Cut in tax credits?

FBaby

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow wrote: »

sigh

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

But that's the point, many 'rich' people decide to only have one or two children because thy can't afford more, because an extra child comes with much extra costs (especially childcare if they both work) and nothing additional (or soon to be when CB goes).

My partner and I decided not to have a child together, not just for financial reason, but it had a massive impact on the decision. My ex, with who I have two children and his partner, who also has two from a previous relationship decided to have one together. Surprise surprise, they were then both unemployed and knew that an extra child would bring extra income.

So yes, bring on a reduction of tax credits so that having to accept that you can't afford another child however much you would want another one can affect anyone (unless the super super rich maybe!).

zagfles

Killmark wrote: »

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.

You missed WTC of about £2700 in this example.

zagfles

Melissa22_Mum wrote: »

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?

Don't know anything about it - but remember this govt has inherited the daft "child poverty" targets of the previous govt, and until/unless they revise or ditch them, they can't really cut CTC too much if at all. They increased the chiild element 11% last year.

I imagine they'll target WTC, maybe freezing it for a few years...this would also have a knock-on effect on the amount of CTC those on higher incomes (not entitled to WTC) get. But they could offset this a bit by increasing the child element of the CTC, which I think they're planning anyway.

But again this would reward those who don't work and punish those who do work - but that's the fault of the stupidly thought out "child poverty" targets...

Killmark

zagfles wrote: »

You missed WTC of about £2700 in this example.

Thank you for that point, added to the total then puts the joint household income after tax is comparable to 2 people working full time on NWM.

Couple 1 (1 working)
Net Wage: £10,522.36
CTC/WTC/CB (2 kids): £9955
Total: £20,477

Couple 2
2x Net Wage: £21,044

nearlyrich

My parents had 6 children, we had food, clothes, a roof over our heads and lots of love everything else was a bonus, mum got family allowance for all but the first dad earned too much to get free school meals etc he worked nights as it paid more and he had other part time work to bring in extra cash. No-one is saying you have to be rich to have children you just have to cut your cloth and not expect tax payers to keep adding to the income every time another child is born, no employer pays on the basis of how many dependants you have why should the benefits system? No family should get more in benefits than they could earn at NMW because those of us that are working and paying more than NMW per year in income tax would only get £66 x 26 weeks if we lost our jobs tomorrow.