milionaires should get a fuel alowance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
The government is raising the free child care alowanxe to 35 hours a week yes.
And the national minimum wage is being raised too albeit more slowly than I'd like.
However you also have to realise that employees are part of the situation and negotiate their pay with a tax credit cut their unions should be pressing for an increase as well.
People who don't have extra hours to work and are not on minimum wage but have higher rents will not see the benefits,and will be out of pocket possibly. "
Which is where wage increases come in.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do we know it wasn't all staged, to give us a little sense of victory before they shaft us senseless?
It's to take the focus off of the Government letting China buy their way into the country. They're already being given first dibs on new built London property (according to something I read somewhere). Osborne (married to a Chinese lady) wants us to all adopt the Chinese work ethic-even though we don't have the industries to slave in any more,now all our manufacturing has gone overseas.
We still have lots of manufacturing it's just we make very high end expensive things like aeroplanes, nuclear reactor components, military equipment, optics, telecommunications and survailence equipment (our electronic warfare stuff is the best on the market), satalites, engines, if reaction engines gets its sabre engine working between them and rolls Royce the UK would have the high end jet turbine market nailed.
Which is a good thing we make very high value added products in very good working conditions instead of shit products in shit conditions.
Typically I find the people calling for us to return to "manufacturing " tat are the people who never plan to work in those places and never have.
Do those industries employ a lot of people?
Yes millions.
And then along side them we have design engineers, logistics staff etc all the suppliers and feeder companies that grow up around these major industries.
You make some tat not much is needed you make an aeroplane or a nuclear reactor and then you need chemical companies, metal work companies, transport, bolt producers, loom producers, paint and sealent suppliers, jig manufacturers, loads and loads of support companies grow around a large facility
"
And the support companies are in the UK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I find it strange that a proportion of those 3 million people who would have been badly affected by these tax credit cuts voted conservative. Was it stupidity? Ignorance? A slip of the pen?
Did they honesty believe conservatives would give a flying fuck about the poorest and most vulnerable in society?
Ha! Lesson learnt for the next election. "
Well dont forget the conservatives have also introduced Tax Cuts to help the poorest in society. I am thinking of those poor, poor people who's house is only worth £1,000,000 that no longer have to pay inheritance tax.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
The government is raising the free child care alowanxe to 35 hours a week yes.
And the national minimum wage is being raised too albeit more slowly than I'd like.
However you also have to realise that employees are part of the situation and negotiate their pay with a tax credit cut their unions should be pressing for an increase as well.
People who don't have extra hours to work and are not on minimum wage but have higher rents will not see the benefits,and will be out of pocket possibly.
Which is where wage increases come in...."
They aren't compulsory and for some people striking won't have much clout. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government working as it should.
Although Tony B Liar did fill the upper chamber with his mates to re balance all of thatcher/majors friends who had flooded the lords before hand "
Actually neither statement is true. Life piers are nominated by all parties in the commons and the number each party can nominate is directly proportional to the number of MPs they have in the commons. Neither Thatcher, Major or Blair changed this. What Blair did change, and rightly so in my opinion, is the number of Hereditary Piers.
In answer to the question asked: It's both. However we should keep in mind that the government can create any number of Life Piers at will and it is only by convention that it allows the other parties to nominate them. It is also by convention that the House of Lords does not vote down major pieces of government legislation. They have now broken that convention. It will be interesting to see what happens next. However, however much right you may feel what they have done is, it cannot be right and acceptable for an unelected chamber to be able to override the will of the elected chamber and ultimately it can't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was really unpopular with their voters wasn't it? They forgot they were on benefits.
Hope they remember what their government was gonna do to them.
Almost wish they'd done it, coz pensioners would've been next and, then the Cons wouldn't get voted in for an other couple of generations again.
Glad those hard working families are being financially sorted though instead of fucked up the arse. Lets hope they have good memories next time they're allowed to vote in a general election.
Whole system needs shaking up really, but not in a way that fucks us all over more.
Didn't you hear Dr Liam Fox say that they should cut pensioner benefits such as winter fuel payments asap, because some of them will be dead by the next election, and the rest of them will be too old to remember which party cut the benefits!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965
Lovely huh? What a loving, caring GP he muzt have been. I think I would ratherbe treated by Shipman! "
No i didn't hear that. He's stupid either way because their kids and grandkids will remember, even if they don't (which i'm sure was only said to be nasty and isn't a fact).
I remember last time the Tories were in they raised state pensions by 10p and then stopped income support to many pensioners, which took £30 a week off there money and left them in poverty. I remember them forcing my gran into poverty. Don't even know how they got voted in the last 2 elections.
I'm also glad it got stopped, because they weren't gonna push the minimum wage rise for another few years. People would've accepted poverty wages for a few years and the (shit amount imo) wage rise iwould have looked really good after living in poverty that long.
People are gonna get their pay cut at the same time as the law forces in the rise. It will stand out now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
Out of curiosity why do you feel milionaires should get a fuel alowance?"
