Low Paid Tories are Revolting!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hame-you-hardworking-mums-tearful-6643284

It looks like the low paid Tories are revolting. Last night on Question Time a Women said she voted Conservative, worked really hard to provide for her children, she is struggling to pay the bills but the Conservatives are taking more from her when they said they wouldn't. She also appeared to show emotional tears. They where not fake.

It sounds fair enough if the minimum wage is insufficient to give any children you may have a decent quality of life (I say 'if' because I'm not entirely sure if it is or it isn't).

That means a family earning just a £5,000-a-year salary will no longer get the full tax credit. - £5000 a year is not a salary. It's not full time work. The focus should be on why these people are unable to get full time work instead of complaining that their part-time work isnt topped up enough.

Ha ha ha ha!!! Just you wait until you have kids. Our mortgage is £830 a month

Full time childcare in a cheap nursery (£40 a day) was about £860 a month. We now have our youngest in nursery for three days a week at a cost of £650 a month.

So unless the main earner in a family can effectively cover the bills and disposable income of the household, the second earner has to earn in excess of about £12k (3 days a week) in order to make working worthwhile. Otherwise they may as well stay at home.

As for your gripes of subsidising large families. What comes around goes around. I have just been paying for the last 15 years of your education.

Similarly, I will soon be paying for your parents retirement.

The point about tax credits is that families that could get by under the old system will not be able to survive under the new one. The government thinks it is saving money but it is a false economy when we start seeing whole families on the street with no where to go.

£14,000 per anum is the salary on a min wage job with 40 hours min contract.

Lets work together on this Hydeman. We don't wanna argue. I think I've already started a good arguement with Reue. Lets work together to see how much a working Single Parent with 2 children can live on.

£14,000 per anum is the salary on a min wage job with 40 hours min contract.

Lets choice Birmingham in the Midlands. Price of 3 Bedroom house to rent is £500 PCM. That is £6000 a year.
Link here for evidence. Nothing fancy,
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-36006363.html

Forgot Taxes. Will do that after when is complete.

£14000 - £6000 = £8000 per anum left.

Lets divide that amount between 12 months and see what the bills are. £8000/12 = £667

Council Tax. £880 / 12 = £73.33 ............... Got from Council.
Tenants Home Insurance (Contents & Buildings) £10 My Friends rate is this.
Water Rates. £325 / 12 = £27.08 ............. Water Sure Seven Trent Rate. (for ppl on low income).
Electricity.
Gas.
Phone & Broadband.
Petrol/Diesel.
Car Insurance.
Car TAX.
MOT costs.
Children School Uniform's.
Food.

You can do rest

(You forgot to include the the 20 percent income tax on the £3 400 above the personal allowance and NI)

I don't see how the parts in bold are a necessary expense but that's not the point. Let's say, for the sake of argument (we'll have to, I'm afraid), that it is arithmetically impossible for a person on minimum wage to support two children and give them a decent quality of life.

Reue's argument, and one that I agree with, is that it would be better for the children to be rehomed in that instance than to just give their parents money for having children that they cannot afford. Foster homes are usually temporary so that solution works even if there are cases when somebody has had children when they were able to afford them and then fallen on hard times financially.

If anything, I think it is too generous of the government to limit it to two children. The government should not be paying for anybody to have any children unless, as I said above, the fertility rate is on a worrying downward trend as it is in Japan, in which case it wouldn't be such an outrageous idea.

I don't particularly like emotional arguments -- let's look at the matter as it really is rather than playing the 'think of the children!' card. My point boils down to this: adults should not be paid to have children. And the rehoming idea goes some way towards preventing irresponsible parents treating children like cash cows because it removes the incentive to have children to get money from the government. By all means support the child through foster parents, but don't go around handing money to people simply because they've had a child that they shouldn't have had.

So in summary: discourage people from having kids that they cannot afford; if they do have kids they cannot afford, rehome them instead of paying their parents (let's face it, we cannot be sure that the money is actually spent primarily on the children and not treated as general household income); return foster children to their parents once they're earning enough to pay back.

To begin with, perhaps. Although I expect the cost savings to come once people begin to realise they can't continually expect the state to bail them out for their own life choices and stop having children they clearly cannot support themselves.

To add to Reue's response to this particular argumentative gem -- there's no point making a rule if there's no penalty for breaking it. To pull the 'think of the children!' card to justify people having children that they cannot afford is nonsense.

