So, er, twice the tax, then

[Groucho]

The extra for those with kids is good, but the tax changes are a disgrace.

The mid to high incomes will be better off, but low incomes will pay more. Income tax cuts always benefit the rich more than the poor. This change blatantly takes money from the poor to give to the rich.

There's also more tax cuts for business.

I used the BBC calculator and I see that if I keep my alcohol consumption down I will be better off by a mimimal amount. So no real change. If I earned double I would gain a fair amount. But if I was on a lower income I'd be hammered.

 

[zenie]

£72.20 Better off apparently.

Lets get pissed

 

[Crispy]

I just did a pretend check on that bbc site, entering in me and a co-habiting partner with a child, smokes and drinks, drives a car to work, earning 16k, partner 13k. Ended up being £240 better off.

Can someone put the numbers in and get a worse off result?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'll be a bit worse off. But it's nothing compared to all of the other ridiculous increases in rail fares and prices generally that will be happening over the next year.

 

[veracity]

I'll be a bit worse off. But it's nothing compared to all of the other ridiculous increases in rail fares and prices generally that will be happening over the next year.

Me too.. will be worse off by £29.22 apparently but taking into account rising inflation sure it will be more than this.

 

[liampreston]

Heh, and that's me not eligible for single person's tax credit either. So from 10p in the pound to 20p and no help to sort it out. Second job it is then. Oh god I sound whingy about this but it's really done my head in.

 

[scifisam]

Does all this family focus stuff not discriminate against gay people?

It's not only available to families. Besides, gay people can have families quite easily, and often do.

 

[Idaho]

According to that BBC thing we should be £100 or so better off.

I really can't figure out why governments mess about with all these graduated tax levels. Why not just have a tax free basic wage level, then tax after that. So everyone gets, say £18k tax free and you pay 40% after that.

 

[Kameron]

I really can't figure out why governments mess about with all these graduated tax levels. Why not just have a tax free basic wage level, then tax after that. So everyone gets, say £18k tax free and you pay 40% after that.

How do you value benefits? I think that having the set levels. I think it should all be controlled by a differential equation. The whole levels things is a total pain in the bum when it comes to writing software, give me linear algebra any day.

 

[Termite Man]

According to that BBC thing we should be £100 or so better off.

I really can't figure out why governments mess about with all these graduated tax levels. Why not just have a tax free basic wage level, then tax after that. So everyone gets, say £18k tax free and you pay 40% after that.

Great idea , under your plan I woul;dn't be paying tax

although if my wages were to go up by about £500 a year then I'd be fucked over big time so maybe it's not such a good idea !

 

[detective-boy]

It's not only available to families. Besides, gay people can have families quite easily, and often do.

Really?

For it to be "legal" in anti-discrimination terms, there would need to be statistics to demonstrate that gay couples are just as likely in practice to be living in a family unit capable of reaping the benefits as straight couples. Otherwise it would be undirectly discriminatory and, just as much as illegal as direct discrimination.

I'm not sure you could produce the necessary statistical basis for your assertion.

 

[detective-boy]

It's like the government is saying 'you don't breed so you don't count.'

The truth is that that is precisely what it is saying. They are introducing fiscal measures in support of their espoused determination to strengthen the position of the nuclear family and to encourage that as a life choice.

Why can't the government simply acknowledge that they are engaging in social engineering and justify why they are doing that?

 

[detective-boy]

Dropping sprogs is a choice, after all.

And one, if you are old enough to remember, used to only be considered "when we can afford it / are ready for it / have somewhere to put it" ...

 

[AnnaKarpik]

I used this which seemed to tell me I'll be 'better off' by about £70 a year...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/business/budget_calc/html/budget_calculator.stm

we'll be better off by £300

Which is probably about half of this year's council tax rise

 

[subversplat]

Great idea , under your plan I woul;dn't be paying tax

although if my wages were to go up by about £500 a year then I'd be fucked over big time so maybe it's not such a good idea !

Nah you'd usually only be taxed on the portion over the 18k, not the whole lot, so say you were on £17,501 in that example, you'd only pay 40p in tax.

I think that was vaguely the UKIP's tax policy

According to the bbc I am lots worse off Hit hard on the booze apparently. Might be time to go back on the dole and do some undeclared work

 

[scifisam]

Really?

For it to be "legal" in anti-discrimination terms, there would need to be statistics to demonstrate that gay couples are just as likely in practice to be living in a family unit capable of reaping the benefits as straight couples. Otherwise it would be undirectly discriminatory and, just as much as illegal as direct discrimination.

I'm not sure you could produce the necessary statistical basis for your assertion.

Um, do you think the extra money for parents just goes on fags and booze then? You don't think there are any extra costs associated with having a child, and tax credits are designed to offset them so that parents can afford to work - you think it's purely a way of encouraging people to have children (for some strange reason)?

In that case, legally, men are discriminated against because they don't get equal maternity pay. Able-bodied people are discriminated against because they don't get DLA. And young people are discriminated against because they don't get pensions.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I used this which seemed to tell me I'll be 'better off' by about £70 a year...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/business/budget_calc/html/budget_calculator.stm

That says that I am better off, too, but I don't understand why. Apparently, I will pay less tax (?), but lose out on National Insurance?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I'm also of the baffled group that doesn't understand all this working tax credit nonsense.

It's stupid. So much money is spent (i.e. wasted) administering ludicrously complicated tax and benefits systems.

I don't know why the personal allowance isn't higher, say, £10,000 for each person, with an additional increment per child (or other dependent).

Try those starting figures for a while, and if they need tweaking, then tweak those allowances instead of introducing stupidly complicated alternatives for achieving the same thing.

 

[danski]

Isn't working tax credit a bit of an oxymoron? I mean, everybody who pays income tax works, so why not just cut the rate? Explain it to me someone?

I thought it existed in this way so that not everyone will bother claiming as they might not think it's worth it and it's meant to be pretty involved filling out the forms and stuff.
I reckon if everyone who's eligible claimed they'd stop/change it pretty sharpish.

 

[Idaho]

Nah you'd usually only be taxed on the portion over the 18k, not the whole lot, so say you were on £17,501 in that example, you'd only pay 40p in tax.

I think that was vaguely the UKIP's tax policy

Really?

Good on them - even though they are nutters.

I also think the whole tax credits system is ridiculous. You give them money and they give the wrong amount back, so you give some back to them again. Each time you transact a chunk of the money dissapears in administration.

Why not have the basic tax free wage and get an extra £1.5k of allowance per child. And also why not let non-wage earners give their allowance to their partners? Seeing as when you claim benefits they insist on means testing both wages. It seems that you can only lose by having a partner, and not gain.

Benefits would be included in the allowance depending on the type of benefit, and childcare would be tax deductable.