Because the expense of turning it into a means tested benefit outweighs the savings. Also if it was means tested, rather than universal. Many of the most vulnerable people might not apply for it, for a variety of reasons, leaving them with a benefit they are entitled to. Government cuts to legal aid have drastically affected advice and support services such as the CAB, meaning there are less people receiving the advice to make sure they are claiming their entitlements already.
2009-10 figures show £2.8bn in unclaimed Pension Credit, £2bn in unclaimed Income Support & ESA, £3.1bn in Housing Benefit, £2.4bn in Council Tax benefit, and £1.95bn in Job Seekers Allowance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked. "
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect."
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect."
Not all employers can give more hours either. I worked a school and I could only work set hours,unless they give you a second lunchtime or after school club job there's no more hours to work. A second job elsewhere would have to be found,which is ok for people who don't have young children. Finding an after school club or child minder who you trust to pick children up from school isn't easy,especially if more people will be using the facilities. I suppose you could open an after school club |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit. "
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit.
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!!"
That's rubbish though. Last time i relied on Tory housing benefits they were £40 a week, my rent was £75 a week and everyone i know kept ending up homeless, including a heavily pregnant me because i ended up on the sick (couldn't claim sickness benefits though).
No rents went down!
But the cruddy bedsit i ended up in did knock £4 a week of the rent coz we had no hot water ( i bathed in my toddlers baby bath using the kettle to fill it up), a carpet coated in crap that i spent 3 days (and god knows how much disinfectant) on my hands and knees scrubbing clean, and the fridge was rusty inside, ad some electric sockets were faulty. Tories also wanna get rid of housing regulations, well i wonder why? Return of the fucking slumlords and the poor living in shit coz they can't afford anything better.
And they enjoy the idea of that, i really believe they get off on treating people like crap. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
Not all employers can give more hours either. I worked a school and I could only work set hours,unless they give you a second lunchtime or after school club job there's no more hours to work. A second job elsewhere would have to be found,which is ok for people who don't have young children. Finding an after school club or child minder who you trust to pick children up from school isn't easy,especially if more people will be using the facilities. I suppose you could open an after school club "
It's not about working extra hours to make up the loss. The company or organisation should be paying you a real living wage and not paying you a wage that requires you to have to claim in-work benefits in order to survive. Actually having tax credits allows the company or organization to get away with not paying you a real living wage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Out of curiosity why do you feel milionaires should get a fuel alowance?"
simple mathematics, pay a pensioner £200 or pay a department £400 to decide not to pay out the £200.
it is a pitance in the overall scheme of things, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's not about working extra hours to make up the loss. The company or organisation should be paying you a real living wage and not paying you a wage that requires you to have to claim in-work benefits in order to survive. Actually having tax credits allows the company or organization to get away with not paying you a real living wage."
but when working at the bottom end of the pay scale you need to sort the living wage before cutting the subsidy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit.
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!!
That's rubbish though. Last time i relied on Tory housing benefits they were £40 a week, my rent was £75 a week and everyone i know kept ending up homeless, including a heavily pregnant me because i ended up on the sick (couldn't claim sickness benefits though).
No rents went down!
But the cruddy bedsit i ended up in did knock £4 a week of the rent coz we had no hot water ( i bathed in my toddlers baby bath using the kettle to fill it up), a carpet coated in crap that i spent 3 days (and god knows how much disinfectant) on my hands and knees scrubbing clean, and the fridge was rusty inside, ad some electric sockets were faulty. Tories also wanna get rid of housing regulations, well i wonder why? Return of the fucking slumlords and the poor living in shit coz they can't afford anything better.
And they enjoy the idea of that, i really believe they get off on treating people like crap."
I can't argue with your own personal experience so I won't but clearly the housing and benefits system was not working well then and still isn't now. Why are we subsidising private landlords to house people in conditions that sound little better than slums. Surely there has to be a better way than this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's not about working extra hours to make up the loss. The company or organisation should be paying you a real living wage and not paying you a wage that requires you to have to claim in-work benefits in order to survive. Actually having tax credits allows the company or organization to get away with not paying you a real living wage.
but when working at the bottom end of the pay scale you need to sort the living wage before cutting the subsidy "
And that's the argument to make.
And by arguing that point, and that point only, which is simple and understandable, the issue is gaining traction. Even people who don't think tax credits are a good idea can understand that changing them too quickly could cause massive short to medium term problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit.
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!!
That's rubbish though. Last time i relied on Tory housing benefits they were £40 a week, my rent was £75 a week and everyone i know kept ending up homeless, including a heavily pregnant me because i ended up on the sick (couldn't claim sickness benefits though).
No rents went down!
But the cruddy bedsit i ended up in did knock £4 a week of the rent coz we had no hot water ( i bathed in my toddlers baby bath using the kettle to fill it up), a carpet coated in crap that i spent 3 days (and god knows how much disinfectant) on my hands and knees scrubbing clean, and the fridge was rusty inside, ad some electric sockets were faulty. Tories also wanna get rid of housing regulations, well i wonder why? Return of the fucking slumlords and the poor living in shit coz they can't afford anything better.
And they enjoy the idea of that, i really believe they get off on treating people like crap.
