Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

How is that relevant?

If I gave you a cucumber and you gave me a parsnip, what has that got to do with the colour of Dave Prentis' boxer shorts?

We're talking about lots of people not being given incentive or subsidy to strike. The full cost-benefit analysis cannot be simplified to suit your political aims, nor mine, but then I'm not trying to do as much.

of course it's relevant, as it'll cost the Government a tenner to recoup 20p, where's the value in that?

Do you have a credible source for that precise comparison as representative of the full cost-benefit analysis of this situation? If so - genuine question - what/where is it? Or are the numbers arbitrarily chosen, by you?

Course I don't, and that's just the point. Surely a measure like this is going to save x millions of pounds, and IDS should be shouting those numbers from the roof tops. Unless it's just a vindictive scare tactic, God forbid.

[turbobloke]

Quite possibly the full cost-benefit analysis is available somewhere - if you would like to see it, so would I.

As to this being the only rationale for the move, clearly that's not so. Having taxpayers subsidise or incentivise strikes is not acceptable, removing the unacceptable is acceptable.

[z4me]

sinizter said:

z4me said:

Free strikes, how does that work? Notice there's no cost or savings mentioned in this stuff?

Tongue in cheek comment - because it is 'free' for the worker to strike as they lose no income.

They bloody well should not be paid for the time spent striking.

Still don't understand how they lose no income, your employer doesn't pay you when you're on strike. You mean you still qualify for the tax credit?

Here's another snippet from DWP website. This is what currently happens if your income drops by £2500 a year :

If your income will drop in this tax year by more than £2,500
If your income is likely to drop this tax year by more than £2,500, you might need to look at a different annual income level. Follow the steps below.

Step one
Take your lower income.


Step two

Add £2,500 to it. This is because the Tax Credit Office ignores the first £2,500 of the income drop when working out your payments.


Step three

Find the annual income level in the table that's nearest to your answer.

For example, your income for the last tax year was £30,000. But you estimate that your income will drop to £18,000 for this tax year (6 April 2012 to 5 April 2013). You need to look at the annual income of £20,000 in the table.

This is worked out like this:


£18,000 + £2,500 = £20,500. So the nearest income in the table is £20,000.


It's probably very unlikely that someone would lose £2500 salary by going on strike, so they aren't going to benefit the following year by going into a different band and getting more tax credits.


I realise I'm coming across like Red Robbo's long lost son here , but nothing could be further from the truth. I'll even admit to voting Tory (just the once mind). I just see a stupid statement from IDS which is designed to be purely devisive, and it appears to be working

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

Quite possibly the full cost-benefit analysis is available somewhere - if you would like to see it, so would I.

As to this being the only rationale for the move, clearly that's not so. Having taxpayers subsidise or incentivise strikes is not acceptable, removing the unacceptable is acceptable.

And you'd be happy to employ more civil servants (and those pesky pensions they get) to achieve an aim no one can put a figure on and can't prove? I'm still not sure how receiving a few quid in working tax credits incentivises strikes. We did have them long before tax credits came into being you know

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Quite possibly the full cost-benefit analysis is available somewhere - if you would like to see it, so would I.

As to this being the only rationale for the move, clearly that's not so. Having taxpayers subsidise or incentivise strikes is not acceptable, removing the unacceptable is acceptable.

And you'd be happy to employ more civil servants (and those pesky pensions they get) to achieve an aim no one can put a figure on and can't prove?

Curious.

If a 'striking tax credit' is being stopped I would expect those administering it to lose their jobs, with salary and pension savings for the taxpayer, or be redeployed to something more useful. Either way the taxpayer wins.

[sinizter]

z4me said:

sinizter said:

z4me said:

Free strikes, how does that work? Notice there's no cost or savings mentioned in this stuff?

Tongue in cheek comment - because it is 'free' for the worker to strike as they lose no income.

They bloody well should not be paid for the time spent striking.

Still don't understand how they lose no income, your employer doesn't pay you when you're on strike. You mean you still qualify for the tax credit?

Here's another snippet from DWP website. This is what currently happens if your income drops by £2500 a year :

If your income will drop in this tax year by more than £2,500
If your income is likely to drop this tax year by more than £2,500, you might need to look at a different annual income level. Follow the steps below.

Step one
Take your lower income.


Step two

Add £2,500 to it. This is because the Tax Credit Office ignores the first £2,500 of the income drop when working out your payments.


Step three

Find the annual income level in the table that's nearest to your answer.

For example, your income for the last tax year was £30,000. But you estimate that your income will drop to £18,000 for this tax year (6 April 2012 to 5 April 2013). You need to look at the annual income of £20,000 in the table.

This is worked out like this:


£18,000 + £2,500 = £20,500. So the nearest income in the table is £20,000.


It's probably very unlikely that someone would lose £2500 salary by going on strike, so they aren't going to benefit the following year by going into a different band and getting more tax credits.


I realise I'm coming across like Red Robbo's long lost son here , but nothing could be further from the truth. I'll even admit to voting Tory (just the once mind). I just see a stupid statement from IDS which is designed to be purely devisive, and it appears to be working

To be completely honest, I was commenting based on what the article made it sound like. I might have got the wrong end of the stick and what you thought may be correct.

I don't understand the details of tax credits, and I hope never to.

In principle, I do not want anyone having their pay topped from ANY source when they are on strike.

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Quite possibly the full cost-benefit analysis is available somewhere - if you would like to see it, so would I.

As to this being the only rationale for the move, clearly that's not so. Having taxpayers subsidise or incentivise strikes is not acceptable, removing the unacceptable is acceptable.

And you'd be happy to employ more civil servants (and those pesky pensions they get) to achieve an aim no one can put a figure on and can't prove?

Curious.

If a 'striking tax credit' is being stopped I would expect those administering it to lose their jobs, with salary and pension savings for the taxpayer, or be redeployed to something more useful. Either way the taxpayer wins.

Eh? You need more civil servants to handle the complex rules and calculations that'll be needed to work out how much each person loses if they're on strike. How would you lose staff, or do you mean stop WTC full stop for everyone?

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Quite possibly the full cost-benefit analysis is available somewhere - if you would like to see it, so would I.

As to this being the only rationale for the move, clearly that's not so. Having taxpayers subsidise or incentivise strikes is not acceptable, removing the unacceptable is acceptable.

And you'd be happy to employ more civil servants (and those pesky pensions they get) to achieve an aim no one can put a figure on and can't prove?

Curious.

If a 'striking tax credit' is being stopped I would expect those administering it to lose their jobs, with salary and pension savings for the taxpayer, or be redeployed to something more useful. Either way the taxpayer wins.

Eh? You need more civil servants to handle the complex rules and calculations that'll be needed to work out how much each person loses if they're on strike. How would you lose staff, or do you mean stop WTC full stop for everyone?

How is it complex? If you can assert that it costs more without evidence I can assert it will cost less.

As mentioned previously we need to see a full cost-benefit analysis to decide, that's the evidence both of us need and lack - and beyond that there are considerations already mentioned that any incentive or subsidy to strike action from the taxpayer is wrong and should be stopped.

If you insist on a one dimensional view, plenty of things that are wrong in principle cost money to be stopped.

[Johnnytheboy]

sinizter said:

In principle, I do not want anyone having their pay topped from ANY source when they are on strike.

Happy for the unions to give them strike pay.