Tories Planned To Slash Child Benefit

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32526461

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that they did, but the Tories are saying they didn't !

Leaving aside the issue of whether the policy would have been correct or not, they can't both be right. Which one is being economical with truth here ?

[jackthehat]

As it's a 'Benefit' perhaps those parents in work, shouldn't have access to it?
That'd save a fair amount, I imagine....

[ummmm]

It used to be called 'allowance'

Calling it a 'benefit' gives a negative slant.

[naomi24]

What, you mean they should work to pay to help keep other people's children?

[naomi24]

^That was to Jack.

[jackthehat]

No.
But if 'Benefits' need cutting, perhaps those working parents in receipt of Child Benefit (who chose to have children) should, instead, raise those children without these 'Benefits' from the State?

Something to consider, perhaps?

Child Benefit paid to 'Claimants' is clawed back by reducing the amount they receive in other benefits; it becomes an 'instead of' rather than an 'as well as'.

[Old_Geezer]

It's still a State incentive to go for another kid. Wrong in principle. If a couple is so poor they can not afford even one child then it sounds the sort of thing that should be covered under general poverty relief systems, not child specific payments.

[ummmm]

Really. You think £18 quid a week is an incentive to have a child?

[VHG]

Saw a lovely quote today.

Give a man a fish and it will feed him for a day. Promise him someone else's fish and he will vote Labour.

[TWR]

Heard a comment today, do as I say, not as I do, Author, We are all In It together.

[anotheoldgit]

All leaked by a Lib/Dem traitor in the coalition camp, for their own political purpose.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3061598/Danny-Alexander-claims-Tories-trying-British-people.html

[naomi24]

Jack, //it becomes an 'instead of' rather than an 'as well as'.//

Better it should become ‘not at all’. I have no objection whatsoever to helping people who cannot support themselves – we absolutely must do that - but benefits are not restricted to those people - and therein lies the problem. A complete overhaul of the system is long overdue.

TWR, //We are all In It together. //

….. but those who want something for nothing are more ‘in it’ than others. They take everything they can get.

Ummmm, it’s not one £18 – it’s millions of £18s.

[ummmm]

I wasn't talking about how many received it. Just that £18 is not an incentive to have children....

Replying to O_G ... //It's still a State incentive to go for another kid//

[Svejk]

Ha ha. The Guardian and Libdums have just been busted on the Daily Politics. Conniving little sneaks.

[naomi24]

ummmm, people for whom benefits is a lifestyle choice consider it a reason. The more kids they produce the more money they’re given – and all for free.

svejk, oops! Shall I tell Mikey his question has been answered, or will you?

[Svejk]

3 year old discussion, Naomi, repackaged to cause maximum damage to the conservatives. Simon Hughes tried to bluster it out for 30 seconds but then gave up and admitted that was exactly what it was. Lol.

[ummmm]

Naomi...that may be the case for people that live solely on benefits 'by choice'. Not so for people that don't.

[naomi24]

svejk, I watched some of The Daily Politics, but missed that bit. Oh my!

Ummmm. I know.

[ummmm]

So you're talking about different benefits then, not the child benefits the OP is about?

[naomi24]

No, I'm talking about child benefits.

[ummmm]

So did you never claim child benefits, Naomi?