I can't argue with your own personal experience so I won't but clearly the housing and benefits system was not working well then and still isn't now. Why are we subsidising private landlords to house people in conditions that sound little better than slums. Surely there has to be a better way than this?"
Local councils are responsible. They have got a lot of power right now when it comes to enforcing repairs, they tell the landlord to do the repairs or they will employ someone to do them and send the LL the bill.
But the Tories want to take away this power so that we go back 20 years to how crappy it was then.
The housing benefit system was never perfect by the way, it just never made rents go down when they cut those benefits drastically, people ended up in hostels or crappy places that nobody cared to fix, and were inappropriate to live in, because the rent was so cheap. My social LL i'm with now has seen an 11% rise in tenants being taken to court for arrears, and that's now before more cuts. They own 1000s of properties in the NW.
That place i was in got condemned eventually. Then one of the previous tenants set it on fire. I did gloat a bit when that happened tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What I have taken from this absolutely right vote by the lords, is that although less than 6 months ago CaMoron promised he would not cut working tax credits if re-elected his government are now going to see how they can cut the power of the lords to stop them making him keep his word!
Funny how the party of the working man (that is how the Tories market themselves), have yet again backed foreign countries at the cost of British jobs in the first year of a parliamentary term. No doubt this will go on for the next 3 to 4 years while they feather their own nests and then they will buy another term in power with more lies and false promises. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"so the house of lords have voted to mitigate the effects of the tax credit cuts and also to delay the implementation og said cuts . a major blow to the government and start of a constitutional crisis or a welcome intervention on behalf of the people worst effected ? "
The Lords vote at face value against the cut in tax credits was actually nothing of the sort it was really a ploy by the Lib-Dems & others to try to force reform of the Lords, something the Lib-Dems tried and failed to do when in coalition.
They are hoping David Cameron will flood the Lords with new Conservative peers thereby sparking a call for reform of the Lords.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit.
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!!
That's rubbish though. Last time i relied on Tory housing benefits they were £40 a week, my rent was £75 a week and everyone i know kept ending up homeless, including a heavily pregnant me because i ended up on the sick (couldn't claim sickness benefits though).
No rents went down!
But the cruddy bedsit i ended up in did knock £4 a week of the rent coz we had no hot water ( i bathed in my toddlers baby bath using the kettle to fill it up), a carpet coated in crap that i spent 3 days (and god knows how much disinfectant) on my hands and knees scrubbing clean, and the fridge was rusty inside, ad some electric sockets were faulty. Tories also wanna get rid of housing regulations, well i wonder why? Return of the fucking slumlords and the poor living in shit coz they can't afford anything better.
And they enjoy the idea of that, i really believe they get off on treating people like crap.
I can't argue with your own personal experience so I won't but clearly the housing and benefits system was not working well then and still isn't now. Why are we subsidising private landlords to house people in conditions that sound little better than slums. Surely there has to be a better way than this?"
The funny thing is many of the places that private landlords rent out are ex local authority houses that thatcher gave people the right to buy in the late 80's, they typically buy them for cheap then rent back to local authority for 3x the amount.
Rental prices in london are so high that it was cheaper for me and my partner to get a mortgage than rent. So Christ knows how someone on a minimum wage 16 hour a week job would afford them, even if they got london living wage which is £9:45 they still couldn't afford it, plus the greedy landlords would stick the rent up because they can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit.
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!!
That's rubbish though. Last time i relied on Tory housing benefits they were £40 a week, my rent was £75 a week and everyone i know kept ending up homeless, including a heavily pregnant me because i ended up on the sick (couldn't claim sickness benefits though).
No rents went down!
But the cruddy bedsit i ended up in did knock £4 a week of the rent coz we had no hot water ( i bathed in my toddlers baby bath using the kettle to fill it up), a carpet coated in crap that i spent 3 days (and god knows how much disinfectant) on my hands and knees scrubbing clean, and the fridge was rusty inside, ad some electric sockets were faulty. Tories also wanna get rid of housing regulations, well i wonder why? Return of the fucking slumlords and the poor living in shit coz they can't afford anything better.
And they enjoy the idea of that, i really believe they get off on treating people like crap.
I can't argue with your own personal experience so I won't but clearly the housing and benefits system was not working well then and still isn't now. Why are we subsidising private landlords to house people in conditions that sound little better than slums. Surely there has to be a better way than this?
The funny thing is many of the places that private landlords rent out are ex local authority houses that thatcher gave people the right to buy in the late 80's, they typically buy them for cheap then rent back to local authority for 3x the amount.
Rental prices in london are so high that it was cheaper for me and my partner to get a mortgage than rent. So Christ knows how someone on a minimum wage 16 hour a week job would afford them, even if they got london living wage which is £9:45 they still couldn't afford it, plus the greedy landlords would stick the rent up because they can. "
Are you saying that landlords should rent their properties at a rate lower than people are willing to pay? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash. "
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government working as it should.
Although Tony B Liar did fill the upper chamber with his mates "
The House of Lords is full of unelected who have no standing with those that vote at general elections. They should not, whatever the unpopularity of legislation, have any rights to defeat a properly elected government. It's a slap in the face to voters and democracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage."
