Gransnet forums

News & politics

The Budget

(57 Posts)
Gracesgran Tue 23-Jun-15 09:22:27

Cameron's statement about the "merry-go-round" of the Treasury giving cash to working people with one hand and taking it away with the other seems pure logic ... except that would not save the government one penny. If you took people out of tax but at the same reduced their benefits by the same amount you would have a zero sum solution. So where is he going to cut?

This article is interesting, particularly the paragraph which flags up child tax credit as a possible target.

Newsnight's Allegra Stratton got the first whiff of this a couple of weeks ago. She reported that ministers were studying the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies which noted that £5bn a year could be saved by returning child tax credit to the level it was just over a decade ago. The IFS estimates that this would hit 3.7 million low income families by £845 per child - producing an average loss of £1,400 per year - although some of these would be future rather than current recipients.

As grandparents, do we have a view on this? How many of our children will find it an incentive to go out to work or work more - the seeming intention? It is too easy to talk about the affect on "others" and decry the so called workshy that the Conservatives and their press like to attack but what about those we actually know about - our own children and grandchildren?

whitewave Thu 25-Jun-15 17:30:42

The figures come from the ONS. We aren't talking about wealth. Of course there are miriad other ways of wealth accumulation but we are ignoring that

soontobe Thu 25-Jun-15 17:38:24

I have seen figures bandied about that the top 5% is assets over £450,000 or thereabouts.

But I think that we are talking at cross purposes here.
Have you got a link whitewave? Saying that the top 10% income wise, earn over £150k still seems high.

Ana Thu 25-Jun-15 17:41:20

Didn't you read my link? confused

soontobe Thu 25-Jun-15 17:47:41

No. Sorry. It was from 2012, so I thought it would be out of date. I dont tend to read links too far back.

whitewave Thu 25-Jun-15 17:48:19

No soon read carefully grin 151k is the household income of the top10% of earners. What I am trying to do is to compare those at the bottom household income I.e.the minimum wage with those at the top. Although to be honest I am not sure it is meaningful, because those with high incomes generally have access to other wealth.

Riverwalk Thu 25-Jun-15 17:56:24

We need an economist here to sort us out! Otherwise it's comparing apples with pears.

'Top 10%' is different from 'Top 10% of earners'.

Based on nationwide property values I'd be up with the big boys ...... but based on income I'm definitely lower down the food chain!