If the Tories come into power, tax credits could be axed :-O

[GlastonburyGoddess]

In the news today. Im appalled. Talking about how tax credits create a demotivation to earn more etc etc

Im disgusted, no mention of if it would be replaced with something else.

we both work, we get our wages at the end of the month and within 3 days its gone on bils, we then live day to day off the tax credits. we'd be f**d hope they dont end up in power....

'£50k with one child and no childcare is amssively different from £50k with 3 children all under 5, maybe on with SN or even more. It needs to be done, as now, on a sliding scale.

Actually you're wrong. Firstly the age of the children is not taken into consideration, unless they are under 12 months, in which case you get £545 extra per family.
'

I was talimng in real terms SG, and I think its is different in real terms

I'm afraid i don't trust DC either:he will be one of the Government, not all of it, and In suspect in a massive minority even ifhe dioes beleive in things such as special schools.

I am terrified ds3's spewcial school owuld close: it survived a review under Labour but who knows if it came up again. Then what? A return to MS where he was allowed to sit crying at the back of the room becuase he wasn't an actual risk to anyone? When I had to chamnge his nappy on the school floor 9 months pregnant because they wouldn't do it, or where he was denied adrink because the local policy said water only and he has an ASD- aversion to water- so they took his alternatiove (flavoured soya milk) away.

The balance is so delicate for us that I am scared of any change, why wouldn't I be?

'£50k with one child and no childcare is amssively different from £50k with 3 children all under 5, maybe on with SN or even more. It needs to be done, as now, on a sliding scale.'

I'm going to get shot down for this comment but why would you have 3 kids if you only earnt 50K and you felt that you couldn't support your family properly?

I'm not against benefits to support families who are struggling due to redundancy, having carer commitments etc. But I do think it's wrong that the state should support people who choose to have more than 2 children just through wanting them but not quite being able to support them and I would cap the benefit calculation at 2 children.

I know it seems mean - and I feel mean saying it but the country simply doesn't have the space for a booming population (you only have to drive around at rush hour to see this, or try and get your kids in to the school of your choice etc. etc. not to mention the fact that the country cannot afford to maintain the size of the state it has created), and people should have to consider more their own responsibilities in supporting their own family.

maybe some people had 3 or more children on the basis of a decent job then lost their income when one of the children turned out to be disabled?
Although I cant see how people cant support 3 kids on 50K. Its a very large salary and way above average.

My OH had a good salary with the prospect of a very good salary and I had the intention of returning to work when the children went to school. But then OH lost his job, kids turned out to have AS and it all went to pot. These things happen.

I also think that it is easy to slate people on low incomes or to imagine that if you don't have a decent salary then you must be lazy/unmotivated or whatever. This isn't true in the least. In my OH's company, the main focus was on keeping wages down, paying people off after they got outwith their pay grade and hiring teenagers on minimum wage, even trying to have any pay rises paid as a bonus so that it never accumulated and your base wage never rose. After September 11th, we took a 3% pay cut because it was "the only way to avoid redundancies" while the company posted record profits. targets are constantly changed to avoid performance related pay rises. Many people are on a low income because their employers have an aversion to paying a decent, living wage. Tax credits, in some ways, allow this to happen, but that isn't the fault of the workers.

As for the Tories and disabled children, I very much doubt David Cameron knows what it is like in the real world. nor do I believe that he or his party will do anything to make our lives easier. But then, Labour has never done anything for us either, so I don't really see that the Toried could be much worse. BUT that is a selfish view on my part based only on my experience.

there does need to be an increase in public spending which means higher tax. who is going to be brave enough to do it?
CTC has lifted many families out of poverty but we still need more Surestart centres, better SN provision so kids are helped before they fail at education, more SN places in schools, faster access to equipment.

And one example hit me....hospital food. Hospital meals being poorer than prison food. Well, only way thats going to change is more money, kitchesn in hospital, nurses to feed those who cant feed themselves etc. Its ironic its the DM campaigning for that when the only way its going to improve is 'increase in public spending' which the DM hates.

you don't raise taxes..you cut spending.

spending on unnecessary benefits.

that's what the conservatives will do...possibly?

