Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...t-cuts-reforms
    And Osbourne takes another hit...
    Well, the tory controlled work and pensions committee has rejected Osbourne's plans and told him to have a full rethink on cuts to tax credits.
    The report was unanimously agreed, including by six tory MPs.

    I call a constitutional crisis.


    AND to stop all the 'yeah but that's the guardian', here's an article from the Telegraph too saying similar things about tories rebelling:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...edit-cuts.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is that all Tories? Or just some Tories?

    Isn't parliamentary democracy great when MPs don't follow a party line and have debate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I call a constitutional crisis.
    I am no fan of the Tories but that is a bit harsh. I would just call it a basic disagreement.

    This is a constitutional crisis

    "France cancels official dinner with Iran's President Rouhani... because he wants it to be wine-free"

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6729581.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Is that all Tories? Or just some Tories?

    Isn't parliamentary democracy great when MPs don't follow a party line and have debate.
    Some not all, I never claimed it was all. And yes it is great when MPs don't just follow the party line - one of the key reasons I wish we would abandon the whipping system.

    Merely an interesting situation which has led the tory party split.
    Whose side are you on, Osbourne or the Tory Mps opposing him?

    It's also potentially significant for the tory leadership contest, if Osbourne severs relationships with MPs, it won't do him many favours.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I am no fan of the Tories but that is a bit harsh. I would just call it a basic disagreement.

    This is a constitutional crisis

    "France cancels official dinner with Iran's President Rouhani... because he wants it to be wine-free"

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6729581.html
    Haha, it was a joke to take the piss out of when Osbourne claimed the Lords voting down his bill was a 'constitutional crisis'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You would think you'd at least have known how to spell "Osborne" by now, given how often you type it...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    You would think you'd at least have known how to spell "Osborne" by now, given how often you type it...
    If you're not going to contribute to the substance of the thread and instead look for cheap points on spelling/grammar then don't bother.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Some not all, I never claimed it was all. And yes it is great when MPs don't just follow the party line - one of the key reasons I wish we would abandon the whipping system.

    Merely an interesting situation which has led the tory party split.
    Whose side are you on, Osbourne or the Tory Mps opposing him?

    It's also potentially significant for the tory leadership contest, if Osbourne severs relationships with MPs, it won't do him many favours.
    I'm not a big fan of tax credits. I think it promotes dependency. I now too many people hovering around the cut off point that choose to hold themselves back in order to gain tax credits . The same as people who will remain on the dole as getting a job leaves them more financially worse off.

    It's a difficult one. I think Osbourne pusing the wage increase was a move in the right direction, as is the intent to cut back on tax credits that not only saves money on credits, but also on the administrative charges.

    The introduction of tax credits was a legacy of new labour. Rather than addressing the underlying issues of low productivity and low wages, they merely borrowed money they didn't have and gave it away.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm not a big fan of tax credits. I think it promotes dependency. I now too many people hovering around the cut off point that choose to hold themselves back in order to gain tax credits . The same as people who will remain on the dole as getting a job leaves them more financially worse off.

    It's a difficult one. I think Osbourne pusing the wage increase was a move in the right direction, as is the intent to cut back on tax credits that not only saves money on credits, but also on the administrative charges.

    The introduction of tax credits was a legacy of new labour. Rather than addressing the underlying issues of low productivity and low wages, they merely borrowed money they didn't have and gave it away.
    But you can also argue that it is not the workers fault their bosses under-pay them.
    If you get rid of them, you will have load of workers having huge amounts cut, up to £1300 a year from the worst off and various studies have shown that the increases in the minimum wage will not cover this at all.

    Tax credits encourage people to get a job, knowing that they will be rewarded for it.
    I'm fine to ease them out, but ONLY if we increase the minimum wage hugely to cover the losses from scrapping tax credits.

    These people on tax credits have a job, they've done everything asked of them it's not their fault their employer pays them so low.

