The Summer Budget

The message from the government to the poor is certainly Malthusian in its thrust. This government has constantly banged on about the lack of resources and the undeserving poor who lay in bed. Now they are suggesting that if a poor family choose to have more than 2 children this will not be supported.

G1 Your immoderate language in the last sentence does nothing to progress a debate on the subject.

Malthus was concerned about the increase in population without the corresponding increase in resources

we now have birth control and abortion more or less on demand

couples/individuals can choose the size of their family

no-one is preventing anyone having 16 children if they wish but the child tax credits (i.e. benefits) will not be paid for children 3-16

this does not remove anything from children already here (or due to arrive in the next 18 months or so)

but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

It is beyond the pale because the thrust of the budget is so Malthusian. Even the Victorians understood the paucity of such an ideology and it was finally rejected at the beginning of the last century. This is in the words of the Home Secretary a nasty government.

Firstly the two-child limit only affects new claimants, right?

But there might be a time when someone, gives birth to a third child, for which tax credits can still be claimed, right?

This might be when, for example, a set of twins is born to a mother who already has a child, right?

Or it mighf be that a woman who already has two children, becomes pregnant through rape, but keeps the child, right?

Do I have that correct then?

so why is it 'beyond the pale' , someone please explain.

Anyone else noticed this?

"The government has been challenged to justify an “incredibly distasteful” proposal in Wednesday’s budget which would require a woman who had a third child as the result of rape to justify her position in order to avoid losing tax credits.

The plans to restrict child tax credits to two children for new claimants from 2017 incorporate a number of exemptions, including multiple births, and set out that “the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as a result of rape or other exceptional circumstances”."

Even those who think tax credits for two children is enough must think this is beyond the pale.

From Paul Johnson of the IFS on The World at One today: "The reduction of the work allowance will also have a huge effect, he said, meaning cuts will be bigger for those with a job, reducing incentives for people to move into work."

Surely that is not what they intended?

No, that's wrong FarNorth.

It means that anyone earning more than £3,850 will have their income reduced more steeply, not that they won't receive any Working Tax Credits at all.

anya are you talking about our fictitious family or my son?

Here's an interesting point :

"From April 2016 the income threshold to claim Working Tax Credit will go down from £6,420 to £3,850 at the same time as the minimum wage rises to £7.20.
To claim you must work at least 16 hours per week.
16 hours at £7.20 pays £5990.40 per year.
That's £2140 over the threshold to qualify for tax credits at all.
No one will ever qualify for this benefit after April 2016!

Osborne has totally abolished Working Tax Credits and no one has even noticed. "

Anyone else notice the idea of creating three million new apprentices over the course of this parliament?
The actual workforce is 30 million, so one tenth of the workforce is going to be in apprenticeships. Be interesting to see how that pans out.

Changes in non-dom status and cutting tax relief for buy to let landlords were also in the Labour manifesto, but not in the Tory one.

Sorry Whitewave that should read

'Is that taking into account the tax threshold rising bt £400 to £11,000?'

www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/07/09/poorest-will-be-hit-hardest-over-next-four-years

The IFS doesn't agree with Osborne.

I noticed that, downtoearth. The government encourages the unemployed to take on self employment, but punishes them for it, losing over £100 per month if they have profits of less than £15,000.
Completely wrong.

Whitewave is taking into account the tax threshold rising by £400 to £11,000?

Married couple with two children , both working , will gain £250 a year if their joint salary is over £35,000, according to the i.

I'm very sorry to hear that downtoearth.

I did a rough budget for a young family of 4 on the minimum wage but can't remember where. Our little family will. now be about £274pa worse off so hard times indeed for them and millions of others on the minimum/living wage. Compare that to someone like my son and wife both working like our young couple but my son is childless and earning approx £70 K between them. They will be about £400+ better off. Nothing fair about that. My daughter married with 2 children hasn,t worked out their loss/gain yet (no time!!!) but as she is on a decent salary as is her husband will no doubt be a gainer.

Raising the minimum wage was the best idea. Calling it a living wage is wrong, but I know why he did.

It's because the Tories promised before the election that nobody working 30 hours a week on the minimum wage would pay tax. Giving them £7.20 an hour and a tax threshold of £11,000 would mean that they would pay a few pounds tax.
The only people on a minimum minimum wage would be those under 25. They would be paid less than £11000 next year for a 30 hour week.

The minimum wage was a labour idea opposed all the way by the Tories and their paymasters.

theconversationuk.cmail1.com/t/r-l-akdbdd-iudkikukhu-n/

Cuts and human rights? This is why they want to get rid of human rights.

What analysis are you waiting for, GracesGran?

The ones I have seen today say that the only section of people who do not lose at all are the pensioners. Poorer pensioners gain nothing, either.
There are a lot of groups who will lose over £100 a month, and these are all those earning the least. A single person with one child has to earn over £30,000 to gain from the budget. The same person earning £20,000 will lose £171 per month. Married couples with two children have to earn £35000 to gain. If they only earn £25,000 they will lose £200 per month. It does not matter whether it's one earner or two.

The "living wage" does no good if they are taking tax credits away from families. Barnados reckons that struggling families could end up £1200 a year worse off because of cuts announced in the budget.

have just done my calculation OH self employed under 10,000 pa profit working 44 hours a week ,my state pension ,and wtc/ctc for GD in full time education we are worse off by over £2,000 a year....we already struggle on a daily hand to mouth basis...

I was quite shocked yesterday but prepared to wait and see the breakdowns and how it will affect individual families. Now I am shocked again. The message I was getting yesterday was that those working full-time would not be worse off. I assumed (never assume ) that this was to encourage people to work full time rather than feel they would be worse off if they did. Now, from FarNorth's quoted examples I can see this is not true either.

I will still wait to see more analysis but the point of this budget was to move the country to a more capitalist one. The Conservatives of old would not have stood for this attack on the poorest - don't get me wrong the system did need revising in my opinion and work should pay but that is not what this is producing.

Best idea Jen ... come on tell us what the best ideas are, if you dare.

Not only has he announced that the minimum wage is to be renamed the living wage, they might even rename the A1 the M1 north of Leeds. Somehow I do not think that will be going ahead. The people north of Alnwick still want a dual carriageway, not new roadsigns.

Oyster card for the Northern Powerhouse? What about the trains we were promised? The updating of the railways? Much more important than an oyster card.

I'm sure people who are losing money will be really delighted to have an oyster card.

The best ideas were pinched from the Labour manifesto, and I do not think Tories voted for them.

Here are a few more specific examples, posted by Susan Lyons, SNP :

"Today if you are an ordinary couple, with three children, both working full time in ordinary jobs, in Morrisons, in the Co Op, in hairdressers, local factories, both earning the amount that the Tory Government suggests is a living wage - £7.20 - then under this budget you will be £1580 per year worse off. If you have the apparently government approved number of children - 2 - then you will STILL be £1303 worse off.

If you earn the Scottish Living wage £7.85 pr hour, and have 2 children then you will be £237 worse off, if you have 3 children then you will be £1761 worse off.

A single mum working 20 hours at the Scottish Living wage would be worse off by £1355.

Yet for those earning a significant amount of money, If both members of a couple are earning £60 000 a year then they will be £221 better off."