They will attempt/claim to cut unnecessary benefits but actually will end up cutting necessary ones as well.
I disagree with Riven that the ONLY way to sort out problems like crap hospital food is to increase public spending - the other way would be to stop wasting so much money and spend more efficiently. However this is harder than it looks and it remains to be seen how successfully the Tories will do it.

agree kathy, throwing money at every problem is not the answer, you need to be cost effective.

the tories are better at this than labour.

I read that the public services have more strenuous checks than private companies so are generally cost effective - cant find the article now of course!
But helping people is expensive, decent food in hospitals will cost, suretsart costs, SN costs.
Maybe we could stop invading foreign countries or bailing out wealth bankers to save some cash?

or maybe we should stop letting people into the country when we can't afford them..

the tories would have let the banks go to the wall.

I would happily pay more tax to improve public services and I think that most of the people I know would do the same.

ummm, immigrants tend to come here to work. You aren't allowed to emigrate here without a job

ummmm, but why let immigrants in if we already have 1000's unemployed & on benefits..? if we had zero unemployment and more jobs than people...fine...

plus the word "tend" is appropriate, as plenty of immigrants here milking our benefit system

'£50k with one child and no childcare is amssively different from £50k with 3 children all under 5, maybe on with SN or even more. It needs to be done, as now, on a sliding scale.'

I'm going to get shot down for this comment but why would you have 3 kids if you only earnt 50K and you felt that you couldn't support your family properly?

Life changes my dear; when we had ds4 DH was employed no problems, then he lost his job.#
Thaat;'s reality, it sucks a bit but hey ho

Oh Primmie the other bit about capping it at two-

when our old people keepliving on and our population ages amssivelt, there has to be a number of people of younger ages to balance that by contributing; pensions etc work on a day by day basis rather than invested, so whilst there are issues about over population it has to also be balanced by that fact. That's why the Government keep giving benefits after the 2nd child.

nothing stopping unemployed poeple applying for those jobs but they don't. So firms recruit from abroad.
They wouldn't come if the jobs were already filled but the blokes hanging around on the high Street don't want to clean, pick fruit, dig etc etc
Don't blame hard working immigrants who are paying TAXES.

'plus the word "tend" is appropriate, as plenty of immigrants here milking our benefit system '

please provide refernces for that statement. And not Daily Mail or Migratin watch

I understood latest stats said there were more immigrants leaving than arriving now anyway? Ws part of the debate on the rise in population last week.

dad's employers can't find people from the UK to fill posts (in a sausgae and burger factory). He is staying on after retirement for awhile so they can find someone but generally even the immigrants don't want the jobs- what should the company do, go under from lacl of staff? Dad loves itb there so it's not the organisation per se, just that most people don't want to clean out sausage making machinery.

Those jobs should be filled by people on the dole, cut their benefits if they refuse to take jobs available.
You can't have 1000's on the dole, and bring in
immigrants to do the jobs dole scroungers should be doing.... those immigrants might work, but we pay for their health care etc, we are therefore wasting ££££££

'They wouldn't come if the jobs were already filled but the blokes hanging around on the high Street don't want to clean, pick fruit, dig etc etc
Don't blame hard working immigrants who are paying TAXES.'

Once again, the big thing about immigrants is that MANY of them come here with no family in tow.

This allows them to work seasonal or temp jobs and work as many hours as they can stand up because a) they don't have childcare issues b) their cost of living can be as rock bottom as they can get it because they can live in a shared flat or just about wherever.

THIS is why there's this whole idea that the only reason British people don't do these jobs because they don't want to.

Perhaps they would take the job in the sausage factory if it meant that they were financially better off working 40 hours a week and not by a few quid.

Before anyone asks, I work full time.

expat, a lot of the young blokes drinking on the high street with their staffies don't have families either. They should be working at those jobs.

The old saying applies here; You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

You can cut the benefits of dole scroungers and the ones that do not turn to crime to make up there money may well get a job but that does not mean they will make a good employee.

They don't want to be there, they will not be productive so they wont last long.

It will be job- benefit ping pong.

Riven I highly doubt those career alcoholics are going to make suitable employees.

They'll thieve if you cut their benefits.

I was on a bus this morning with this middle-aged lady who was absolutely reeking of booze.

She was behind me getting off and used DS's buggy to steady herself.

I can't see her turning up at 7AM for work, perhaps a bit bleary-eyed until the second cup of coffee hits and cursing herself staying up late watching Rollerball like DH.