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage.
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax. "
Or bored housewives wanting some pin money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government working as it should.
Although Tony B Liar did fill the upper chamber with his mates The House of Lords is full of unelected who have no standing with those that vote at general elections. They should not, whatever the unpopularity of legislation, have any rights to defeat a properly elected government. It's a slap in the face to voters and democracy. "
Or looked at another way, it is an example of the moderating influence of the upper house. I actually like it when the HoL does this, it shows it is still relevant and in touch with public opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
has to be a better way than this?
The funny thing is many of the places that private landlords rent out are ex local authority houses that thatcher gave people the right to buy in the late 80's, they typically buy them for cheap then rent back to local authority for 3x the amount. "
Although many will have passed through several hands before this.
"Rental prices in london are so high that it was cheaper for me and my partner to get a mortgage than rent. So Christ knows how someone on a minimum wage 16 hour a week job would afford them, even if they got london living wage which is £9:45 they still couldn't afford it, plus the greedy landlords would stick the rent up because they can.
Are you saying that landlords should rent their properties at a rate lower than people are willing to pay?"
Nobody can object to anyone spending their own money on whatever outrageous rent they're willing to pay. It's when the DWP (ie you and me) are expected to pick up the bill for someone's lifestyle choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage.
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax. "
That's where the legal minimum and now new increased living wage come in. (although I would with anyone who says the minimum wage and even the so called new living wage are not what I would call a real living wage yet) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
has to be a better way than this?
The funny thing is many of the places that private landlords rent out are ex local authority houses that thatcher gave people the right to buy in the late 80's, they typically buy them for cheap then rent back to local authority for 3x the amount.
Although many will have passed through several hands before this.
Rental prices in london are so high that it was cheaper for me and my partner to get a mortgage than rent. So Christ knows how someone on a minimum wage 16 hour a week job would afford them, even if they got london living wage which is £9:45 they still couldn't afford it, plus the greedy landlords would stick the rent up because they can.
Are you saying that landlords should rent their properties at a rate lower than people are willing to pay?
Nobody can object to anyone spending their own money on whatever outrageous rent they're willing to pay. It's when the DWP (ie you and me) are expected to pick up the bill for someone's lifestyle choice."
With the deficit in affordable housing people have no choice but to rent privately. And they aren't all luxury mansions either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage.
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax.
That's where the legal minimum and now new increased living wage come in. (although I would with anyone who says the minimum wage and even the so called new living wage are not what I would call a real living wage yet)"
People earning more than the current minimum wage struggle to pay the landlord's rate. It's not just people on the minimum wage. A 3 bedroom rental can be double or more of a council accommodation. Someone sold off the affordable housing that the Government purposely built for the working classes who couldn't afford high landlords' rents or a mortgage. And they are only now replacing them by negotiations with land developers to supply a proportion of the new homes for affordable renting. Which is still double the council rents. People don't always have a choice as to which property they get either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
has to be a better way than this?
The funny thing is many of the places that private landlords rent out are ex local authority houses that thatcher gave people the right to buy in the late 80's, they typically buy them for cheap then rent back to local authority for 3x the amount.
Although many will have passed through several hands before this.
Rental prices in london are so high that it was cheaper for me and my partner to get a mortgage than rent. So Christ knows how someone on a minimum wage 16 hour a week job would afford them, even if they got london living wage which is £9:45 they still couldn't afford it, plus the greedy landlords would stick the rent up because they can.
Are you saying that landlords should rent their properties at a rate lower than people are willing to pay?
Nobody can object to anyone spending their own money on whatever outrageous rent they're willing to pay. It's when the DWP (ie you and me) are expected to pick up the bill for someone's lifestyle choice."
I broadly agree with what you're saying with the exception that working people receiving benefits, including housing benefit & tax credits, may actually be the very aspirational people we should be encouraging, the people trying to do something for themselves to try and make their lives better rather than just sitting back and watching Jeremy Kyle all day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage.
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax.
That's where the legal minimum and now new increased living wage come in. (although I would with anyone who says the minimum wage and even the so called new living wage are not what I would call a real living wage yet)
People earning more than the current minimum wage struggle to pay the landlord's rate. It's not just people on the minimum wage. A 3 bedroom rental can be double or more of a council accommodation. Someone sold off the affordable housing that the Government purposely built for the working classes who couldn't afford high landlords' rents or a mortgage. And they are only now replacing them by negotiations with land developers to supply a proportion of the new homes for affordable renting. Which is still double the council rents. People don't always have a choice as to which property they get either "
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying (although your previous comment about immigrants taking peoples jobs is a bit too UKIPish for me, we can save that for another thread). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When the government does cut tax credits will they force the employers of the affected to pay more. Or pay more child care money out for people who have to work more hours to make up their lost money-assuming the hours are there to be worked.
I think that's the plan with the introduction of the 'living wage' and increased child care hours. The problem is that, without quite a large amount of economic growth, this won't cover the gap and, more importantly, won't fully kickin until quite some time after the cuts have taken effect.
