im so anxious about threats to cut ctc...

i am a sahm i cant afford to work i used to commute to work via train gave up to have first child.
my dh earns £35000 i need benefits and tax credits to buy the girls bday/xmas pressies and clothes

obviously pensions, teachers & nurses not an exhaustive list!

The problem is that probably 80% of government spending does go on OAPs, unemployed people, disabled people and children. by definition its the NHS, schools, pensions, benefits. To say, they are targeting cuts at the most vulnerable is ridiculous - they don't have much else TO cut. They obviously have to pay pensions, teachers and nurses, but they can cut frills, perks, freebies and nice-to-haves. It is a horrible decision to make.

To "target" the well off, working and capable they will have to bump up taxes to get more money out of us, which they will probably do as well.

25% overspend. We will probably be looking at post war rationing with envy in a year's time.

I will have no sympatyhy for anyone who strikes - we are in the shit as a nation and every one of us will have to realise things will have to change.

"If EVERYONE affected by these changes suddenly had to get rid of their car, stop going on holiday, stop buying new clothes, stop buying nappies, stop having children even then surely the effect on business will be terrible?"

We're already in a recession. High Street takings have been down since the end of 2008. ALDI is the biggest growing supermarket. Big ticket consumer items are being put off in favour of essentials. And it's likely to not improve whichever way you deal with the economic situation. Yes, if you affect the disposable income of people too much either through tax, unemployment, reduction of benefits then they can't spend and the goods they used to buy will remain on the shelf a bit longer.

And if the government carries on spending keeping more people employed and on good incomes then they may be able to spend more but the amount the country owes goes up and up and up, we risk losing investment from overseas and we also have big interest payments to deal with affecting available spending further down the track.

So it's a balancing act.... The question taxing Osborne, Alexander and the rest is "How much expenditure can you reasonably dispense with and how much tax can you reasonably raise before materially affecting growth or creating public dissent?" My guess is that they will deal with the 'low hanging branches' first (freezing public sector pay, cancelling contracts, raising VAT) and see how that goes first. They'll try to spread the effects as widely as possible rather than targeting just one group of people. Then follow up with another budget in November with the next phase.

We are not trying to screw your children over most of us work very long hours to help your childre, we pay out of our own money to help your children, we say "not now" to our own children so we can carry on working for ours. But we are not martyrs.

There is also a problem with getting quality graduates into teaching, quite frankly standards are falling and I have seen some real dross coming into teaching. Do you think this is going to get better if you start taking away one of the few tangible bonuses of the job ( other than childcare in holidays) How is that helping children in the long run?

As I said I have been teaching 12 years and deliberately chose a union that does not go out on strike. I am not someone who supports strikes.

I have no understanding of economics whatsoever - so I am probably totally wrong here but -

My husband and I are about to have our fourth child, we are both self employed our joint income is between £25 -30,000 so depending on which story you believe we could be affected or not. To afford our children and not get into debt we have made lifestyle choices such as 1. not owning a car 2. we use washable nappies 3. we have never been on holiday. 4. we dont use credit cards 5. we buy second hand clothes and I sew alot of the baby clothes (although i spare my older children that shame) etc plus many more.

This has worked for us and if tax credits were taken away we would be poorer but "ok" (although are spending would reduce even more).

If EVERYONE affected by these changes suddenly had to get rid of their car, stop going on holiday, stop buying new clothes, stop buying nappies, stop having children even then surely the effect on business will be terrible?

The government MUST be thinking to cover the difference at least partially?

I really hate the attitude of some posters re: 'state has no business supporting children'.

In that case, when they grow up, I want my childrens' taxes to pay for no ones pension but my own.

All these childless grumblers who moan about kids being too noisy, too expensive, too inconvenient will presumably enjoy the self sufficiency,

If the husband doesn't work and the wife is pregnant with the second child nothing to stop the wife going to back to full time work when the baby is 2 weeks old as I did and the husband looking after the children, assuming the wife can find work/is not already in it. If they find it hard to live on the wife's wage obviously it might be necessary to try to find work she is qualified to do which she can do which is better paid than the current job.

"DH lost his job."

If second child is already here or on the way and your family income has substantially reduced, this presumably means that you are entitled to more help. If second child is just an idea, then you might delay their arrival until the family circumstances are more settled.

Some of the excesses of past Government spending only just coming out the woodword are incredible. Anyway they are being rooted out and hopefully the books will balance better soon after the budget this week.

