Posible Conservative welfare cuts leaked

Lilygran the tax deducted from your teachers pension is for your total income including your State Pension. They tend to take the whole tax from personal pensions rather than the State Pension.

Neither party is willing to tell us Whitewave because neither party can. They could probably say what they might do in the first budget after they come to power as they have some idea about the issues with the economy but, although Keynes seems to be less popular these days, he was still right to say "When the facts change, I change my mind" so parties will not tell us what they are going to do for fear of changing facts or, to put it another way - they don't know.

However we can still judge them. Both main parties have told us the balance of what they intend to do. Conservatives want a small state and have said they will use the reduction of benefits to do this and Labour aim for a more equal state and have said they will use taxes to do this. You could vote on the basis of that information or you could vote for a smaller party who may influence who ever gets the largest number of seats. Sometimes I feel sticking a pin in the voting sheet with your eyes closed would be made with almost as much knowledge as we have currently .

Sorry, just read Elegran's link. Thank you!

I thought the state pension was never taxed? That's what the letters I get say, anyway. I pay tax on my teacher's pension. But of course, I lose some state pension I would otherwise be entitled to because I have another pension. Apart from that, I thought you weren't taxed on means-tested benefits? I think the leaked document is a discussion document, not yet policy.

mollie is is a little more complicated than that. If one of them has an income of say £5k and the other £16k then the one earning more than £10600 will pay tax on that. I think there is something coming it about a taxpayer being able to give part of their allowance away but that will only amount to £212 pa.

If neither party are willing to outline what cuts will have to be made according to how much they intend to reduce the debt and in what time scale then the IFS should give us some idea of the sort of cuts that will be needed, and the possible areas in which they will be made.
It is outrageous to ask us to vote with no idea for what we are voting for.

but I would repeat - the 'leak' only suggests - certain disability payments which are not currently 'taxed' will be taxed.
even if your income (as a couple do you use up all your personal allowance) is more than £21k 0nly the amount over would be taxed at 20%
I just feel that everyone is 'over-reacting' to a sensible suggestion.
btw - pensioners already pay tax on their state pension - it never has been tax-free

Irrespective of our income as a couple mollie65 my concern is whether or not these proposed changes are just the 'tip of the iceberg' and once elected party is in power they make more changes. Pensioners and the disabled seem to be soft targets.

They will all cut something and all put something up. No point trying to pre-judge it as none of them will admit they might do something we don't like.

but shabby is your income as a couple under £21K in total ? - in which case you will not lose anything

My DH is disabled and needs 24 hour care which I provide. Being a full time carer is stressful enough without potential cuts to income hanging over our heads. We can manage with not a lot to spare but who knows what the future may hold. Our heating bills in order to keep DH comfortable are astronomical and this past year alone we have spent £5,000 on mobility equipment. We don't need the stress of not knowing what our financial position may be post 7th May.

the not there intiial

If people on benefits are paying tax they must be getting a lot of benefits.

magpie123 Not necessarily getting a lot of benefits . They could have a high income. In a way it works like reverse means testing. Some benefits do not have there initial aim to take people out of poverty but, for example in the case of disability it may be aiming to aid people into work.

Watching a programme called O'Brien[I have never come across it before], I did not realise that some people seem to have many children, eg 8, so that they cant earn enough by working, so have to be on benefits. That that way of living, is a life choice for some- probably only a few.

I would reinterate my original posting
even if this 'proposal' comes to pass - it is not removing the benefit just making it taxable
if the state pension - our reward/extra money for working all our lives and feeling the difficulties that aging brings (no mobility disability benefits for us)
is taxable (rightly so) - why shouldn't child benefit, disability living allowance also be taxable.
bear in mind that each person has a £10.5k personal allowance so a couple can have an income of £21k before they have to pay ANY TAX. - I assume that child disability benefits would be exempt (or fall within the 10.5k allowance of the child even if the parent received the money)
the hype and misinformation obfuscates the actual impact of making any benefit taxable

Maybe they intend to reduce the welfare budget by making sure only those who need it get it. I know of 2 cases where people are getting it and one also has a carer but they really don't need it. I would prefer more to be given to those in genuine need.

Although it is clear that the suggestions in the OP were not made by the politicians but by civil servants I support giving child benefit to only the first 2 children provided it is not taken away from those who already have more. I think taking it away from families where one party is a higher earner was a political move and wrong. Why should a couple where each earns £49k still get it but a single parent on £50- £60 lose it?

I heard on the BBC news today, DC saying that Labour are not saying figures on their plans on this subject either.

If people on benefits are paying tax they must be getting a lot of benefits.

It isn't, actually, NotTooOld. What you are saying is that they all tell lies to get elected, and even if they say they will not put VAT up, you think they will. Cameron definitely ruled it out, but he lied about so much the last time that anything he says is laughable now, particularly about the NHS.

Sorry, just noticed my previous post is way off subject.

Don't you think that VAT will go up? Both parties say they wouldn't put it up but can we believe them? I reckon whoever gets in will increase VAT whatever they say to the contrary now.

At least that means that nobody on benefits will vote for them. Just in case.

According to IDS, the Tories are not going to let us know where the cuts in benefits are going to be made until after the election.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/29/tories-welfare-cuts-details-reveal-after-general-election

Very helpful.

I agree whitewave.

Using one of Mrs Thatcher's cosy domestic analogies, my feeling is that if, in order to pay off your debts very quickly, you let your house fall down around you, the long term cumulative cost to you and your family may well exceed the savings you have made.

One of the problems relating to the economic debate is that the alternative to austerity is never properly discussed. Reaction to this suggestion is the incorrect statement that it would mean greater debt. So rather than trying to reduce the deficit by ever more austerity the alternative would be to introduce a stimulative to the economy and grow it much more quickly than can be achieved by austerity. We can look back at 2009 to 10 where a stimulating budget was introduced and see it reduced from 157bn in 2009 and in a year it was down to 118bn. It has taken GO 5 years to achieve a fraction of this - 108bn in 2014. The stimulation can be achieved by capital investment using approx £30bn with int. at 0.5% a really cheap deal. Or if that doesn't appeal to those of a more conservatory nature we could use £30bn of QE ensuring that it directed at industry and not the banks. You will remember that we have used QE to the tune of 500bn but this has been pumped into the hands of those who caused the problem in the first place.
Perhaps we could also look at the very rich 1% who have profited to an enormous extent over the past 5 years - to the tune of grabbing 90% of the total wealth and consider whether this is fair and balanced.

Is it fair? The poor are already struggling and can't afford to pay more tax. The rich may not like it but they can afford it.