im so anxious about threats to cut ctc...

I don't know what the truth is but I would like to mention the fact that the Daily Torygraph had a front page on Tuesday (I think) screaming that public sector pensions cost us each £4000 a year. On More or Less today (which is a programme on Radio 4 which delves into the truth about numbers and statistics) they said that actually the figure is actually under £400 a year.

Apparently the DT have published a correction on their website but so much other media picked the story up that I suspect it's become popular 'truth'.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was similar.

And I do think some people don't really need WTC. I applied when I was on maternity leave as I really needed it but the following year I got a very generous amount because my pay had been so low the previous year and it's based on prior year's income. That's what's crazy about it.

But they are not hitting those who can least afford it, there are many people who have a household income under 25K - we did for many years. They are the people who can least afford it.

My point way back on page 2 was that whilst some people might be marginally - and ime it is usually marginal - better off on benefits there are many benefits to work. I know in not all jobs you are going to get payrises etc but long term, over your working life, most people would be better off working than being on benefits.

Also, I am well aware that a higher minimum wage would drive business away from the UK, my ideological point was more that something has to give. Either salaries are too low or living costs are too high, in actual fact it's probably a mix of both. The government stopping subsidies may help regain some kind of equilibrium but I sincerely doubt it. Capitalism is just shit.

peppa that is a very good point and quite possibly explains the thinking behind the policy.

I personally chose to stay at home to raise my one DS after waiting almost 20 years to have him, oh and being made redundant at 5 months pregnant. When he starts school, health permitting, I'll no doubt return to work part time.

I paid plenty of taxes during my career, I didn't whinge about it, it was my duty.

We get nowt now, except the £40 CTC that we'll lose, I'm not whinging about it.

I simply think it is grossly unfair that, once again, the tories are hitting hardest those who can least afford it.

I don't know enough about childcare to be honest to know at what point people need help. We have just accepted that more than one child is beyond our financial reach. But the 10 a week should be cut back to the bone.

WUbblybubbly. Why is it fair to financially penalise a couple if one of them decides to stay at home to rear the children?
IMO you should be able to have a SAHM or SAHD and survive on one parents wage. Children do better if looked sfter by mum or dad. I know some of you have kids in nurseries and they are doing fine but do you not feel the heartache of not seeing them for more then a few hours or so a day?

Hornofplenty dioes everyone not pay taxes whenthey buy things? VAT at 20% will take a chunk out of everybodies wallet

We get the basic rate of CTC, we also get CCVouchers. DH earns approx average wage, and I earn very slightly more than my childcare costs. If it were not for the CCV's it probably wouldn;t be worth me working (although I obv need to also take into account the added bonuses such as pension, career progression etc).

What is driving me mad is the uncertainty of everything. I have no idea what will be happening with these benefits, and on top of this both DH's and my employers are talking about 9 day fortnights and pay cuts.

How are people meant to make decisions about work, being a SAHM, finances etc with no information about what the future holds. It's a depressing time, that's for sure!

But peppa wherever you set the limit it is not going to suit someone.

Maybe the answer is you have one child, as I said it was what I did. Or you only have one child in childcare at a time - this is what many of my colleagues did.

Wubbly I was thinking that the cost of two people living together is not proportionally more than a single person. But if that is not right ( I am not an economist) then make it an equal £25K and 50K.

With regards to SAHM I would love to have money to pay SAHM but it is not there. At least two parents working are paying taxes.

hornofplenty but that is so contextual. 45k = perhaps £2300 a month after tax and deductions such as student loan?

Minus childcare for two at £1300. minus mortgage/rent and council tax at £800 and you have £200 left.

wubbly - I guess because for most people they pay more in tax than they get back so the state is still in profit for people going out to work. And work creates jobs for others in childcare. Not saying it is right, but true. For example if we get £400 ish a month towards childcare but pay £800 ish in tax they are still getting a profit from us and that money goes towards funding a nursery job or whatever.

It's okay for the state to pay for childcare, should both parents choose to work, but they should be financially penalised if one of them chooses to do the childrearing themselves?

You're also seem to be suggesting that a single parent should be allowed to receive benefits at a level a married couple with one partner working cannot? Why?

I consider a couple earning over 45-50K or a single person earning over about 27-33.

No wubbly I don't think that, I think the minimum wage should be lifted.

hornofplenty, so what, you think these people on low incomes would be better off staying on benefits?

What do you consider a middle income? You see, a couple each working 40 hours a week earning just over the minimum wage will lose out under these proposals.

They have enabled the working poor to work at a pittance because if those people were not topped up by tax credits I suspect they would not be in work.

You are right that people will pay what they have for a house, so give people on above average salaries so they can pay even more for housing.

I mentioned SAHM as someone above said she was worried about losing her TC and she was a SAHM.

Wubbly the money should be directed at those earning 12K a year or single parents 25K a year not middle income families.

Why all the talk about SAHM, as if these cuts only affect 2 parent families where one parent is working?

Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage only equates to an annual salary of just over £12k per annum!

Pretty fecking poor in my book.

not sure that tax credits have enabled big companies to pay the working poor a pittance?

Isn't it that tax credits have supported the working poor, because the big companies like massive profits and so do their wealthy share holders?

also, landlords/estate agents can charge what they like because alot of social housing was sold off and has not been replaced quick enough if at all. And because people need homes and take what they can and will pay what they have to in order to have a home and take what ever state it is in to boot; for fear of rent increasing.

lastly, not sure about families being rewarded by a milk token etc. Children need nutrition and a chance in life from what ever background and from whatever number of siblings they have.
personnaly, I don't resent a child a milk token or two etc coming out of my taxes, but I do resent wages of say £4k+ per month coming out of my taxes, only then for those very rich people to make decisions on people who are living on such little amounts in comparison.

Tax credits may have allowed women to go back
to work but maybe not everyone will agree that's a good thing. A study of full time working mumms showed that a high percentage ( (can't remember the exact number but think it was at least two thirds) would rather stay at home with their children.

The trouble again with all this govt
interference help is that it messes up market forces. If people couldn't afford mortgages/rents without govt help they proably wouldn't have spiralled out of control.

My dad was able to buy a house and support a family on a carpenters wage back in the 60's. In the South East.

I am not disputing that it is expensive to live in London, I cannot afford to live there and have accepted that.

But the average wage in London is 30% higher than elsewhere in the UK. The average male London wage is 34K and 21K for women. Again what has gone so wrong in society if people on an above average wage need benefits. Do we just let living costs spiral and spiral as we top of incomes.

As I said above I can only afford one child, I don't feel like a victim of a moral crusade or that anything has been snatched. I am just living within my means

This is like going back to the 80s - it is an attack on working women as most working women were able to go back to work because of the child tax credits.

Also, it feels like milk snatching - I am sure they could have found other ways to claw back the money than subtracting it to children - and lowish income families.

This is not a budget decision this is a moral crusade imo. Everyone knows that a family earning 35k gross in the South of England is hardly rich; so this is not an attack on the rich or the superfluous, is an attack on the working classes and low middle classes.

In the meantime all the talk of banking seems to have died a death....

I am just waiting now for the word privatisation to sneak in, back to the Thatcher years I think...............

It is not evil it is realism, sure people have stories and reasons, but we need to get a grip on this.

Agree hornofplenty but then I'm an evil person who thinks the the govt shouldn't extend any financial help beyond 2 children.........

i would like to think the 'cuts' will be fairly worked out. anyone remember the poll tax riots? we don't just take anything as a country, takes alot to rile us though.

I would like to see child benefit only ever paid to 2 children and no more - for anyone.