    That's why many tories, and even the Daily Telegraph have rebelled on this issue.It's hard to promote yourself as a worker's party when you are taking money away from workers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But you can also argue that it is not the workers fault their bosses under-pay them.
    If you get rid of them, you will have load of workers having huge amounts cut, up to £1300 a year from the worst off and various studies have shown that the increases in the minimum wage will not cover this at all.

    Tax credits encourage people to get a job, knowing that they will be rewarded for it.
    I'm fine to ease them out, but ONLY if we increase the minimum wage hugely to cover the losses from scrapping tax credits.

    These people on tax credits have a job, they've done everything asked of them it's not their fault their employer pays them so low.

    That's why many tories, and even the Daily Telegraph have rebelled on this issue.It's hard to promote yourself as a worker's party when you are taking money away from workers.
    You've said that bosses underpay people. If you don't like it leave. Employers will pay to retain the right people.

    We're probably in the situation now with the increase in jobs that traditionally we should be seeing significant increases in wage rates, however jobs are being filled by an ever increasing amount of migrant labour that are artificially lowering wage rates.

    I know people on tax credits have jobs. They've seen their tax threshold rise.

    Maybe it's a case of the taxable threshold should increase further to counter the tax credits cut.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You've said that bosses underpay people. If you don't like it leave. Employers will pay to retain the right people.

    We're probably in the situation now with the increase in jobs that traditionally we should be seeing significant increases in wage rates, however jobs are being filled by an ever increasing amount of migrant labour that are artificially lowering wage rates.

    I know people on tax credits have jobs. They've seen their tax threshold rise.

    Maybe it's a case of the taxable threshold should increase further to counter the tax credits cut.
    You shouldn't have to leave because a basic right should be that bosses pay their workers enough so they can live on. We're not talking huge amounts here, but at the very least an amount so that they can afford to live.

    Plus it's not always so easy to find a higher paying job. That's why tax credits were brought in, to help out those who were in work but paid so low that they couldn't afford to live without help.

    If jobs paid significantly more, we wouldn't need tax credits, but they don't so right now we do.

    I'm all for raising the personal allowance of the poorest workers, but that still won't cover the losses they occur through cuts to tax credits.

    Again though to reiterate, people on tax credits have a job, they are not 'scroungers' - they've actually gone out and got themselves a job - it's not their fault their bosses don't pay them well. Tax credits encourage people to get a job, rather than to be lazy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Osborne should just tell the dissenters the standard line.

    We want to go from a low pay, high tax, high welfare society, to a high pay, low tax, low welfare society.

    Which is a bit like Jeremy Corbyn telling the Trident debate, we want to go for a world which is peaceful and free from nuclear arms.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It's a difficult one. I think Osbourne pusing the wage increase was a move in the right direction, as is the intent to cut back on tax credits that not only saves money on credits, but also on the administrative charges.
    You do realize that increasing the Minimum Wage would result in the bare minimum being paid to workers? You know, the money that barely sustains you.

    Take away the tax credits and the situation worsens.

    If the Government wants to take away Tax Credits and increase the Minimum Wage by an equivalent amount, then I see no issue but increasing MW by a couple of pennies, whilst taking away hundreds of pounds is an atrocious way to treat people.


    Now, I disagree with the whole concept of MW (In fact, I think it should be scrapped entirely) but I will stand with decent, hard-working folks against Osborne and his plans to cut tax credits.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You shouldn't have to leave because a basic right should be that bosses pay their workers enough so they can live on. We're not talking huge amounts here, but at the very least an amount so that they can afford to live.

    Plus it's not always so easy to find a higher paying job. That's why tax credits were brought in, to help out those who were in work but paid so low that they couldn't afford to live without help.

    If jobs paid significantly more, we wouldn't need tax credits, but they don't so right now we do.

    I'm all for raising the personal allowance of the poorest workers, but that still won't cover the losses they occur through cuts to tax credits.

    Again though to reiterate, people on tax credits have a job, they are not 'scroungers' - they've actually gone out and got themselves a job - it's not their fault their bosses don't pay them well. Tax credits encourage people to get a job, rather than to be lazy.
    Then Raise the tax free threshold. Kill off tax credits and get a cost saving by getting rid of the people who administer tax credits.

