We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Cut in tax credits?

Anyone else a little uneasy about Nick Clegg not confirming that this Job fund idea isn't going to be funded by reducing tax credits! We live on ours practically. I buy all our food and clothing with it. My other half works full time, I can't yet as have a 6 year old and 10 month old.

Does anyone know any more about it?
«1

Comments

  • That's certainly what's been written in the press.

    Personally, I'd think it better not to rely too heavily on government top ups because they can be withdrawn or changed at any time.
  • Yes that would be nice with a choice. I've only heard it on radio 4 listen to it all day but that's all that seems to have been said about it.
  • paddedjohn
    paddedjohn Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture
    Yes that would be nice with a choice. I've only heard it on radio 4 listen to it all day but that's all that seems to have been said about it.

    But you did have a choice, you chose to have a child knowing you couldnt cope without benefits. Personally i think the idea of the cut is just an idea thats been thrown in the air to judge the publics reactions.
    Be Alert..........Britain needs lerts.
  • paddedjohn wrote: »
    But you did have a choice, you chose to have a child knowing you couldnt cope without benefits. Personally i think the idea of the cut is just an idea thats been thrown in the air to judge the publics reactions.

    sigh

    someone else who thinks only rich people should be allowed to have families
    Overactively underachieving for almost half a century
  • sigh

    someone else who thinks only rich people should be allowed to have families

    After reading some of the posts on this board over the last few months, I'm beginning to think that the only rich people are those on benefits.

    They seem to receive far more money through the benefit system than someone who goes out to work!

    So maybe a cut wouldn't be such a bad idea, it might encourage others to seek employment instead of relying on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

    I'm all for a cap of £500 on benefit claims.
    Be happy, it's the greatest wealth :)
  • Killmark
    Killmark Posts: 313 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    sigh

    someone else who thinks only rich people should be allowed to have families


    I think most people should agree that people should avoid having children if they can't afford them and have to rely on state handouts. If you already have children and your circumstances have changed then that's different but whatever happened to the expectation that people better themselves (if possible) rather than expect to rely on the state ad infinitum.
  • just out of interest Killmark, what amount of money do you think people should be earning before they be allowed to have children?
    Overactively underachieving for almost half a century
  • Oldernotwiser
    Oldernotwiser Posts: 37,425 Forumite
    just out of interest Killmark, what amount of money do you think people should be earning before they be allowed to have children?

    Enough to keep them, obviously.

    (And it's not a question of "allowing", it should be a sensible decision that people make for themselves.)
  • mildred1978
    mildred1978 Posts: 3,367 Forumite
    Anyone else a little uneasy about Nick Clegg not confirming that this Job fund idea isn't going to be funded by reducing tax credits! We live on ours practically. I buy all our food and clothing with it. My other half works full time, I can't yet as have a 6 year old and 10 month old.

    Does anyone know any more about it?

    Plenty of people work with 2 children. Legally you only have to take 2 weeks off (4 if you're a factory worker).
    Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.
    :A Tim Minchin :A
  • Killmark
    Killmark Posts: 313 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 26 November 2011 at 9:32AM
    just out of interest Killmark, what amount of money do you think people should be earning before they be allowed to have children?

    I didn't say people should be allowed to have children based on earnings but people should be sensible enough to plan ahead.

    I'll give you an example if you were working a 36hr week on NWM and had a non-working partner with 1 child you would be paying £1,477.64 a year in tax, but would be getting £3,068 in CTC and £1,040 in CB = £4,108 total meaning a net cost after tax income to the tax payer of £2,631.

    That doesn't include Housing Benefit or Council tax Benefit that people may be entitled to, but would you say its prudent for the family to decide that based on household income they should have another child?

    £1,477.64 a year in tax, but would be getting £5,500 in CTC and £1,755 in CB = £7,255 total meaning a net cost after tax income to the tax payer of £5,778.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.