I wonder if landlords wouldn't mind taking a rent revenue cut while the wages catch up. Or maybe the council tax,gas and electricity suppliers will help out a bit.
Well that's partly what the argument is. Landlords are charging higher rents because people are getting tax credits so can afford higher rents. Companies are paying lower wages because people are getting tax credits so can afford to work for less. In reality the tax credits are going to the landlords and the businesses. It's almost like a subsidy to inefficient businesses and explorative landlords. Without it landlords will eventually have to lower their rents and companies increase their wages. At least that's the economic theory.!!
That's rubbish though. Last time i relied on Tory housing benefits they were £40 a week, my rent was £75 a week and everyone i know kept ending up homeless, including a heavily pregnant me because i ended up on the sick (couldn't claim sickness benefits though).
No rents went down!
But the cruddy bedsit i ended up in did knock £4 a week of the rent coz we had no hot water ( i bathed in my toddlers baby bath using the kettle to fill it up), a carpet coated in crap that i spent 3 days (and god knows how much disinfectant) on my hands and knees scrubbing clean, and the fridge was rusty inside, ad some electric sockets were faulty. Tories also wanna get rid of housing regulations, well i wonder why? Return of the fucking slumlords and the poor living in shit coz they can't afford anything better.
And they enjoy the idea of that, i really believe they get off on treating people like crap.
I can't argue with your own personal experience so I won't but clearly the housing and benefits system was not working well then and still isn't now. Why are we subsidising private landlords to house people in conditions that sound little better than slums. Surely there has to be a better way than this?
The funny thing is many of the places that private landlords rent out are ex local authority houses that thatcher gave people the right to buy in the late 80's, they typically buy them for cheap then rent back to local authority for 3x the amount.
Rental prices in london are so high that it was cheaper for me and my partner to get a mortgage than rent. So Christ knows how someone on a minimum wage 16 hour a week job would afford them, even if they got london living wage which is £9:45 they still couldn't afford it, plus the greedy landlords would stick the rent up because they can.
Are you saying that landlords should rent their properties at a rate lower than people are willing to pay?"
Well it seems that it's a no win situation then. If landlords will rent properties at rates people cannot afford then they will require top ups from local authority. But the government. Doesn't want that as we can see. If they started to build replacement social housing this would help but again the Tories don't do peasants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage.
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax.
That's where the legal minimum and now new increased living wage come in. (although I would with anyone who says the minimum wage and even the so called new living wage are not what I would call a real living wage yet)"
Trouble with companies paying living wage (a wage I agree with may I add) is it will not help much. My partner and I couldn't afford to rent a property and we're on good money. As crazy as it sounded it was cheaper for us to buy than rent? This shouldn't be the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage.
People who don't have to pay a landlord or may be studying will take those jobs. Or immigrants who all live squashed up in one house to be able to afford the rent and council tax.
That's where the legal minimum and now new increased living wage come in. (although I would with anyone who says the minimum wage and even the so called new living wage are not what I would call a real living wage yet)
Trouble with companies paying living wage (a wage I agree with may I add) is it will not help much. My partner and I couldn't afford to rent a property and we're on good money. As crazy as it sounded it was cheaper for us to buy than rent? This shouldn't be the case. "
There also the problem of the lack of new build that has existed under both Labour and Conservative since the mid 70's. There are moves a foot now to try and rectify that but still way too little and way too late. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"politics in action, constitutional evolution even as normally the lords are fingered to agree with parliarment
Of course when things don't smoothly go the way of the House of P it's deemed a crisis."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sounds like the Government didn't like the Lords interfering. Breaking news wheels in motion to stop such a thing again by re_iewing the House of Lords powers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
this conservative group will fuck the poor workers....then the middle class workers,keep the rich even richer and fiddle it so the eu vote will be rigged so we stay in......this Cameron geezer is showing his true colours now ....liar liar liar |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the new so called "living wage" was anything of the kind.
Those in work would not be entitled to "working tax credits"
Hence there would be no need at all to cut it.
Just more blatant lies,from those that really dont give a shit,as long as they keep filling their bank accounts, at the countries expense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so the house of lords have voted to mitigate the effects of the tax credit cuts and also to delay the implementation og said cuts . a major blow to the government and start of a constitutional crisis or a welcome intervention on behalf of the people worst effected ? "
I find it odd that the innately conservative house of lords blocking a Conservative proposal triggers a "constitutional crisis" yet the same body doing the same thing to Labour legislation was an important part of the checks and balances process!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhell OP Couple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"If the new so called "living wage" was anything of the kind.
Those in work would not be entitled to "working tax credits"
Hence there would be no need at all to cut it.
Just more blatant lies,from those that really dont give a shit,as long as they keep filling their bank accounts, at the countries expense."
if you look at the criteria and limits to claim once this is all in effect nobody on the new minimum wage would qualify the whole thing is a ruse to make the poor suffer for a couple of years then hey presto the "living wage " and other tax cuts kick in the poor get a bit more cash in thier pockets just in time for the next election and being the lemmings and sheep they usualy are and forget everything that has gone before an re elect this shower . last nights vote put a big dampener on this so now gideon is going to have to come up with some other ruse to con the "hard working " folk he claims to care about so much |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I am ignorant to the ins and outs of it but it does seem unfair that you go out to work and are penalised.
