Gransnet forums

News & politics

The Budget

(56 Posts)
whitewave Tue 23-Jun-15 17:49:30

This is the third try big swear word inserted here

dj I so agree but I was trying to see what life would be like on the minimum wage. I think impossible. You would only have to buy new shoes for the children one week and your budget would be completely thrown. They will do better on tax credits.

durhamjen Tue 23-Jun-15 17:30:34

I agree with Richard Murphy on this.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/06/23/getting-priorities-wrong/

durhamjen Tue 23-Jun-15 17:27:36

fullfact.org/live/2015/cuts_welfare_budget_220_billion_includes_pensions-45829

Cameron's promise of taking those on minimum pay out of tax only applied to those working 30 hours a week. Those who work 30 hours a week on minimum pay do not pay tax now, so it's a false promise.

whitewave Tue 23-Jun-15 17:03:49

Almost all those in receipt of working tax credits have children. The minimum wage is £212 after tax and £232 before for an 8hr day and 5 days a week. So taking these folk out of tax will save them £1040 pa. The average working tax credit is £6340 pa giving them salary of £17395.

I have been trying to do a budget for a family of say 4 .children under 5. Mum and Dad on minimum wage payingno tax as Cameron suggests would earn between them. 24230 I.e. 2019 per month
Budget per month
Rent @ 500
Gas/electric 100
Rates 140
Food 650
Travel -bus for parents 130
Childcare guess at 400 I think this is conservative side
Water 40
TV 50
Phone 40
Insurance 20
Christmas/gifts 150
Clothes 20
Repairs 30
Replacement items 20
Total £2093
The family has no holiday, car,or entertainment of anykind.
Undoubtedly Grand will dispute some of the figures and perhaps the addition but I am doing this on a tablet as computer has packed up.

sunseeker Tue 23-Jun-15 16:22:55

Of course it makes sense to take the low paid out of the tax system and reducing their benefits would mean less work for benefit office workers, leaving them free to help the unemployed and give the low paid control over their finances. I believe the ultimate aim is for the tax payer to no longer subsidise companies who fail to pay their employees a proper wage.

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?