attention prospective Tory voters (unless you really don't care about "ordinary people")

"The child tax credits and working tax credits have increased massively since Labour came to power (much more than the rate of inflation) so that all families with children are a lot better off now."

I don't get either child tax credits or working tax credits, despite having children and working. Given the massive increases in taxes this year, I'm substantially worse off under Labour. So it's not true to say that all families with children are a lot better off ...

I KNOW I'm paying more NI because I'm a freelancer and once a year my accountant shows me how many thousands of pounds I pay in NIC. And it keeps going up. That's distinct from income tax. And I'm not a high earner, either. Just high enough to mean that we can't claim tax credits because our joint income is too high.

I'd like to respond to OP but I'm busy this afternoon organising an auction of poor people's children to raise money for champagne for toffs.

'The child tax credits and working tax credits have increased massively since Labour came to power (much more than the rate of inflation) so that all families with children are a lot better off now.' No, we are not better off under Labour, in fact our tax burden and NI payments have increased. You cannot say that ALL families with children are better off as some are not, and you are making the assumption that ALL families with children claim CTC or WFTC. They don't.

The Lib Dems haven't stated any such thing, lincstash. They've said they will offer negotiated support to whichever party has the strongest mandate to govern after the elections. (have found actual words now from Clegg - "The party with the strongest mandate from voters will have the moral authority to be the first to seek to govern").

We may never agree then because I don't agree that it's better for the economy to have two earners in the majority of couples. I think the almost obsession wig having two income families is helping to keep the coat of living too high and undervalues unpaid but equally valid contributions to society.

The couple with one income have already paid more tax than a couple earning the same on two incomes because they only have one tax allowance, yet they are not entitled to the same support. These families are the ones most likely to have time to volunteer in schools and the community, to keep an eye on older kids playing after school so the government doesn't have to fund childcare places for them, to play a greater part in caring for elderly family members so the government isn't burdened with the cost of their full time care.

The Tory proposals only equalise the current unequality in support, they don't propose to remove support from low income widows and divorcees.

"The Lib Dems have started categorically they will not do any deal for government with the Tories."

lincstash, that is completely untrue. Link to back up please. Referring to this election.

Labour does try and incentivise people to work as well - I actually think thats a good thing.

If both parents work, earn and pay taxes then I don't see why that shouldn't be rewarded.

Long term its probably better for the family to have two earners and certainly better for the economy and country as a whole.

Labour have provided a great deal of support to children through tax credits and increased child benefits. A lot of their help for children has been focused in this way.

Seems a much fairer system to me than random tax breaks for some married couples but not others whilst penalising widowers and divorcees.

So why does a couple living on £20,000 a year get more in tax credits if they earn £10,000 each than if one partner earns it all.

And I don't mean the childcare part of the tax credits - I mean the actual amount.

Not sure I see the principle of supporting children in whatever families they are in there.

(disclaimer, I do disagree with the marriage thing because it should count if you live as a couple IMO - but you can't claim Labour don't have an ideal and reward it more than people making different choices)

anastaisia - the current system is based around giving money to parents with children first and then gives that out based on income and circumstances.

The child tax credits and working tax credits have increased massively since Labour came to power (much more than the rate of inflation) so that all families with children are a lot better off now.

At least there is a clear principle behind Labours policies - supporting children in whatever families they are in.

Giving £150 tax breaks for anyone who is married is pretty random in comparison - it doesn't target those that need it. It doesn't persuade people to get married (though I'm not sure any government should be doing that). And its unfair for widowers and divorcees who lose out through no fault of their own.

but the couples who both work a min of 16 hours or single parents are currently entitled to money that a couple with one income aren't entitled to now. So its not completely fair under Labour's current system.

Thats a really good article - puts a lie to the idea that Cameron is offering free money to everyone. He's mainly looking after his uber rich friends.

As always he is looking to give the most back to the richest people - inheritance tax and now the married couples allowance are just a couple of examples of the unfairness of their tax proposals.

They are talking about giving £150 to people who are married but excluding couples where both parents work (!) and divorcees or single-mums. Well thats completely fair.

Actually I would qualify for it but I don't want it out of principle.

My families average income is over £30k (however I only work part-time) but my sister-in-law is a single mum earning just over £20k for working full-time so she wouldn't get it.

They have stated that linstash but I watched s
Simon ????? On newsnight discussing a hung parliament and you could see him being very careful with his choice of words. They are saying at present we are not making deals.