As for the 'not wanting to work', well I best not say
"
Why don't they want to work? Many act like they're lazy...instead why not ask them why they don't wanna work?
Most of them say it's not worth them working. That wages are too low.
If more people said they weren't prepared to work for crap money then wages would be better already. We wouldn't have so many reliant on tax credits if the people themselves acted like they have a say in their life, which they do.
Why not blame people who just put up and shut up for this situation?
Why's it unacceptable to not put up with what you're offered and wait for something better to come along? The waiting is irrational yeah, people won't just give you what they want, but the non-acceptance of something you don't want makes total sense.
Can't say i blame them for not wanting to work for a crap wage myself.
Imagine if parliament received a substantial pay rise during a time of austerity, and they got way more holidays than the average worker on top of that, and they were able to claim all kinds of stupid shit on expenses that most people wouldn't dream of claiming for because they'd been brought up being told if they want something they earn it, imagine if we didn't pay taxes and created our own system to avoid paying them...we'd be called lazy right? greedy? illegal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so the house of lords have voted to mitigate the effects of the tax credit cuts and also to delay the implementation og said cuts . a major blow to the government and start of a constitutional crisis or a welcome intervention on behalf of the people worst effected ?
I find it odd that the innately conservative house of lords blocking a Conservative proposal triggers a "constitutional crisis" yet the same body doing the same thing to Labour legislation was an important part of the checks and balances process! "
Talks of constitutional crisis are just a smoke screen to divert our attention away from the fact that the Conservatives were both deceiving us before the election and trying to implement something that was improper, to put it mildly. There is no crisis, except the Conservatives are being seen for the frauds and immoral liars that they are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so the house of lords have voted to mitigate the effects of the tax credit cuts and also to delay the implementation og said cuts . a major blow to the government and start of a constitutional crisis or a welcome intervention on behalf of the people worst effected ?
I find it odd that the innately conservative house of lords blocking a Conservative proposal triggers a "constitutional crisis" yet the same body doing the same thing to Labour legislation was an important part of the checks and balances process! "
I don't know where you get your history from but the last time the Lords blocked a major piece of government legislation was before 1911. There have been no occasions in over 100 years that the Lords have vetoed a major piece of government legislation. It is a major constitutional issue and, whilst you nay agree with the Lords on this particular issue, as I do, it can not be considered, long term, a good thing for democracy that an unelected chamber can thwart the intent of the elected chamber. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I also find it interesting that people like Nigel Lawson voted against the proposals. Now the last person i remember called Nigel Lawson was the Chancellor under Margret Thatcher, who i seem to recall was a Conservative.
Surely if people like that are voting against the proposals it should tell the government something! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
here's what's being said by the analysts and commentators ... they niether blocked or vetoed anything. they delayed it .... a massive difference. ergo it wasn't breaking any existing constitutional conventions. if they wanted they could have pushed this through on the back of the recent financial bill, but the fact that they chose not to do that means it can't be considered as a fiscal matter.
and on the topic raised earlier by someone on british manufavturing being really rosie at the moment, well uk manufacturing is currently officially mired in recession according to the ons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I also find it interesting that people like Nigel Lawson voted against the proposals. Now the last person i remember called Nigel Lawson was the Chancellor under Margret Thatcher, who i seem to recall was a Conservative.
Surely if people like that are voting against the proposals it should tell the government something! "
Nigel Lawson is an anagram of "we all sign on" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I thought that when the house of commons wanted to change something it went to the house of lords to be approved and then on to the Monarch for signing off. Or is that only particular things? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the new so called "living wage" was anything of the kind.
Those in work would not be entitled to "working tax credits"
Hence there would be no need at all to cut it.
Just more blatant lies,from those that really dont give a shit,as long as they keep filling their bank accounts, at the countries expense.if you look at the criteria and limits to claim once this is all in effect nobody on the new minimum wage would qualify the whole thing is a ruse to make the poor suffer for a couple of years then hey presto the "living wage " and other tax cuts kick in the poor get a bit more cash in thier pockets just in time for the next election and being the lemmings and sheep they usualy are and forget everything that has gone before an re elect this shower . last nights vote put a big dampener on this so now gideon is going to have to come up with some other ruse to con the "hard working " folk he claims to care about so much "
The argument that the people are so stupid that they keep voting in the wrong party has never brought electrical victory to Labour in the past. It's unlikely to bring them victory in the future either.
You won't persuade people to vote Labour by insulting them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the new so called "living wage" was anything of the kind.
Those in work would not be entitled to "working tax credits"
Hence there would be no need at all to cut it.
