ChatterBank3 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.
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.
Coincidentally this popped up on facebook:
http://
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.
http://
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.