Hunt: tax credit cuts will make Britons work like Chinese or Americans

Health secretary tells Conservative conference fringe meeting that controversial benefit cuts of up to £1,300 were a ‘step towards self-respect’

British people will be encouraged to work as hard as the Chinese and Americans because the Conservatives have cut the money people can make from tax credits, the health secretary has said.

Jeremy Hunt told a fringe meeting at the party’s autumn conference that cuts to tax credits were designed to send an “important cultural signal” about hard work, as well as saving money.

Embroiling his party in fresh controversy on the subject, as he strayed from his usual brief to defend the government’s welfare changes, Hunt also suggested that those reliant on benefits lacked the dignity and self-respect of those who earned all their own money.

Asked whether the pace of the tax credit changes, which will see some of the UK’s poorest workers lose up to £1,300 a year, should be slowed, the cabinet minster said: “No. We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal.

“My wife is Chinese. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer, which is essentially: are we going to be a country which is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating a culture where work is at the heart of our success.”

Hunt also suggested that those reliant on tax credits and benefits lacked self-respect. “Dignity is not just about how much money you have got ... officially, children are growing up in poverty if there is an income in that family of less than £16,500. What the Conservatives say is how that £16,500 is earned matters.

“It matters if you are earning that yourself, because if you are earning it yourself you are independent and that is the first step towards self-respect. If that £16,500 is either a high proportion or entirely through the benefit system you are trapped. It is about pathways to work, pathways to independence ... It is about creating a pathway to independence, self-respect and dignity.”

His comments provoked a furious response from Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, who said Hunt’s comments were a “disgraceful insult from the richest member of the cabinet to millions of people struggling to get by, working hard for long hours in insecure employment.

“In a country that already works some of the longest hours in the western world, these comments are simply an outrageous slur on the all too many workers juggling two and three jobs to put food on the table and a roof over their kids’ heads.”

Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary, also said: “It is a kick in the teeth for working families to hear Jeremy Hunt patronisingly say that the reason they are struggling to pay the bills is because they are not working hard enough.”

However, Hunt stood by his words, claiming their intent had been “wilfully misinterpreted” by others.
“I made clear the culture we want to move to is one where work brings dignity and higher pay, and welfare dependency is reduced,” he said later. “There was never a suggestion that people don’t work hard enough, only that we need to remove the barriers to a high-wage, low-dependency economy, which the national living wage is designed to do.”

The issue of tax credits has dominated the first few days of Conservative party conference, with a number of Tory MPs uneasy about their impact on low earners.

Boris Johnson, the London mayor and potential future leadership contender, will use his speech to party conference on Tuesday to signal he wants to see greater protection for these workers.


“We must ensure that as we reform welfare and we cut taxes that we protect the hardest working and lowest paid: shops workers, cleaners, the people who get up in the small hours or work through the night because they have dreams for what their families can achieve.”

David Cameron insisted on Sunday that people would not be worse off as a result of the changes, and George Osborne, the chancellor, used his conference speech on Monday to claim that a typical family with parents working full time on the minimum wage would actually be £2,000 better off as a result of a host of changes, including wage increases.
But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Resolution Foundation say the welfare cuts in Osborne’s summer budget would leave some of Britain’s poorest families up to £1,300 a year out of pocket.

Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, has said it is “arithmetically impossible” for workers not to lose out from the cuts.


A number of Tory ministers have been dispatched to fringe meetings and on to the airwaves to defend the cuts. However, Hunt’s intervention is not likely to be seen as helpful at a time when senior Tories are trying to defuse the row over whether millions of the poorest workers are going to lose money.

There had been speculation that Cameron and Osborne would have to announce some measures to soften the blow in the autumn statement, especially as the Sun newspaper has come out against the harshness of the changes.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/05/hunt-tax-credit-cuts-make-britons-work-like-chinese-or-americans


This will be from Jeremy Hunt who married a Chinese lady - lovely, good luck to them



THEN PAID FOR HIS CHINESE LESSONS ON HIS MP EXPENSES ACCOUNT.

Tax credits are ridiculous. They're just another benefit - nothing to do with tax. The name itself gives the impression that they're some kind of reward for paying a lot of tax, but it's the opposite of that. They're also nothing to do with work for some of them.

