News1 min ago
Tories Planned To Slash Child Benefit
http://
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 ?
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 ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Repeating myself...
People used to pay tax at X amount. When they got married they got a different tax code. When they had children they got another tax code.
That was scrapped so that the main carer got the benefit of the tax breaks and not the main bread winner.
Not all bread winners could be trusted to bring home the wages!
People used to pay tax at X amount. When they got married they got a different tax code. When they had children they got another tax code.
That was scrapped so that the main carer got the benefit of the tax breaks and not the main bread winner.
Not all bread winners could be trusted to bring home the wages!
//
ummmm
OG...have you got children?
£18 just about covers my sons school dinner money.// With respect ummmm if child benefit had never started, children would be taking sandwich boxes to school containing healthy food instead of the kids we see every school day eating chips ,crisps & other rubbishy snacks.
ummmm
OG...have you got children?
£18 just about covers my sons school dinner money.// With respect ummmm if child benefit had never started, children would be taking sandwich boxes to school containing healthy food instead of the kids we see every school day eating chips ,crisps & other rubbishy snacks.
I have just returned from a long work day, and I haven't read all the post on this thread, so please forgive me !
But my question of 06:42 still remains. Alexander is the Chef Secretary to the Treasury and is a Government minister. He was present at all the important Treasury meetings and most of the not-so-important ones as well
I expect.
He is saying one thing and the Tories in the same Government Dept. are gainsaying him. Somebody isn't telling the truth and I think its important that the British public should know one way or the other. Lying to the Electorate is a serious charge.
But my question of 06:42 still remains. Alexander is the Chef Secretary to the Treasury and is a Government minister. He was present at all the important Treasury meetings and most of the not-so-important ones as well
I expect.
He is saying one thing and the Tories in the same Government Dept. are gainsaying him. Somebody isn't telling the truth and I think its important that the British public should know one way or the other. Lying to the Electorate is a serious charge.
Mikey, the public do know. From svejk on this thread earlier.
at 12.22 //Ha ha. The Guardian and Libdums have just been busted on the Daily Politics. Conniving little sneaks.//
at 12:35 //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.//
at 12.22 //Ha ha. The Guardian and Libdums have just been busted on the Daily Politics. Conniving little sneaks.//
at 12:35 //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.//
I haven't read all the links here.Just got in. I heard on LBC that Danny Alexander drew up the plan of slashing child benefit back then. The Tory's never liked it or implemented it.Apparently the Lib /dums are saying now,"Well the Tories are not saying how they are going to cut 12 million quid in the manifsto like we all are BUT it was thought that 8 million quid would be slashed back 3yrs ago.As they wont come out with how they intend to make these savings then it must be part of the slashing child benefit plan" That was the very plan that Alexander wrote up and the Tories never implemented. A cheap lying shot by the Lib/Dums based on assumptions.
I don't think you have understood what I've been say ummmm but putting that to one side: if £18 is so insignificant then it can be dispensed with. (Or maybe imposed as a regular repeating fine for having more kids than you could reasonably afford :-D ) I don't buy into this main carer justification in this day & age. If parents are not covering their responsibilities then they should be brought to book.
Sorry for getting your name wrong :-)
I understand where you're coming from. Life changes for people though. Your well paid job is not guaranteed. You have children that you can easily afford and then one day...it all goes tits up.
When I look at how much tax and NI my partner pays a week £18 a week is pennies. But CB at least guarantees food on the table.
You can't predict the future.
I understand where you're coming from. Life changes for people though. Your well paid job is not guaranteed. You have children that you can easily afford and then one day...it all goes tits up.
When I look at how much tax and NI my partner pays a week £18 a week is pennies. But CB at least guarantees food on the table.
You can't predict the future.
In the 60's, I recall going to the Post Office, with my Mum and two little brothers, to collect her Family Allowance on a Tuesday morning. I now realise that this quite small sum of money made it possible for her to buy food to last until Friday night, when Dad gave her the housekeeping money.
We probably wouldn't have starved but it did make a big difference to my Mum.
We probably wouldn't have starved but it did make a big difference to my Mum.
No one can predict the future, but the benefits system was created as a temporary cushion against hard times. The intention wasn’t to dish out money to people who don’t need it which, if your partner, ummmm, pays a lot of tax and national insurance, is very clearly what is happening.
Take for example the new initiative of giving free meals to all infant school children. Up until this was brought into play 367,000 children whose parents were on benefits or on a low wage were eligible for free school meal which is fair enough, but that figure has now risen to a staggering 1.55m and not only costs the government an enormous amount of money, it gives ALL parents of the recipients an extra £400 per child per annum. That’s crazy!
http://
Take for example the new initiative of giving free meals to all infant school children. Up until this was brought into play 367,000 children whose parents were on benefits or on a low wage were eligible for free school meal which is fair enough, but that figure has now risen to a staggering 1.55m and not only costs the government an enormous amount of money, it gives ALL parents of the recipients an extra £400 per child per annum. That’s crazy!
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.