    Tax credits were brought in by labour as a bribe to voters. Vote for us and we'll give you free money. Don't worry where it's coming from, no more boom and bust.

    In fact, I being disengenius, they were actually pushed through as a poor attempt to address low wages. Rather than do the hard stuff they went for the easy option of give money away.

    It's a balancing act. Raise wages and jobs go abroad.

    I've never said that people on tax credits are scroungers. In fact I'll acknowledge that not everybody on benefits is a scrounger. (We have a sub culture who will play the system though.)

    I merely highlighted that benefits as with tax credits are a balancing act. Get close to cut off limits and decisions need to be made as to whether or kit you are financially better off to hold yourself back.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If you're not going to contribute to the substance of the thread and instead look for cheap points on spelling/grammar then don't bother.
    I think it's a fair criticism -- at least spell properly the names of the people you criticise, unless you're trying to make a joke that the rest of us don't get. It's not just an odd typo either. You consistently spell it that way, and I've often silently wondered why that is. Is there a reason for it or have you genuinely not noticed it until now?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I think it's a fair criticism -- at least spell properly the names of the people you criticise, unless you're trying to make a joke that the rest of us don't get. It's not just an odd typo either. You consistently spell it that way, and I've often silently wondered why that is. Is there a reason for it or have you genuinely not noticed it until now?
    It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
    I thought his name had a U in, I apologize. It adds nothing to the debate.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
    I thought his name had a U in, I apologize. It adds nothing to the debate.
    Apology accepted. I know it doesn't, but it's a fair point to raise. It's as irritating as if I consistently rambled on about Jeremy Corbin or John McDonald.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Then Raise the tax free threshold. Kill off tax credits and get a cost saving by getting rid of the people who administer tax credits.

    Tax credits were brought in by labour as a bribe to voters. Vote for us and we'll give you free money. Don't worry where it's coming from, no more boom and bust.

    In fact, I being disengenius, they were actually pushed through as a poor attempt to address low wages. Rather than do the hard stuff they went for the easy option of give money away.

    It's a balancing act. Raise wages and jobs go abroad.

    I've never said that people on tax credits are scroungers. In fact I'll acknowledge that not everybody on benefits is a scrounger. (We have a sub culture who will play the system though.)

    I merely highlighted that benefits as with tax credits are a balancing act. Get close to cut off limits and decisions need to be made as to whether or kit you are financially better off to hold yourself back.
    If raising the threshold 100% covers cuts to tax credits then I support it, but it doesn't cover that at the moment.
    I don't think it's fair to say they were brought into bribe voters. You acknowledge that people on tax credits are not scroungers, and they help people who've gone out and got a job to be able to afford to live.

    But even if they were a bribe, the fact they have helped millions afford to live is certainly a good thing. There is no 'dependency' here.

    If you want to stop people needing them, then increase wages significantly to an amount to completely cover the losses to working tax credits.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Then Raise the tax free threshold. Kill off tax credits and get a cost saving by getting rid of the people who administer tax credits.

    Tax credits were brought in by labour as a bribe to voters. Vote for us and we'll give you free money. Don't worry where it's coming from, no more boom and bust.

    In fact, I being disengenius, they were actually pushed through as a poor attempt to address low wages. Rather than do the hard stuff they went for the easy option of give money away.

    It's a balancing act. Raise wages and jobs go abroad.

    I've never said that people on tax credits are scroungers. In fact I'll acknowledge that not everybody on benefits is a scrounger. (We have a sub culture who will play the system though.)

    I merely highlighted that benefits as with tax credits are a balancing act. Get close to cut off limits and decisions need to be made as to whether or kit you are financially better off to hold yourself back.
    Either business can afford to pay higher wages or they can not. It doesn't matter how we go about it, whether from an enforced higher min wage or reducing immigration or taking away tax credits. Yet we are told time and time again that business can not afford to pay their staff more.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Apology accepted. I know it doesn't, but it's a fair point to raise. It's as irritating as if I consistently rambled on about Jeremy Corbin or John McDonald.
    Or the commonly seen "Ed Milliband"...
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.