I'm more in favour of people earning a reasonable amount for the hours and work they do than giving them hand outs.

The majority of people on tax credits are working.  They are cutting them NOW and the 'so-called' living wage (which isn't and definitely won't be by the time they are brought in) are not due to be in place until 2020.  Until then, those people on minimum wage and just above (who pay tax) are going to be worse off, using food banks more and being evicted more.  For a party that professes to be for the 'workers' this punishes the low paid 'workers' the most.  But then, that's what they intend to do, they think 'keep them terrified and they'll keep quiet'.  The opposite is happening.

sassy wrote:The majority of people on tax credits are working.  They are cutting them NOW and the 'so-called' living wage (which isn't and definitely won't be by the time they are brought in) are not due to be in place until 2020.  Until then, those people on minimum wage and just above (who pay tax) are going to be worse off, using food banks more and being evicted more.  For a party that professes to be for the 'workers' this punishes the low paid 'workers' the most.  But then, that's what they intend to do, they think 'keep them terrified and they'll keep quiet'.  The opposite is happening.

Well they shouldn't need these benefits if they're working full time. If they're working part time, they need to explain why they're not working full time. Anyone working full time should not need benefits to top up what they earn. An exception might be for housing costs, which are absurdly high in this country IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:The majority of people on tax credits are working.  They are cutting them NOW and the 'so-called' living wage (which isn't and definitely won't be by the time they are brought in) are not due to be in place until 2020.  Until then, those people on minimum wage and just above (who pay tax) are going to be worse off, using food banks more and being evicted more.  For a party that professes to be for the 'workers' this punishes the low paid 'workers' the most.  But then, that's what they intend to do, they think 'keep them terrified and they'll keep quiet'.  The opposite is happening.

Well they shouldn't need these benefits if they're working full time. If they're working part time, they need to explain why they're not working full time. Anyone working full time should not need benefits to top up what they earn. An exception might be for housing costs, which are absurdly high in this country IMO.

What world do you live in?  Most ARE working full time.  And no, they shouldn't need benefits but because the minimum wage is too low, they do.  And it will be a long time before any kind of 'living-wage' is paid, until then they are just surviving.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they shouldn't need these benefits if they're working full time. If they're working part time, they need to explain why they're not working full time. Anyone working full time should not need benefits to top up what they earn. An exception might be for housing costs, which are absurdly high in this country IMO.

What world do you live in?  Most ARE working full time.  And no, they shouldn't need benefits but because the minimum wage is too low, they do.  And it will be a long time before any kind of 'living-wage' is paid, until then they are just surviving.

I'm living in a world where I think that benefits should not be necessary for those who are working full time, and that benefits shouldn't be handed out no matter how many children people choose to have. You are living in a world where you think benefits are a good thing.

This is a long-term thing, and perhaps they are being cut too fast, but I'm in favour of the concept of people being able to earn their own money and live on it without holding out their hands for benefits. Do you think that's a bad concept?

It all depends on one's circumstances of course. At the moment, a young single person in their early 20s, for example, can live quite well on minimum wage if they houseshare with others. Older people might not want to do that of course, so it's the housing costs which are the main problem for them.

We can't continue with a system that rewards people for only doing 16 hours work a week with a nice big govt hand out!!!

What incentive is there to do more hours if you are already given the extra money for not doing so?

Look at how ridiculously complicated the whole system is.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/in-work-or-looking-for-work/benefits-and-tax-credits-for-people-in-work/

Why does a bloke who has a partner and a kid only have to work 24 hours a week to get working tax credit, but a bloke with no partner or kid has to work 30 hours a week to get it?

That is to ensure the likelyhood that the man won't be able to get any extra money because the 30 hours work would most likely put them over income level.

Tommy Monk wrote:That is to ensure the likelyhood that the man won't be able to get any extra money because the 30 hours work would most likely put them over income level.

But why is it part of the system at all? A man with a partner who doesn't work is capable of doing more than 24 hours a week. I don't see why he doesn't have to do 30 hours like others before he can claim tax credits.

Some people say that they can't do more than 16 hours a week because it will affect their benefits, and there are others who say they have to do more than 16 hours to get tax credits - ie, benefits. The whole system is stupid.