I agree with Reue: they should be rehomed instead of their irresponsible parents being paid to procreate. That sort of thing might work in a country with a low birth rate (e.g. Japan), but there's no reason or rationale for doing that here.

It seem incredibly unrealistic and pointless. While I agree about there being a point for people not having children if they can't afford them, those children who are born shouldn't be made to suffer and grow up in poverty.
If you want to rehome them, even ignoring me all the psychological and emotional drama and affects of such, the cost of setting such a system up and maintaining it would likely be more than the credits in the first place, not to mention the huge amount of litigation it would produce. And then what if we can't find enough homes for these children.

And then there's the fact that child credits cost us incredibly little compared to let's say tax avoidance...

Lets work together on this Hydeman. We don't wanna argue. I think I've already started a good arguement with Reue. Lets work together to see how much a working Single Parent with 2 children can live on.

£14,000 per anum is the salary on a min wage job with 40 hours min contract.

Lets choice Birmingham in the Midlands. Price of 3 Bedroom house to rent is £500 PCM. That is £6000 a year.
Link here for evidence. Nothing fancy,
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-36006363.html

Forgot Taxes. Will do that after when is complete.

£14000 - £6000 = £8000 per anum left.

Lets divide that amount between 12 months and see what the bills are. £8000/12 = £667

Council Tax. £880 / 12 = £73.33 ............... Got from Council.
Tenants Home Insurance (Contents & Buildings) £10 My Friends rate is this.
Water Rates. £325 / 12 = £27.08 ............. Water Sure Seven Trent Rate. (for ppl on low income).
Electricity.
Gas.
Phone & Broadband.
Petrol/Diesel.
Car Insurance.
Car TAX.
MOT costs.
Children School Uniform's.
Food.

You can do rest

Do I think giving someone more money will make them financially better off?
Well yes, of course.

What happens if they have a disabled child? Have the child re-honed the sooner the better so the parent can make productive use of them self?

How about ending the disabled child's life like the Spartans did?

She's right though isn't she?
She works hard, her bosses exploit her by paying her little and the tax credits which allow her to afford to live are being taken from under her.
The increased minimum wage won't even come close to covering the losses of tax credits.


If you're going to remove tax credits then there should be a far higher minimum wage. It's about time we started treating people as people rather than commodities.

Although I don't like Blair - tax and child credits were a phenomenally good idea. They gave people a hand up. Working class parents having middle class children was the hallmark of New Labour's success and an astonishing success it was.

My thread. Go and complain to TSR admin that I'm challenging you with a original argument.

And then there's the fact that child credits cost us incredibly little compared to let's say tax avoidance...

Sorry for having basic compassion - I know that offends Tories.

So you want children to be brought up in poverty?

We have to start somewhere.

Well lets get rid of Trident then? Why on earth do we need nuclear weapons when 98% of the worlds other countries get by quite nicely without them? Let us start taxing property sales made by foreign investors. Let us start taxing companies that use licensing agreements to offset tax. Let us start means testing benefit payments to pensioners, like the winter fuel allowance. Dare I say it - why not raise taxes?

This one of the few cases where I'm completely torn. While it's not right to make people worse off, the system was getting out of hand. Brown devised it as a measure partly to get more Labour votes, and under his watch, the bill was allowed to go from 2-6 billion to 30 billion. On top of that, I'm not happy that it's a subsidy to employers to pay less.

It's good that in most cases (80%, according to government figures), the other measures will more than offset the hit to tax credits, but I'd like to see the policy carried out over a longer period of time. I know, though, why it's being done so quickly - it's unpopular and so needs to be done as far away from an election as possible.

It was a thing that needed tackling. The speed is something I'm unhappy with, but the government had little choice. As Ken Clarke said, the government had better just put its tin hat on and get on with it now they're committed.

Some seem to be saying that it is her fault for even believing, for one second, that the Conservatives are on the side of the hardworking poor.

However, we shouldn't underestimate the effects of media propaganda: there was a vicious propaganda campaign targeted at Ed Miliband, and we're seeing an even more vicious one now. We should be welcoming her to the sensible side of the debate, instead of ridiculing her, and challenging the media propagandists, for instance by encouraging higher voter turnout (Republicans and Conservatives alike like to keep it as low as possible). Citizens have become docile consumers, and communities have become shopping malls. It's time to change that and get people interested in politics, which, at the very least, will decrease the likelihood that the likes of the Telegraph, the Times, the Daily Mail and the majority of our media can engage in distortions and lie about the facts.