for the hard-of-thinking, does anyone know what they're all planning to do about TAX CREDITS? Cos that will sway my vote....

[WitchBoxToX]

Apart from the current government, I've not managed to find out what our mates Nick and Dave have planned - way too cagey over it all. Anyone know?

Our family income is around 50k & it is to me. Our life is pretty simple, no flash TV, car or foreign holidays. I am saving that £50 to help fund my 2 children through uni. Also as a public sector worker, I am facing a pay freeze under TOries - double whammy. Thanks DAve!

the 'family element' is indeed the £545 you quote, but then in addition there are amounts for each child in the household, the Child element - one for each child or young person you are responsible for up to max £2,235 per child, varying depending upon your household income and circumstances.

But pippibluestocking, tax credits are benefits that are intended to top up basic incomes so that people can eat and heat their homes. They're not for saving. If you're able to save that money you don't really need the tax credits, do you?

Incidentally I too work in the public sector and I don't have a problem with a pay freeze for a couple of years. It makes sense in the current climate.

Times are hard and it's time everyone woke up to it.

pippibluestocking

The private sector has had to go through much worse. The choice for people in the public sector is simple: annoying but manageable pain now, or catastrophic pain when the IMF comes in.

Don't the very well off only get the family element though? With one child it's the family element only from around £22k onwards isn't it?

I know loads of people in the private sector who lost their jobs or ahd to accept 20-25% pay cuts. Do you really expect sympathy for not getting a pay rise and not getting tax credits to put in the bank?

Yes that is right, gaelic

Now I'm thinking of starting an "I'm really scared of the result thread", because I'm thinking GB's brainwashing has been pretty successful. God help us.

Crackfox - people in the private sector with 25 years experience and a higher graduate background in a specialist professiongenerally earn a lot more than 50k in the first place so I have very little sympathy for them. Anyway, I think I am leading people away from the ops question so will bow out now!

I know people in the private sector who were earning £23k (in their early 40s) who were forced onto 3 day weeks. Not everyone in the private sector earns brilliant wages.

Anyone who think 50 or 60 K PA is a lot of money to live on in London is having a laugh.

Try get a mortgage with a 50K pa income.

If they reduce tax credits and if they limit child care vouchers then they will hurt a lot of people who are currently trying to work through the recession.

If the unions come out against pay freezes, or God forbid strike over a lower-than-they-would-like pay offer, I will hang my head in shame. One of the only benefits of working in the public sector is relative job security and I thank my lucky stars for that. If it's a choice between job cuts in a couple of years time or pay freezes now then surely the freeze wins hands down. I can't see why anyone would object to it tbh.

Ah, beware assumptions,gaelic, I never assumed you were voting Conservative, & you shouldn't assume that I will be voting LAbour - I won't be!

It is twice the national average income! People who live in London choose to live in London. I fail to see why they should get special treatment because they live in a crazy economic bubble. Again I say that if you earn that amount of money and can't absorb a drop of £10 a week then you are in much more serious trouble that no amount of TCs will sort out. Childcare vouchers I have to agree with you about - strange how everyone's forgotten about GB's clanger on that one.

Someone on another thread said that GB had to extend tax credits to high earners in order to offset the effects of the crazy housing boom that he helped to create and ensure that they continued to vote Labour. That is so so true, and so so wrong.

Ah, I didn't mean just you Pippi. I was generalising about a load of stuff I've seen on MN the past couple of weeks - it did come across as getting at you personally though.

You're right I'm not voting Conservative. Although if it would keep Labour out of a seat I probably would.

Oh and pinkfizzle - there are people living in London earning the minimum wage as well. Many many of them. Where do you think the priorities should lie?

So why are the tories touting the £50k figure when Theresa May has admitted that "No families with a combined household income of £40,000 or less will be affected by our policy."

Not exactly up front with the facts eh?

To add further confusion, the tories have claimed their tax credit cuts will save £400 million pounds.