People with children don't have to do any work to claim child tax credits, so what does it have to with tax anyway?

And of course the partner is also capable of doing some work too!



It's a barmy system... people do less hours work because they can get a govt hand out on top and don't have to do any extra work for it!


If you were told you could do 16 hours and get the same money as you would doing 30 hours work... of course you would only do the 16 hours!!!


And huge numbers of people are refusing extra work because they get the money in govt hand outs anyway!!!


This must stop!

Tommy Monk wrote:And of course the partner is also capable of doing some work too!



It's a barmy system... people do less hours work because they can get a govt hand out on top and don't have to do any extra work for it!


If you were told you could do 16 hours and get the same money as you would doing 30 hours work... of course you would only do the 16 hours!!!


And huge numbers of people are refusing extra work because they get the money in govt hand outs anyway!!!


This must stop!

Yes, the partner can work also. They only need to do 24 between them to get the working tax credits.

There has to be a way to make working pay more than being on benefits. Working tax credits was supposed to encourage people to work, and I suppose it does to an extent, but then if they don't do enough hours, don't they just get income support or whatever instead anyway?

It is a system that allows people to do far less work than they would otherwise have to.



If I was told I could get the same money overall for only doing 16 hours work then I would only do the 16 hours work!!!

Yes, this is what has become of globalised capitalism. We are going to have to work much harder for less money. And probably borrow a lot more.

And like clock work, the Ugly Deleveraging Revolution has began:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/04/anti-austerity-protestors-march-manchester-demonstration-conservative-party-conference

Hopefully we can still have a beutiful deleveraging but the haves must be willing to spend what the have nots sell.

Mass immigration does that for us...

Tommy Monk wrote:Mass immigration does that for us...

With that kind of attitude, you will be one of the losers in the deleveraging process. Good luck!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And of course the partner is also capable of doing some work too!



It's a barmy system... people do less hours work because they can get a govt hand out on top and don't have to do any extra work for it!


If you were told you could do 16 hours and get the same money as you would doing 30 hours work... of course you would only do the 16 hours!!!


And huge numbers of people are refusing extra work because they get the money in govt hand outs anyway!!!


This must stop!

Yes, the partner can work also. They only need to do 24 between them to get the working tax credits.

There has to be a way to make working pay more than being on benefits. Working tax credits was supposed to encourage people to work, and I suppose it does to an extent, but then if they don't do enough hours, don't they just get income support or whatever instead anyway?

Lower cost of living for a start , rents are too high , houses are too expensive making mortgages too high . Then the council tax and road tax etc , If the cost of living was anywhere near liveable there wouldn't be any need for benefit supplement .

Mass immigration has increased the costs of living while suppressing wages...

[quote="Tommy Monk"]Mass immigration has increased the costs of living while suppressing wages...[/quote

Boo hoo! Cry me a river, Tommy.

Those immigrants have the costs as anyone else and still manage to make a living.

even on two people working full time on minimum wage struggle if they have say two children .
Babies can't be taken to work with the mother while she does her job so what will happen to them ? Once day care is taken out the wage packet that's the weeks wages gone for a start , so the mother could stay home and look after baby , but then because the rent is so high or the mortgage is so high they can't manage to live . It's a vicious circle and of course having children is something most people dream about but affording child is another matter .

Raggamuffin wrote:Some people say that they can't do more than 16 hours a week because it will affect their benefits, and there are others who say they have to do more than 16 hours to get tax credits - ie, benefits. The whole system is stupid.

People with children don't have to do any work to claim child tax credits, so what does it have to with tax anyway?

For a start, some mothers can only work part-time hours becaeue they have children to pick up from nursery or school!
Some people can only get a part time job because that is all that is available!

And lastly, if the living wage isn't enough then somehow, people need to have their wages "topped up" don't they?

When my daughter goes to school full time (next September) I will be looking for a job, but I can't start till 9:30 and I have to finish by three to pick her up.
Should I be punished for getting my wages topped up? (I actually won't be entitled to tax credits because my partner earns too much but let's say he wasn't?)

Many blagging the benefits system while doing cash work Zack...



Plus there are plenty of people of immigrant stock complaining about the problems of mass immigration too!

