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 ?

[naomi24]

Yes, I did.

[anotheoldgit]

She might as well claim something that I presume she has paid into, unlike some.

[TWR]

Naomi, up to the day I left school to the day I retired I've have never asked / claimed for something I have never paid into, I'm afraid to say I am of the old school, if you want it, work for it, throughout my life that's the way it is & I'm proud of the fact the I don't owe anyone / anything sod all, for the likes of that dreg that was in the D.M. last week bragging about dipping his wick & producing 40 children he was a disgrace, but who is at fault? he should have been snipped " End Off" to a point I feel sorry for the children because of the stigma they are getting because of this worthless piece of *** that know if he produces another the state will hep keep the child, the system totally stinks.

[ummmm]

TWR...do you know whether the mothers of his children work?

I had my first child at 18 and always worked. She has never known a life of non working parents.

You can't judge someone for the fact they had sex with the wrong man.

(he was a minger btw)

[TWR]

Not sure about the 4 Mother's Ummmm, they should have seen this Minger for what he was, a useless piece of human flesh.

[naomi24]

People can have sex with whomever they choose - but if they can't be bothered to take advantage of the free(!!!) birth control that's on offer, they shouldn't expect the rest of us to support the result of their five minutes of passion.

[ummmm]

It was way more than 4 mothers.

[ummmm]

Naomi...I agree with that.

[TWR]

Google / 40 Women.

[TWR]

To correct 20 women

[Baldric]

OK, googled 40 women

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=A&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7PRFA_enGB424&;gfe_rd=cr&;ei=8RxCVcLQEobAcPX5gbAE&;gws_rd=ssl#rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:IE-SearchBox&q=40+women

[Baldric]

Try this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021021/The-shameless-father-s-got-40-children-20-women-says-ll-never-stop-God-says-forth-multiply.html

[jim360]

Coincidentally this popped up on facebook:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?WT.mc_id=2015-2NDQTR-KWP-INTL_AUD_DEV-0330-0628&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&kwp_0=13246&kwp_4=99212&kwp_1=140604&_r=0

The claim is that even perfect use of birth control methods still allows for unplanned pregnancies, with roughly a 40/100 women likely to end up with (at least) one unplanned pregnancy over a decade. You can't criticise people for wanting to have sex, taking the best of precautions, and their still failing. What are we saying? You have to abort? Or alternatively, women should be obliged to have IUDs as a matter of course -- probably the latter is more acceptable, although in the end there still ought to be some freedom of choice.

The only 100% successful method of avoiding pregnancy is abstinence (well, 99.9999999995% perhaps, allowing for virgin births). It's hardly people's fault if they want to have sex. And it's hardly the child's fault either. Finger-wagging seems a bit of a pointless exercise once the child is born.

[jim360]

Sorry, 18/100 women can be expected to end up pregnant over a ten-year period even with perfect (male) condom use. I got the condom (female) -- what I'd call femidom -- and condom (male) graphs mixed up.

Still, the point is that even couples taking fairly reasonable precautions can end up accidentally conceiving. You could also add the pill on top, I guess, which if used perfectly leaves only about 3% of women pregnant after a decade. You can't legislate for this, and it's very hard to use these things perfectly anyway.

[ummmm]

Well said, Jim.

I'm a mother of two unplanned pregnancies. One because I was young and careless, the other a complete shock because I thought I was covered. Ladies should never puke up whilst on the pill...apparently.

I still worked though...

[jackthehat]

I'm having trouble understanding why claiming Child Benefit is acceptable unless you are on other benefits.

And this thread has veered a considerable distance away from mikey's OP which was about the Politicking behind the leaking of this new and earth-shattering suggestion...

[Old_Geezer]

Any amount is an incentive to take a chance. Unless you think the threat of receiving money is a disincentive. Even if it is 1p it is wrong in principle. It sends out the wrong message.

[whiskeryron]

I want to be very careful when I subscribe to this topic because I do not wish to be classed as being heartless but for the life of me I cannot understand why child benefit should be mandatory. Surely it would not be too difficult to declare that anyone earning over a certain amount can not claim benefit (you have 'em you pay for 'em) leaving the very poorest to be given help for their first child. I am sure that by this method £ millions could be saved. Also I ask the question why is child benefit actually paid out at all ( nobody forces people to have children ) & if the vulnerable need to be helped why cash ?, give food to help rear a child who is maybe suffering from malnutrition.

[ummmm]

OG...have you got children?

£18 just about covers my sons school dinner money.

Most people with children are not living solely on benefits and if you think someone would have a baby for an extra £18 a week....well, that's just daft.

[Mamyalynne]

I think the reason why Child Benefit touches a nerve is that in it's infancy as Family Allowance almost 70 years ago, it was a subsidy with the best of intentions.

To help parents both feed their children better and to enable them to keep them in full time education for longer.

Times have of course changed, not least the title of the payment and yet still it is so entrenched in the psyche it raises hackles when there is any talk of change or cuts to it.