Hahahaha: Cameron says sorry to mums headline in tomorrow's papers

[WilfShelf]

'Sorry. We somehow forgot to mention we were removing the one benefit which universally protects women and children from some of the many financial inequities they face. But hey, we're elected now for five years and there's fuck all you can do about it...'

'But don't worry, as long as you haven't had the shame and disgrace of being abandoned to care for your kids by someone who refuses to pay his way, you'll be able to claw back a few quid a year in tax just so long as you get married. And those of you who do earn HRT, you can get EVEN MORE back...'

'I think you'll all find that's fair, no?'

He lied. What did you expect? Are you Tory, LibDem voters happy now?

can we just get absolutely clear that people on minimum pay do not subsidise those on higher incomes with their tax - unless of course they claim absolutely nothing in return for their tax (no working tax credits, housing benefits, child tax credits, even child benefit never mind nhs, education etc) , those on minimum wages are net gainers from the system and their taxes are not paying for anyone else. sorry to be blunt but all this rhetoric from good ol' Dave about those on low incomes supporting those on higher incomes deserves a

beg to differ saddlefish, some children are already hungry in this country.

the deficit should not be about individuals and families having to cough up.

as countless other people have already said, what about Trident, what about paying for troops overseas, what about big corporations (has BP even flinched about how much money it's had to pay to clean up its accident in the gulf of mexico?), what about BANKS? These don't generate a piddling 1bn. Which is then being cleverly redistributed to, oh, married people. How nice to be married. (I am, by the way, it has its moments)

i am ashamed to say before reading this thread that I didn't really care one way or the other - losing child benefit for me didn't seem like a massive deal (I can buy asda clothes and lidl food, wear an extra jumper, turn the heating down). I wasn't thinking of other people. Now thinking of this an attack on women, which it clearly is, makes me absolutely livid.

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the government has to cut the deficit in this way. And then get so "rattled" (I don't even believe that they are now) by the response from its core voters it does something which reveals its true colours so horribly in blinding technicolour.

And, yes, I now hate his stupid big pink shiny face (as opposed to before when I though, aww, poor Dave, he's no looker).

duh - maybe Dave just meant all of us supporting him and the rest of the 1% ruling elite! they're sooooo middle class

well sanfairyann my daughter has just returned after a 12 hour night shift on minimum pay with no paid breaks including half hour for lunch,she claims no benifits, housing benifit working tax credit as she is under 25, or anything from the state, she even has to pay for prescriptions, and yes she is subsidising people on higher incomes who have chosen to have children. I repeat you chose to have children so you should pay for them.

Oi, QC, I'm not at all Doris Day about it . I think you'll see from my OP that I fully expected him to lie.

so an average minimum wage earner under 25 who went to a state school and is now on approx £11 000 a year pays about £1000 in tax(a guess not a quote). Leaving school at 16 they'll need to work pretty much til middle age to pay for their own education up til age 16. If the average govt spend per head is between £6000 and £8000 depending on where you live, it seems a reasonable assumption that someone on a minimum wage will have received more in state spending (not necessarily money in their pockets but things like police, roads, schools, doctors) than they paid in tax. Choosing a few years out of an entire lifetime when a person is not benefitting as much from government tax spending per head and then claiming they don't get their money's worth and are supporting other people is disingenuous unless you really have lived a life of 'private' everything and are not going to need state assistance in the future either. that'd be the Cameron's of the world, not us. (To pay more than £6000 to £8000 tax per year you need to earn over around £40 000 - if you're on that salary or more and go through life without using public services much you might have cause to moan about paying more in tax than you get back though)

Am I the only one who gets a little tired of the old "you choose to have children, you should pay for them" line? Of course we pay for the children we choose to have. The CB is a drop in the ocean for the enormous expense and commitment we invest in bringing up the next generation of tax payers. It is our children who will be paying the taxes which provide the public services for ALL in the future.

The extension of this argument is that those on very low incomes are (rightly) supported financially to provide for their children. Those on very high incomes can afford children. There is a threshold therefore where people do not deserve to have chilren based on their income?!

Agree that the transfer of CB to married couples is a slap in the face for women and children.

The suggestion that women don't earn much and live off male earnings and earn muchl ess than men and thus are hit by child benefit cuts is pretty sexist and an insult to working women many of women work full time and outearn their men.

Yes, many women do outearn men but more do not. Nobody is saying this is right but it is still a fact. The situation may be sexist but the acknowledgement of it is not. It's like me complaining to road safety campaigners that I'm insulted by their opinions because I'm a careful driver.

So ensuring couples where both work and earn under £44k get child benefit and those where women live off mal earnings do not is a great thing because it enccourages women to get out there and outearn their husbands so although they may not like it it is very good for them and forces them out of economic dependence on men. Cameron the feminist as it were.

cammeron and feminist? you must be having a laugh. or do you really think a single digit of females [4] out of 29 in the cabinet is alright

But surely Lego it's of our own making that there are so few women in DC's cabinet. The pool of qualified women was dismally small because so many are opting to stay home to claim CB!

Indeed.
Anyway all feminist means is that you want women to have equal rights under the law and fairness at home which most British men do believe. And his wife has always worked. It's not the days of sexist Gordn Brown with his wife giving up her work to twitter and be a housewife is it?

staying at home to look after your children does not mean to do not believe in equality. most families function as a unit. a womans or mans work in the home is just as important as that of work outside.

and as for GB being sexist, again you must be joking. for the women who did want to work he supported childcare by ways of tax credits making it that much more possible and now cammeron is taking them away.

Sadly, as you can see for yourself on here, there are many who do not place much value(or certainly not equal value) on the work that a woman does in the home.

maggiecat I don't think work in the home is valued as much as working in a job because there are many people who both. Many women work full time and still manage to raise children and "run" the home.

And good on those who do manage to juggle many hats. I have been in both situations and I can honestly say that it has been just as hard work staying home to look after the children.