ChatterBank2 mins 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.
Yes he might Venator, but do you think he is telling the truth ?
The Tories have been telling us recently, that they will freeze tax rises, so if they are to make further savings, where is the money going to come from ?
To quote from the BBC Link ::::
"Mr Alexander said he was "lifting the lid" on plans including limiting child benefit and tax credit to two children.
He claimed his party blocked the move, which he said was worth £8bn.
Might this be the area that the Tories will make savings from, if they win next week ?
The Tories have been telling us recently, that they will freeze tax rises, so if they are to make further savings, where is the money going to come from ?
To quote from the BBC Link ::::
"Mr Alexander said he was "lifting the lid" on plans including limiting child benefit and tax credit to two children.
He claimed his party blocked the move, which he said was worth £8bn.
Might this be the area that the Tories will make savings from, if they win next week ?
OG...actually I tend to agree, which may surprise some people on here !
When I was a boy in the 50's and 60's, my Mum didn't get Family Allowance for me, as I was the first born. She only got it when my little brother came along. I think it makes sense to limit Child Benefit to 2, or maybe 3 children.
If some has 4 children, they are able to claim £61:80 a week, tax free. That is nearly £268 a month. I have to work very hard to earn £268 a month after tax !
I am not sure about the tax credits though, as I will confess that I don't really understand them well enough to judge.
When I was a boy in the 50's and 60's, my Mum didn't get Family Allowance for me, as I was the first born. She only got it when my little brother came along. I think it makes sense to limit Child Benefit to 2, or maybe 3 children.
If some has 4 children, they are able to claim £61:80 a week, tax free. That is nearly £268 a month. I have to work very hard to earn £268 a month after tax !
I am not sure about the tax credits though, as I will confess that I don't really understand them well enough to judge.
Mickey, I wish these people would tell the British Public the truth, put the cards on the line & tell it as it is, whilst they are at it, tell the British Public due to the state of this country no matter who has caused it, the Overseas Aid is going to be reduced by a vast amount for us to sort the UK out, will they?
TWR, Mr Alexander might be lying or spinning perhaps, but the Government haven’t lied. There was nothing to say.
//The Conservatives said they recognised none of the proposals, which were "definitely not" party policy.//
It’s possible that this subject was touched upon around the table, and was dismissed. I don’t think it’s been discussed in parliament. If it had, we’d have known about it.
//The Conservatives said they recognised none of the proposals, which were "definitely not" party policy.//
It’s possible that this subject was touched upon around the table, and was dismissed. I don’t think it’s been discussed in parliament. If it had, we’d have known about it.
I saw a short clip about benefits on TV the other day (ALL benefits not just child benefits).
The reporter was looking at who pays IN and who get OUT of the benefits system.
He said (and I only have his word for it) that 18.5 million families (52% of the UK families) actually take OUT more from the benefits system than they pay IN.
Now that seems faintly ridiculous to me, that we have a system in this country where over half the families are taking more out of the benefits system than they pay in.
Surely no country can continue on that path, there leads ruin.
Surely to safeguard our future we have to cut ALL benefits over time, not just child benefit.
Look at this man, he owns (owned) a house in London where he crammed between 20 and 40 people into the house (many who were on housing benefit) and he "earned" £12,000 a month JUST from this house.
http://
Surely any responsible government needs to do something about the benefits scandal.
Of course if Labour get in they will continue to give away money in benefits.
And with 52% of families now getting more out of benefits than they pay in it is in their interest to keep voting labour.
But where does that leave the financial future of the country.
Something HAS to be done about benefits.
The reporter was looking at who pays IN and who get OUT of the benefits system.
He said (and I only have his word for it) that 18.5 million families (52% of the UK families) actually take OUT more from the benefits system than they pay IN.
Now that seems faintly ridiculous to me, that we have a system in this country where over half the families are taking more out of the benefits system than they pay in.
Surely no country can continue on that path, there leads ruin.
Surely to safeguard our future we have to cut ALL benefits over time, not just child benefit.
Look at this man, he owns (owned) a house in London where he crammed between 20 and 40 people into the house (many who were on housing benefit) and he "earned" £12,000 a month JUST from this house.
http://
Surely any responsible government needs to do something about the benefits scandal.
Of course if Labour get in they will continue to give away money in benefits.
And with 52% of families now getting more out of benefits than they pay in it is in their interest to keep voting labour.
But where does that leave the financial future of the country.
Something HAS to be done about benefits.
TWR, the government have issued a clear statement on the issue so why do you assume they’re lying rather than consider that Mr Alexander may be embellishing a non-story to suit his party’s own ends? Do you just assume they’re lying because they don’t say what you want to hear? There’s an awful lot of spinning happening right now and it seems to be having the desired effect on you.
While I agree that it would be nice if a government told the truth, what I don't see -- and I think what Naomi is driving at -- is that if they don't know the truth yet, ie if they are working on some policy but it's not yet developed, then they have every reason to not reveal it yet. If a party announced tomorrow that it was planning, say, to build 500 new factories a year, then that would be great -- but of course immediately there are key questions that have to be answered. Where are these factories going to be sited? Who is to staff them? Who pays for the development? etc. etc.
On the other hand, if that proposal were announced complete with detailed answers to these questions, then while it follows that the proposal was bashing around for at least a few months before we knew about it, why is this a problem? You end up with something that not only sounds good but is also doable, or at least far more doable than a catchy soundbite.
If anything, the current Conservative government has been too eager to "tell the truth" as you would see it, VHG. Announcing policies before they are ready, or before they have been more completely thought through. That strikes me as bad practice. And it's not telling the truth for its own sake, but to try and look good politically. For cynical reasons, in other words. Does no-one any favours.
On the other hand, if that proposal were announced complete with detailed answers to these questions, then while it follows that the proposal was bashing around for at least a few months before we knew about it, why is this a problem? You end up with something that not only sounds good but is also doable, or at least far more doable than a catchy soundbite.
If anything, the current Conservative government has been too eager to "tell the truth" as you would see it, VHG. Announcing policies before they are ready, or before they have been more completely thought through. That strikes me as bad practice. And it's not telling the truth for its own sake, but to try and look good politically. For cynical reasons, in other words. Does no-one any favours.
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.