Of course we need to give more money to the rich! Without the top business leaders staying in this country we will be well and truly in the deep end. Who do you think provides most of the jobs in this country under labour? Yes, it's the government themselves as they have taxed the rich so much that they all think they are better off living elsewhere & running their businesses from there, not here.

It really annoys me that people think supporting the rich is such a bad thing to do- if they aren't encouraged to stay who do you think is going to bring in the income this country desperately needs?

Oh, and BTW do you know how much it costs to keep country estates running? Unless you would prefer them all to be turned into yuppy flats that is.

thanks lincstash, I wasn't aware of that

The Lib Dems have started categorically they will not do any deal for government with the Tories.

So your entire voting strategy is based on a false premise............

I like the LibDems policies on civil liberties, scrapping ID cards etc. The Tories say they believe in the same things, but on this one I think I trust the Lib Dems more. Also I would like to have a proportional voting system. So if the Lib Dems held the balance of power in a Tory government then that would be fine.

"Gordon says a vote for lib dem is a vote for labour, or words to that effect."

Well Gordon Brown is wrong (this may not come as a surprise to you ).

Anyway, aren't Labour trying to sell the 'a vote for LD will let the Tories in by the back door' line they usually go for?

I agree with the Lib Dem's policies and frankly, I no longer give a toss who they support in the event of a hung parliament - Labour and Tory are virtually indistinguishable now. Ally with whoever will get more LD policies on the books. End of.

ommmward, I think it's pretty sure that if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power, Ed Balls' home ed proposals wouldn't get through.

Since Labour is very very unlikely to get in with a majority (if they get in at all) I don't see the home ed proposals surviving. What I mean is, I wouldn't worry about voting Lib Dem.

Interesting about home educators wanting to emigrate to Scotland.

Where are we all emigrating to? Like a said, a lot of home educators are thinking of emigrating to Scotland - some have already gone - because home ed law is devolved and NOTB we would be safe from Ed balls's CSF bill.

My family have considered IReland as well, also the US and Canada. I think we'd probably move to Scotland initially while seeking work in one of those places.

For home educators, this truly isn't a Little England-y "ooh I'll emigrate". It's a "If Labour get back in, Ed Balls will give local authority staffers the power to forcibly interviiew my borderline autistic child alone in his own home and, if he fails to satisfy, to issue a school attendance order, forcing him back into the school where both teachers and pupils bullied him for three years" (that's not my precise situation, but it's close enough).

I am having to think of voting conservative because we are in a lib dem/tory area, and Gordon says a vote for lib dem is a vote for labour, or words to that effect.

Let's assume there is an opposition party consisting of MPs who are all honest, intelligent, moral, bright, fair, clever, good-looking, hard-working, brilliant minds and all with absolute rock solid integrity - ideal situation, I want to vote for them - but of course not realistic.

However even if this mythical party existed even they will not be able to sort out the gargantuan financial mess that will plague this country for decades to come. 'But it's global', I hear you say. Yes it is. But the UK is in such deep poo because our wealth consists of mega debt. From companies/banks who are deemed too big to fail so taxpayers are supporting them to house prices/rents which are being kept artifically high due to government intervention and personal debt which has been allowed to spiral so that for many people bankruptcy has already happened or will become the only option. We are all being shafted and have allowed it happen. You get what you deserve and I am afraid to say our apathy and stupidity is going to bite us and our kids very hard on the bum for years.

I will certainly vote. But because the fantasy party does not exist the only reason for my vote will be to get rid of the incompetents who got us into the bloody mess in the first place.

I am sick of people saying that the Tories would not have been any different - probably they wouldn't BUT they weren't in power for the last 13 years - so it is a pointless thing to say.

By the way I am not voting Tory.

The Labour party have cost me personally an awful lot of money. which would be fine normally - greatest good for the greatest number and all that - but things haven't improved.

Chucking money at public services without any need to improve service delivery is horribly inefficient and costly.

I agree that lack of regulation in the UK exacerbated our credit crunch. But the Tories wouldn't have had any tighter regulation. In fact they deregulated in the first place ...

So here I am wondering whether to vote. Not that my vote counts in our antiquated system in any event. And I seem to be presented with a choice between fools (labour) and rogues (conservative)

Spoiling my ballot paper in protest seems to be a better option

It does amuse be to listen to UKIP / BNP voters talk about their need to emigrate the escape the effects of mass immigration.