Dawlish Discussion

If you are presently eligible for working tax credit/child tax credit you may be affected by the changes due to take place wef 6.4.12.

This link should give you some info.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/TaxCredits/DG_194914

Note the new rules for the increase in hours needing to be worked (minimum of 24 per week in total) for a couple to be able to claim working tax credit. Hours for a single person (minimum of 16 per week) stay the same.

As I understand it, if the couple fail to work 24 hours per week between them - could be just the one doing 24 or 10 by one and 14 by the other for example, like even by 30 minutes, then they will lose all their working tax credit and it is this aspect of the changes that has been causing a lot of controversy.

First part of this newspaper article talks about the increase in hours required wef 6.4.12 and the financial impact of the loss of working tax credit if the couple cannot work the new number of hours required.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/04/working-tax-credit-changes-postponed?newsfeed=true

Why is the government attacking those it loves to praise the most - working families.

This article makes for an interesting and thought provoking read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/01/tax-credits-cut-tories-working-families?intcmp=239

Is my imagination running riot or was there text last night in that now empty Flo posting above?

For those interested: here is the exchange that took place during Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday concerning the tax credit and child benefit changes.

Edward Miliband: Tim Howes is a delivery driver from Dartford. He is a married father of three and the sole earner in his family. He currently works 20 hours a week. From next month, under the Prime Minister’s proposals, unless he works 24 hours a week he will lose all his working tax credit, some £60 a week. He says,

“I have approached my employer to possibly increase my hours but I have been told there simply aren’t the hours there. I would love to work full-time.”

What is the Prime Minister’s advice to Tim Howes?

The Prime Minister: First, let me set the context for this—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I will answer the question very directly, but we need to reform the tax credits system because we have a massive budget deficit. When we came to office, tax credits were going to nine out of 10 families, including people right up the income scale, including Members of Parliament. What our changes do, in terms of this specific case, is deal with the basic unfairness that we ask a single parent to work 16 hours before getting access to the tax credit system, so it is only right to say to couples that between them they should work 24 hours—that is, 12 hours each. If that is the case, and they do that, they will be better off.

Edward Miliband: I have to say to the Prime Minister that that answer is no use to Mr Howes and his family. He cannot find the extra hours and so will lose his—[ Interruption. ] The Defence Secretary shouts from a

7 Mar 2012 : Column 841

sedentary position, “What about his wife?” Let me tell him that his wife is looking after their three school-age children and cannot find hours that are consistent with that. Tim Howes and 200,000 couples will lose as a result of this. Before the election, the Prime Minister said in the TV debates that for Labour

“to say that actually the changes we’re making would hit low income families is simply not true.”

Why has he broken that promise?

The Prime Minister: We have increased the child tax credit that goes to the poorest families in our country. To answer the right hon. Gentleman very directly, when we say to a single parent that they have to work 16 hours to get access to the tax credits system, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask a couple to work an average of 12 hours each. That is what we are asking. In a way, this relates to a bigger picture. We have a massive budget deficit. If he is not going to support the welfare cap, the housing benefit cap, cuts to legal aid or cuts to tax credits, how on earth would he deal with the deficit?

Edward Miliband: In case the Prime Minister did not realise this, in Dartford, where the Howes family live, five people are chasing every vacancy. It is just not good enough for him to say, “Well, they should go out to work.” If they cannot find the work, they will find that they are better off on benefits than in work because of the Prime Minister’s changes, which is something he said he wanted to avoid. It is also about this matter of trust. He made a clear promise, just like he made a clear promise on child benefit. Before the election, he said:

“I’m not going to flannel you. I’m going to give it to you straight. I like the child benefit. I wouldn’t change child benefit. I wouldn’t means-test it. I don’t think that is a good idea.”

We have already established that he has broken his promise to low-income families. Why has he broken his promise to middle-income families, too?

The Prime Minister: Here we go: another change the right hon. Gentleman does not support. He seems to think that people on—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard.

The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that people earning £25,000 should pay for his child benefit? I do not agree with that. We have to make savings, so not giving child benefit to the wealthiest 15% of families in our country—of course it is a difficult decision. Life is about difficult decisions. Government is about difficult decisions. It is a pity that he is just not capable of taking one.

Edward Miliband: First of all, we are talking about families on £43,000 a year. Secondly, it is no good the Prime Minister saying that he now supports the principle that people on high incomes should not get child benefit, because before the election he supported the opposite principle and said quite clearly to families up and down this country, “I’m not going to take away your child benefit.” In my book there is a very simple word for that: a broken promise—it is a broken promise by this Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “That’s two.”] They are right: there are two broken promises. The reality is that lower-income families are losing their tax credits

7 Mar 2012 : Column 842

and middle-income families are losing their child benefit. Does the Prime Minister understand why people just do not believe him when he says, “We’re all in this together”?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is time the right hon. Gentleman listened to his own shadow Chief Secretary, who said that

“we must ensure we pass the test of fiscal credibility. If we don’t get this right, it doesn’t matter what we say about anything else.”

She is absolutely right. Reducing our deficit takes tough decisions. He has opposed every single cut. He has opposed the welfare cap, the housing benefit cap and legal aid cuts. It is no wonder that when people dial up a radio phone-in and eventually work out who he is, they all say the same thing: he is not remotely up to the job.

This is from today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/mar/11/tax-credits-cuts-poverty-osborne

@Lynne - re disappearing text, maybe flo's deleted it or someone's hacked in to the hypertext

Re disappearing text. No one has hacked in to anything on this site. Flo deleted the text of her post on the 8th herself either deliberatly or accidentally.

The Working Poor.

Bit of a long article but shows what it is like to be a poor but working family. Feel sure we have similar situations in the south west as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/17/life-britain-working-poor