In fact, the IFS have said "At its 2009 party conference, the Conservative Party proposed to start the withdrawal
of the family element of the child tax credit at an annual family income of £40,000,
rather than the current threshold of £50,000. An early estimate of the savings from this
reform was produced by researchers at IFS and cited by the Conservative Party, and this
was that the change could save £0.4 billion a year. However, the government has
estimated that the threshold would have to be cut by more ? to £31,000 a year ? in
order to save £0.4 billion.a
It is likely that the estimate from the government is more accurate, because the IFS
estimate assumed full take-up of the child tax credit. Without access to HMRC?s data, it
is not possible for us to say precisely how much money would be raised by the
Conservative Party?s proposal having allowed for incomplete take-up, but it can be
stated confidently that it would be less than £0.4 billion (because that would require
lowering the threshold to £31,000), but more than £45 million (which is what would be
raised if the threshold at £50,000 were replaced by a cliff-edge, as this is the total
amount to which families with incomes exceeding £50,000 are entitled)."

Here is the link, it's on page 168 of the report.

All this talk of Labour scaremongering, perhaps they are? Wouldn't be quite so easy mind you if the tories had a costed policy they could stick to.

I suppose I'm failing to see why on earth this matters so much to everyone in the grand scheme of things. Surely the priority should be maintaining the incomes of the poorest in society through the coming economic pain, not worrying about a few hundred quid a year for people on £30k, £40k or £50k. As we are on less than this as a family it doesn't sound like we'd be affected, but even if we were I'd sure rather lose some tax credits than lose my public sector job.

I was going to reply to your post on the huge GB webchat thread, wubbly, but my PC won't load the whole thread any more so I can't get the message box. Now I can't remember what I was going to say. But I don't see any discrepancy in the Tory policy. The Tory manifesto is talking about the point at which the family element will cut off, not the point at which it starts to reduce.

GB stated that the Tories will cut tax credits for the poorest families. That was a blatant lie.

Yes I am well aware that many people are living on the minimum wage.

I still think that help should be extended to those families who earn up to 60K pa. Why penalise those on 50K or a combined income of 50K?

You simply can not say people choose to live in London. It is more complicated than that - many jobs exist in London which do not exist elsewhere.

I think that either way families are going to be absolutely stuff - especially those who have recent mortgages.

Totally agree with you GS on the priority being to help the poorest. I don't believe the tories will do that. Their record says otherwise, by their actions when they were last in power and by the actions of conservative councils in more recent years. I know we'll never see eye to eye on this: I can only hope that, if the tories form a government on Friday, you are proved right.

Just to clarify that the only reason I feel so strongly about this particular issue is because GB has so blatantly lied about it. I just don't think any politician should be allowed to get away with that, election or no election. He's lied about other things too, but this one seems to have gathered real credence and that worries me - a lot..

If he has lied then that's wrong, of course. But I don't trust the tories to look after the poorest people in our society. If they don't cut CTCs, they'll do some other god awful thing that leaves the poor even worse off.

GS indeed it might not be important to you, you may well think it shouldn't be important to others too, but really that's up to them to decide.

I do see a discrepancy in the line touted by DC. He has not once mentioned the £40k figure in the leadership debates, if my memory serves me correctly. Why not? If he believes it's the right policy then at least argue the point.

Seriously, how far would £30k go in London if you have a few children? Full housing costs to pay, full council tax, utilities, prescriptions, school meals, dentists, travel, clothes, food?

What is the definition of 'poor' we're using here?

Of course it wouldn't go far at all. The cost of living in London is ridiculous, but a few hundred quid in CTC doesn't solve that problem. Labour has done very very well to get everyone so focused on this issue that they forget the planned NI rise and forget to ask exactly how Labour plans to cut the deficit.

I'm not a Tory apologist or a Tory sympathiser. But I do not trust Gordon Brown and a Labour government to do the right thing either. They've had years and years in power and they've screwed it up. If it was a straight choice here, yes I'd vote Tory. As it is I'm voting for someone else.

But labour has been 'doing the right thing' wrt child poverty. Read this.