I favour simple taxation so people don't make decisions based on tax consequences but the real issue with the cuts is they are going to have to be so large that the only way for them to make any dent on the deficit and so we can afford the interest on Labour borrowings is if they hit a huge number of people. They have to hit in a category which affects so many people real savings are made. The Cabinet have accepted pay cuts and that's a great start but that has minimal effect on that else is needed. Cutting CTC or instead giving people a child tax allowance (or even if the nation could stomach it not givnig financial rewards for those who have children) is very likely to happen on higher incomes. The average pay in the UK I think is now £25,000. Anyone on that is doing a lot better than many. An average is just an average.

A full time minimum wage job yields about £14,000 a year.

As for teachers

" Q. I joined the TPS on 1 January 2007, will I have to work until I am aged 65?

A. No, nobody has to work until 65. If you became a teacher for the first time on or after 1 January 2007, you will have a Normal Pension Age (NPA) of 65. NPA is the age at which you can draw unreduced pension benefits from the TPS. If you were already in teaching before this date, you will retain a NPA of 60. You can retire at, before or after NPA. "

If teachers don't live long after claiming their pensions then presumably they shouldnt' mind if pension benefits accrued from now on (past ones are protected) change as they won't be drawing them for long so it's not worth worrying out.

"I accept that people on 24,001 may need some help with childcare ( but I still think people need to ask themselves can I actually afford this child)..." by hornofplenty

DH lost his job. So, I just asked myself that question. and the answer is = 'I cannot afford this (second) child'. Where should we send him? Should I give social services a call and ask for the rich to give him a good home now?

Thats definitely the answer.
Screw over the innocent children by taking away thier chance of a good education.

I am from the generation who got screwed by the teachers in the 80's. I will be furious if I have to watch my children be failed by the teaching unions as well.

I have nothing but admiration for teachers but surely it must go against everything you all believe in to go on strike and leave your children with out a good education????

But then all the private schools will be just fine.
More people with no qualifications = more people on benefits = no money in the pot.

One big happy circle.

What's it going to achieve, though?

There will be strikes across the board vesela. As I said above I teach in a very good school at the moment. Because it is cushy people tend to belong to soft unions like the ATL - if any union. There has been a huge sign up to NUT recently at our school. I have never ever striked, I have changed unions to avoid striking. I will vote for a strike this time and go out,

but there are going to be strikes, aren't there. UNISON have said bring it on.

good article here.

Apparently the PS pensions being paid out at the minute are "untouchable" - the best they can do is change the entitlements accruing from this point forward which doesn't solve the immediate problem. So I can't see how its related to job losses.

I really am tootired now and how did we get started on this?

Vesela I am not denying it. I have spent much of my career working in tough schools, I am holidaying in a nice school for few years before going back.

I work every waking moment, my job has cost me one marriage, for years I took daily abuse and violence, I spent my own money when budgets ran out. I took a huge pay cut to become a teacher. I take crap because I enjoy my job. One of the things that tells me that my job is valued by the government and society is my pension. By removing that pension that value seems to have gone. It is irrational and selfish, I hold my hands up - but is how I feel and I know many of my colleagues do as well.

Maybe as you said I will accept it and get used to it. I don;t think I will though. State schools are crying out for good teachers, this will not attract them and will drive out many of those who are there already. You will be left with mediocrity, a few who think they have a vocation ( and it is a few) and those who could not think of anything else to do.

Yes tootootired, that is the usual practice on winding up a final salary scheme. The accrued benefits are protected and future contributions go into a defined contribution scheme.

The reality of public sector pensions is that the average is something like £4k, so in many instances it's not a lot of money, however, that doesn't mean they aren't very expensive to fund.

I think they will have to look at public sector pensions. It won't be popular of course, but if it's between job losses and pension reform, what is better?

It's not as if pension reform is something unique to the UK, though. Everybody's having to deal with it.

I don't mind you cutting my pay ( well I do but I would prefer it to you taking my pension), I will give up my child benefit ( already have) tax credits ( already have) I will take a tax rise, VAT rise, I will work until I am 75 ( I will have to anyway) but if my pension gets taken away I will have had enough.

Selfish probably, naive probably.

I have already started looking for a new job to beat the rush.

They didn't remove the pension already earned to date - that's protected. They froze the scheme and we all start paying into a new one as of next month.

The thing is that public sector pensions aren't invested IIRC, there's no fund for most of them, it just comes out of the budget and I'd be surprised if it was possible to cut pensions for people already retired and receiving them. But the state pensions generally are a much larger part of the budget.

I have a chart I saved to my computer of a breakdown of the 2009/10 budget. I keep looking at it (as if it was my problem anyway!) and cannot for the life of me see where 25% or even 10% saving can be made without taking the knife to absolutely everything non essential.

I doubt very much we are going to leave to go and teach in a pet project school tbh.