Just more blatant lies,from those that really dont give a shit,as long as they keep filling their bank accounts, at the countries expense.if you look at the criteria and limits to claim once this is all in effect nobody on the new minimum wage would qualify the whole thing is a ruse to make the poor suffer for a couple of years then hey presto the "living wage " and other tax cuts kick in the poor get a bit more cash in thier pockets just in time for the next election and being the lemmings and sheep they usualy are and forget everything that has gone before an re elect this shower . last nights vote put a big dampener on this so now gideon is going to have to come up with some other ruse to con the "hard working " folk he claims to care about so much
The argument that the people are so stupid that they keep voting in the wrong party has never brought electrical victory to Labour in the past. It's unlikely to bring them victory in the future either.
You won't persuade people to vote Labour by insulting them."
That would be shocking
You can bet your boots there will some form of electoral bribe in the April budget just in time for it to have an impact for the May election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"here's what's being said by the analysts and commentators ... they niether blocked or vetoed anything. they delayed it .... a massive difference. ergo it wasn't breaking any existing constitutional conventions. if they wanted they could have pushed this through on the back of the recent financial bill, but the fact that they chose not to do that means it can't be considered as a fiscal matter.
and on the topic raised earlier by someone on british manufavturing being really rosie at the moment, well uk manufacturing is currently officially mired in recession according to the ons."
Precisely right. Proposing amendments to something that wasn't raised in the conservative party's manifesto, and also financial changes that could have been raised as part of the finance bill - but were not, for some reasons that were obviously deemed pertinent, this all makes this absolutely not a constitutional crisis.
Any shouts and roars of constitutional crisis is just sour groups and raising of a smoke screen that the conservatives have not followed proper procedure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash.
If people turn down low paid jobs because they are paying so low people can't afford to do them then the person offering the job will have to increase the amount they are willing to pay to get the job done. That's the whole idea really, companies should be paying a real living wage not a sub living wage."
Cons/LibDems extended sanctions to include those turning down paid work.
You have no choice but to work now, even if that work doesn't benefit you.
They are purposely taking away workers rights. they want people to work for nothing, they're sick. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
?
Does anyone know if they're still gonna make it so only the worst paid workers can claim working tax credits? They'll still be cutting some peoples money anyway if they do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"here's what's being said by the analysts and commentators ... they niether blocked or vetoed anything. they delayed it .... a massive difference. ergo it wasn't breaking any existing constitutional conventions. if they wanted they could have pushed this through on the back of the recent financial bill, but the fact that they chose not to do that means it can't be considered as a fiscal matter.
and on the topic raised earlier by someone on british manufavturing being really rosie at the moment, well uk manufacturing is currently officially mired in recession according to the ons.
Precisely right. Proposing amendments to something that wasn't raised in the conservative party's manifesto, and also financial changes that could have been raised as part of the finance bill - but were not, for some reasons that were obviously deemed pertinent, this all makes this absolutely not a constitutional crisis.
Any shouts and roars of constitutional crisis is just sour groups and raising of a smoke screen that the conservatives have not followed proper procedure. "
this..
you put your horse in the wrong race then that's not the fault of those who decided not to back it..
as the bill stood it is a shockingly cynical attack on people wanting to do the right thing, its a nasty party piece of work..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There seems to a total lack of understanding on this thread on what is and what is not a constitutional issue.
Whether you agree with the way the Lords voted or not the fact is is that the Lords has voted down a major blank of government policy which had already been approved by the commons. This the first time this has happened in over 100 years. If that's not a pretty major crises in what is meant to be a democratic process then what is?
My attitude to this is simple and should be the only attitude that anyone who claims to support democracy could possibly take. To mis quote what Volter never actually said.
I may agree with what you've done but I'll never agree you have the right to do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
Regarding democracy, I'm not sure exactly how it stands, as per my status update:
... "A party voted in by 27% of electorate defeated by lords in measure not in manifesto complains of lack of democracy." 4 hours ago |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There seems to a total lack of understanding on this thread on what is and what is not a constitutional issue.
Whether you agree with the way the Lords voted or not the fact is is that the Lords has voted down a major blank of government policy which had already been approved by the commons. This the first time this has happened in over 100 years. If that's not a pretty major crises in what is meant to be a democratic process then what is?
My attitude to this is simple and should be the only attitude that anyone who claims to support democracy could possibly take. To mis quote what Volter never actually said.
I may agree with what you've done but I'll never agree you have the right to do it."
Not really. What the Lords voted down was a statutory instrument put forward by the treasury, not a bill. Statutory instruments are a way for the government to operate by creating regulations without having to create a new law every time something changes. The Lords can vote on them if the Act of Parliament that they are created under allows that to happen. In this case the Act (the tax credits act 2002) says "No regulations to which this subsection applies may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament". The Act goes on to say explicitly that this includes changes to financial amounts in regulations. The Lords were totally within their rights to vote on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What will also happen now is when someone looks for work they will have to turn down low paid jobs because they won't be able to afford to live. There's the option of a second job but with more people taking two jobs they will be even more scarce than they are now. Those kinds of jobs are often not 9-5 and you work shifts,your shifts would have to not clash. "
Funny how many people fail to hear what they are told by the government...
Osbourn is determined to turn the UK into a country more like the USA or Asia! He has told us all so!...
