Cameron lied to get back in (tax credits and hard working people)

[Gary L]

“You’re about to cut tax credits when you promised you wouldn’t,” an anguished mother yelled from last night’s Question Time audience. “I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children, to give them everything they’ve got, and you’re going to take it away from me and them. Shame on you!” But what should really frighten the government is who she used to vote for: the Tories.

That’s why David Cameron stood up on national television to pledge that tax credits were “not going to fall”. Millions of working families – “hard-working strivers”, as the Tories sometimes label them – are going to be significantly worse off, even with other measures taken into account. No wonder the government today stands accused of attempting to cover the impact of the work penalty. They are fully aware that middle-England Tory voters are among those who are going to start noticing their wallets getting lighter.

All those hard working people were lied to by Dave.
he promised them that he would reward them if they listened to his lies and voted him back in.

they did. and they regret it now.
at least more and more people will be singing the song Dave the liar. the cheating liar!

Hard Working British People!!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...r-conservative

[oliver1948uk]

It seems members of the House of Lords are entitled to claim 300 pounds for every day they turn up (even if they only stay a short while) plus expenses plus subsidised meals.

My lad working in a supermarket does not earn anything like 300 pounds in a whole week. The subsidised canteen has almost gone and the pressure to work harder (as well as being jolly to the customers) increases all the time.

Public spending cuts should start in the Houses of Parliament, in my humble opinion.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk

Public spending cuts should start in the Houses of Parliament, in my humble opinion.

Whilst it would set a good example the savings are miniscule compared to the burgeoning bill for tax credits. Any change in benifits will produce winners and losers, it's inevitable.

Replacing the need for tax credits by getting employers to pay a bit more is IMHO the way to go. The mistake here is to phase out credits before wage increases have had a chance to compensate.

As to whether Dave really lied you have to examine what he said. Like any politician read what he actually said rather than what you thought he said.

IIRC the increase in wages to compensate for tax credit cuts was to be only fully compensated by the END of the current parliament. i.e 2020.

[denphone]

Remember we are all in this together so we were told but of course politicians are experts at political obfuscation.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by denphone

Remember we are all in this together so we were told but of course politicians are experts at political obfuscation.

Nicely put Den but I would just have said they are all >insert expletive of choice< liars.

It is, afterall, the main qualification for the job.

[Pierre]

Tax credits need to be rid of. But the other measures should be in place before they are removed.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Tax credits need to be rid of. But the other measures should be in place before they are removed.

Like wages that do not require topping-up by general taxation.

Business has had it easy for a while having the government topping up people's money to counter low wages and it's about time it finished. Tax credits created a situation where good people got a job but still had to claim money from the government to actually have a liveable income. Every person who has a job should get a living wage from it with no top up's from government so that they can feel proud to be working which should also be the social norm. As for lying IDS does it all the time he misleads parliament and not a whisper we the public seem to have allowed politicians to further lower the bar without opposition from us.

I agree with the aim that the Government/taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising employers, but uncomfortable with the scattergun approach to tax credit reductions.

However, it would appear the lady who was so eloquent/passionate on QT will not be affected by the changes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...y-reforms.html

the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that because Ms Dorrell does not make a profit she is unlikely to be hit by changes to the income threshold for working tax credits, which is being almost halved to £3,850 a year.

She will also not be affected by the changes to child tax credits, which will only be restricted to the first two children for new parents from April 2017.

David Phillips, a senior research economist at the IFS, said: "On what she has told us she wouldn't be affected by the cuts to the child tax credits or the change to the taper rate because she is not above the threshold.

"Even the family element thing comes in 2017, and will only apply to new claimants.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

However, it would appear the lady who was so eloquent/passionate on QT will not be affected by the changes...

Looks more and more like a lefty BBC plant, carefully coached, and intended to make the government look cruel and nasty.

[Gary L]

Or she could have been paid by Dave and a deliberate plant to show people that he's the boss.

or she simply may have been naturaly worried what with all the cuts that she's going to lose money one way or another.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Looks more and more like a lefty BBC plant, carefully coached, and intended to make the government look cruel and nasty.

Rubbish

[Osem]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Looks more and more like a lefty BBC plant, carefully coached, and intended to make the government look cruel and nasty.

A lefty plant on the BBC?

[heero_yuy]

Well it wouldn't be the first time that QT audience selection criteria has been biased. The BBC have plenty of form in this respect.

[denphone]

Personally l have as much faith in most parts of the media as l have in obfuscating politicians.