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

[Ponders]

have a look at this

'The truth is plain, and it is provable. David Cameron's policies will take money from the hard-working majority of Brits, and hand it to his friends and relatives on landed estates and in tax havens. He is not on your side; he is on the side of a tiny clique who have every luxury in life and now bray for even more. Cameron bragged to his supporters last month: "Nothing and no one can stop us." It's up to the majority who will lose out if he become PM to say - oh yeah?'

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............

thanks lincstash, I wasn't aware of that

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

"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.

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 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").

'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.

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.

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.

"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 ...