The USA is the country where over a quarter of the population cant afford healthcare and Asian continent is the place where the super rich living next to those they made their riches on is shown on our TVs weekly as aid agencies beg us to help them relieve the suffering of the sick and starving!
Welcome all to the true face of austerity! And enjoy your first real Tory government since the mid 90s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There seems to a total lack of understanding on this thread on what is and what is not a constitutional issue.
Whether you agree with the way the Lords voted or not the fact is is that the Lords has voted down a major blank of government policy which had already been approved by the commons. This the first time this has happened in over 100 years. If that's not a pretty major crises in what is meant to be a democratic process then what is?
My attitude to this is simple and should be the only attitude that anyone who claims to support democracy could possibly take. To mis quote what Volter never actually said.
I may agree with what you've done but I'll never agree you have the right to do it.
Not really. What the Lords voted down was a statutory instrument put forward by the treasury, not a bill. Statutory instruments are a way for the government to operate by creating regulations without having to create a new law every time something changes. The Lords can vote on them if the Act of Parliament that they are created under allows that to happen. In this case the Act (the tax credits act 2002) says "No regulations to which this subsection applies may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament". The Act goes on to say explicitly that this includes changes to financial amounts in regulations. The Lords were totally within their rights to vote on it."
Legally you're right, they have the right but that's not really the point. Anyway, whether anyone thinks it's a constitutional crisis or not it's what the government thinks that counts and they are saying it is. They also have the power to change what the Lords can block and it looks like they probably will now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Regarding democracy, I'm not sure exactly how it stands, as per my status update:
... "A party voted in by 27% of electorate defeated by lords in measure not in manifesto complains of lack of democracy." 4 hours ago "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
the problem with tax credits is that they have become tool for businesses to pay low wages knowing the government is going to foot the bill......
so rather than paying people this new "national living wage"... just make the minimum wage the living wage....
that would cut your tax credit bill straight away...
and for business who say they cant afford it... it would people more expenable money to go out there and spend... people wouldn't lose jobs, and it would probably kick start the economy again..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the problem with tax credits is that they have become tool for businesses to pay low wages knowing the government is going to foot the bill......
so rather than paying people this new "national living wage"... just make the minimum wage the living wage....
that would cut your tax credit bill straight away...
and for business who say they cant afford it... it would people more expenable money to go out there and spend... people wouldn't lose jobs, and it would probably kick start the economy again....."
And make sure companies can't manipulate your hours,like Morrisons have to the cafeteria staff,to pay them more per hour but for less hours. I didn't really understand how they did it but it's something to do with paid lunch break but having to work it. The union backed the changes. People on low hour contracts may get less hours but be expected to do more work in those hours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
why have a minimum wage when many small bizz just cant afford to pay them.....better to have a job than not....u add new min wage plus pensions coming in to the small bizz ====more people with no jobs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"why have a minimum wage when many small bizz just cant afford to pay them.....better to have a job than not....u add new min wage plus pensions coming in to the small bizz ====more people with no jobs"
No it's not. Also, by bad companies paying below a real living wage it makes it harder for good companies to pay people a living wage and remain competitive.
If a company can not run its business in such a way that it can afford to pay it's employees a proper living wage then it has no business being in business. Why should a good profitable business and hard working people have to subsidise an uncompetitive businesses through their taxes, which also makes it harder for the goof business to pay a real living wage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There seems to a total lack of understanding on this thread on what is and what is not a constitutional issue.
Whether you agree with the way the Lords voted or not the fact is is that the Lords has voted down a major blank of government policy which had already been approved by the commons. This the first time this has happened in over 100 years. If that's not a pretty major crises in what is meant to be a democratic process then what is?
My attitude to this is simple and should be the only attitude that anyone who claims to support democracy could possibly take. To mis quote what Volter never actually said.
I may agree with what you've done but I'll never agree you have the right to do it.
Not really. What the Lords voted down was a statutory instrument put forward by the treasury, not a bill. Statutory instruments are a way for the government to operate by creating regulations without having to create a new law every time something changes. The Lords can vote on them if the Act of Parliament that they are created under allows that to happen. In this case the Act (the tax credits act 2002) says "No regulations to which this subsection applies may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament". The Act goes on to say explicitly that this includes changes to financial amounts in regulations. The Lords were totally within their rights to vote on it.
Legally you're right, they have the right but that's not really the point. Anyway, whether anyone thinks it's a constitutional crisis or not it's what the government thinks that counts and they are saying it is. They also have the power to change what the Lords can block and it looks like they probably will now."
It's more like hysteria or hyperbole than a crisis. A crisis implies a life or death moment for the constitution. This is a minor legal/parliamentary scuffle not tanks rolling into parliament square. Of course the government can resubmit this in a way that the Lords can't do anything about it. Turning the attention to the so called crisis is one way of diverting people's thoughts from how harsh these cuts were for the people who could least afford them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regarding democracy, I'm not sure exactly how it stands, as per my status update:
... "A party voted in by 27% of electorate defeated by lords in measure not in manifesto complains of lack of democracy." 4 hours ago "
this..
Cameron's refusal to answer at PMQ's only serves to give the Lords decision the till the present lot sort it out.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