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Some people say that they can't do more than 16 hours a week because it will affect their benefits, and there are others who say they have to do more than 16 hours to get tax credits - ie, benefits. The whole system is stupid.

People with children don't have to do any work to claim child tax credits, so what does it have to with tax anyway?

For a start, some mothers can only work part-time hours becaeue they have children to pick up from nursery or school!
Some people can only get a part time job because that is all that is available!

And lastly, if the living wage isn't enough then somehow, people need to have their wages "topped up" don't they?

When my daughter goes to school full time (next September) I will be looking for a job, but I can't start till 9:30 and I have to finish by three to pick her up.
Should I be punished for getting my wages topped up? (I actually won't be entitled to tax credits because my partner earns too much but let's say he wasn't?)

My point is that for some, there is no incentive to do more than 16 hours work, whether they could do it or not.

get the chav scum off thier arses and into work

well done IDS and osbourne

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:even on two people working full time on minimum wage struggle if they have say two children .
Babies can't be taken to work with the mother while she does her job so what will happen to them ? Once day care is taken out the wage packet that's the weeks wages gone for a start , so the mother could stay home and look after baby , but then because the rent is so high or the mortgage is so high they can't manage to live . It's a vicious circle and of course having children is something most people dream about but affording child is another matter .

It's two people working full time which drove up house prices in the first place IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

For a start, some mothers can only work part-time hours becaeue they have children to pick up from nursery or school!
Some people can only get a part time job because that is all that is available!

And lastly, if the living wage isn't enough then somehow, people need to have their wages "topped up" don't they?

When my daughter goes to school full time (next September) I will be looking for a job, but I can't start till 9:30 and I have to finish by three to pick her up.
Should I be punished for getting my wages topped up? (I actually won't be entitled to tax credits because my partner earns too much but let's say he wasn't?)

My point is that for some, there is no incentive to do more than 16 hours work, whether they could do it or not.

Where is the incentive if the govt will top up your money anyway for only doing The 16 hours?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:even on two people working full time on minimum wage struggle if they have say two children .
Babies can't be taken to work with the mother while she does her job so what will happen to them ? Once day care is taken out the wage packet that's the weeks wages gone for a start , so the mother could stay home and look after baby , but then because the rent is so high or the mortgage is so high they can't manage to live . It's a vicious circle and of course having children is something most people dream about but affording child is another matter .

It's two people working full time which drove up house prices in the first place IMO.

I don't know what started it but now it can't be reversed can it

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's two people working full time which drove up house prices in the first place IMO.

I don't know what started it but now it can't be reversed can it

Maybe. It was reversed in the 1990s.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:even on two people working full time on minimum wage struggle if they have say two children .
Babies can't be taken to work with the mother while she does her job so what will happen to them ? Once day care is taken out the wage packet that's the weeks wages gone for a start , so the mother could stay home and look after baby , but then because the rent is so high or the mortgage is so high they can't manage to live . It's a vicious circle and of course having children is something most people dream about but affording child is another matter .

It's two people working full time which drove up house prices in the first place IMO.

I think that started it raggs, and it has fueled the growing gap between haves and have nots.
one good wage just gets you by, you need a 2nd wage to get ahead. and really 2 good wages to get far.

the family unit with one average wage is screwed today, let alone minimum wage.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's two people working full time which drove up house prices in the first place IMO.

I think that started it raggs, and it has fueled the growing gap between haves and have nots.
one good wage just gets you by, you need a 2nd wage to get ahead. and really 2 good wages to get far.

the family unit with one average wage is screwed today, let alone minimum wage.

It's interesting that you mentioned the "haves and the have nots". Who are the couples who pushed up the prices by being able to afford a bigger mortgage? Ordinary people, that's who. Did people think about that when they decided they could offer to pay more for a house? Of course they didn't.

Immigration pushed up prices rags... so did people buying up second homes and buy to let mortgages...


Supply and demand.

Tommy Monk wrote:Immigration pushed up prices rags... so did people buying up second homes and buy to let mortgages...


Supply and demand.

Yes, but Tommy, I think that mortgages used to be largely taken out by one person, which kept prices down.

It's all very well blaming the Government or anyone else, but it's ordinary people who wanted to pay more for a nicer house, and then asked for as much as possible when they wanted to sell - because they knew someone would buy it.