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?

Mummyberryjuice,

as I understand it if you stay at home to raise your children and your husband/partner is a higher rate tax payer, the state will take your CB away. The tax free allowance transfer is only for a small amount worth about £150.00 I think which will not offset the CB withdrawal. Also I heard that the transfer only applies if one of the married couple is not using all their entitlement and the other is not a higher rate tax payer.

Just remember ladies...

• you may have only just paid off your student debts by the time you have children
• you may have used your Child Benefit to contribute towards childcare so that you could stay a productive member of society
• you may have been saving your CB towards your child's University Fees
• you may have chosen to be a SAHM but thought that the fact that CB was linked to your NI contributions would have helped protect your (miserable state) pension
• you may have been abandoned to raise your child yourself and your CB is going towards your grocery bills

Still, it's great that at least things are FAIR now, isn't it?

I'm pretty worried about losing the right to my pension credits. Being a SAHM, I'm planning to take a career break for maybe 10 years until the youngest starts full-time ed, then go part time. Not sure I'll be able to save up the credits in that time to make a full pension. :(

Does anyone know EXACTLY what they said in their manifesto? did they state they would not touch it?

surely this is one big issue?

Can someone direct to a thread where we all the angry folkes on here have worked out how we can magically just get rid of the deficit? Or the thread which sets out that it doesn't matter we can just ignore it and everything will be ok.

jolly Diane - are you pleased with your vote?

Politicians lie. Red, yellow, blue. All of them. It's not a Tory speciality. It's how they work. Much easier to be a Tony Benn or Anne Widdecombe than in the thick of it.

Hi Notan. Nobody likes to give up money. I truely want to understand how people think it is ok to just ignore the staggering problems that the deficit will have. It was not all Labour's fault but we cannot just ignore it. The cuts have to happen, pensions have to reformed. If you know different then I am happy to discuss - lead me to the thread which explains it.

MarineIguana - Hitler and Pol Pot don't compare with Thatcher. Such extreme and nonsensical vitriol doesn't help your cause. I assume you're not Jewish or Cambodian. Don't think even the miners (who have a good reason to hate her I agree) would suggest they suffered under her like people did in Auschwitz etc. Grow up. I suppose you did include a good example from the left as well though.

and waits for link.

diane of course you know there is no link - that's up to Cameron isn't it....wasn't it in that crock of lies his manifesto?

But the Tories selling off the family silver in the 80s (namely privatising the national companies) wasn't a great move, Diane.

Notan, I do hope we will remain Jolly.

The point I am trying to make is the deficit is real. We were told about it often enough. Is everyone really surprised that cuts have to happen. What is the alternative? It is very easy to moan but what are the alternatives?

Pretend it is not there? Or

Deal with it?

Not sure Cameron had much of a manifesto. It's just most of the country was utterly sick of Labour and all their failures (yes I know successes too but not ones that mattered to most he the country in the end).

I used to vote Labour. Never again. Certainly not with their current leader.

I have no particular political allegiance. What I try to do is look at things logically, that is all I ask of others. What logically steps could any party take? Put taxes up or make cuts.

Nor me. I just wanted to vote for who seemed best at the time. Who knows...maybe LAbour will amaze me and I will return. Hard to imagine.

Child Benefit used to be called Family Allowance. Why not pay Child benefit to all parents who are married, regardless of income? By definition, every Government performs social engineering, and in the area of marriage it is shocking how this country really has betrayed this fundamental and most healthy way of bringing up children. Critics say people don't marry for tax breaks, love surpasses such lowly reasons for getting married, but there is very little indeed, if anything, of substance that the Government does to honour marriage. If the benefits of marriage are not promoted is it any wonder people choose not to marry. All too often short term selfish individualism is held up as the way to live. The financial benefits for the Government of people living in married families are massive, thereby reducing their commitment to spend and hence reducing their need to cut and increase taxes.

Kitty - I think that is all anyone can ask for. I would vote for Sooty (gosh that shows my age) if he had policies which dealt the problems we have.

Ah, I did like Sooty. Take care - I;m off to make pasta.

Bye Kitty,

Shalomitshimdadandy - wow that was not easy to type.

We need to cut now. Right now. We need a quick ways of doing that. I don't want more civil servants clicking their calculators and working out married vs not married couples. Thanks for making suggestions though.

Come on Notan - I was expecting you to tell me how wrong I was and that we can ignore the deficit because...

there are plenty of alternatives to cut back on form what i have read-just differeing opinions on which is most effectual.

no one is ignoring the deficit; you can tax and cut or cut and cut, you can go 30/70 or 50/50. you can do it slowly or fast, you can tax higher earners or not tax higher earners. you can cut spending on trident or not. you can tax banks more or not.

it is the unfairness of the chb proposals that people argue with, so if one person earning 43k [to be lower when it hits] looses chb, it should not be a couple with 80k get to get it.

similarily, a couple with no children will get the married persons tax allowance while a person who is single will not.

so what are we saying here? all the tory voters say and have been saying that they are fed up the so called labour 'nanny state' but are more than happy to be rewarded for simply being married as if they are somehow...more superior beings as are their kids as both parents share the same bed.

if encouraging the state into your bedroom isn't 'nanny state' then I don't know what is. I guess it is when 'it suits'.

I'm with jollydiane - what is everyone else's solution for cutting the deficit? What is sacred and what is fair game?

(Bonus points if you can manage three sentences without mentioning bankers)

well cutting the deficit certainly isnt paying married couples it seems. cutting the deficit isn't cutting CHB either seeing as what they gain will be lost in admin and married peoples allowances.

Kittyfoyle - apologies, I was being flippant, though I did not actually say Thatcher was exactly like the two dictators, obviously she's not. I was talking about the retrogressiveness. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.