UK & World News
- 7 January 2013, 1:45
David Cameron Defends Child Benefit Cuts
David Cameron has defended controversial cuts to child benefit payments that come into effect at midnight, insisting the reforms were "fundamentally fair".
The Prime Minister insisted the move - which will see families with one earner on more than £50,000 lose some or all of the payment, while households with two parents with salaries just under the trigger keep theirs - was the "right approach".
"I'm not saying those people are rich but I think it is right that they make a contribution," he told BBC 1's Andrew Marr Show.
"This will raise £2bn a year. If we don't raise that £2bn from that group of people, the better off 15% in the country, we would have to find someone else to take it from."
He added: "I think people see it as fundamentally fair that if there is someone in the household earning over £60,000 you don't get child benefit."
It is "full steam ahead" for the coalition, Mr Cameron said as he insisted the Government had a packed agenda.
And he told Marr that he had no intention of stepping aside.
He said: "I want to fight the next election as the leader of the Conservative Party, I want to win a Conservative majority and I want to serve."
Mr Marr interrupted: "And stay as Prime Minister for five years?"
Mr Cameron replied: "That's exactly what I have said."
On Monday, Mr Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will publish a mid-term review of progress the coalition government has made since 2010 and set out its top priorities for the rest of their term.
Mr Cameron said: "What you are going to see tomorrow is a coalition Government with a full tank of gas, it's full steam ahead.
"We have travelled a long way down the road we need to travel but there is a lot more we need to do.
"Far from running out of ideas, we have got a packed agenda, which concerns things like how do we build roads in Britain to make sure our economy keeps moving, how do we pay for the care for the elderly, how do we have a pension system that encourages saving - big things that are going to equip our country for the next decade."
what do you think?
Windows Live User
Cameron wants another 7 years in POWER. Hope I am gone if it does happen. He has no idea of the hardship he has and is creating as he is not connected to the people despite what he claims. He is deaf. He is well connected to those who do have money though and obviously has an ear for those
adam
Do you not think that the previous Labour government has anything to do with the hardship people are now suffering? Seeing as they were the ones that spent all of OUR money,signed us up to generations of debt and then left a cheeky little note for the incoming coalition saying that"THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT"....
mick_salt
I agree totally, Adam. It was well known that winning the 2010 General Election was a poisoned chalice. Whoever won would have had to take either very unpopular and / or very difficult decisions, and so it has proved. It's certainly true that the previous government are just as culpable as the bankers for the financial mess we currently find ourselves in.
Vladtheinhaler .
As we all know, the present financial mess we are in is a result of banking practices, and is a global problem. Thatcherism also left the country with a massive defecit, that labour inherited. So you can bounce political BS of each other all day, but this moronic government has done no better than any previous one.
shaun spencer
I take your gonna be an independent vlad if your after votes.still got my vote though.
angie_sorensen
Who voted for him in the first place,because everyone I speak to did not vote for him? Well who ever put him there,it is your fault.
Diane Rogers
I did and proud of it
Roger W Patrick
This comment has been removed for violations of our Terms and Conditions.
mick_salt
"the greedy fat bloated Bankers who caused this mess". I don't think you can lay the blame wholly at the door of bankers, Roger. When the world economy was booming in the early noughties, many European governments (including ours) unwisely amassed vast national debts. It's true that the greed and stupidity of bankers precipitated the recession in 2007, but the pain of the recession would have been far less if we'd all borrowed less. The moral: "when times are good, always put something aside for a rainy day".
shaun spencer
Agreed roger
adam
Absolutely spot on Mick,i couldnt agree more. You would think that all of the public had been so financially careful and never lived lifestyles they couldnt afford,buying houses way out of their league,new cars on finance,huge credit card debts to fund fancy holidays etc....It was all down to the bankers...Sure they played their part but so did we all and now its time to start paying it all back,so stop whinging and bite the bullet.
Vladtheinhaler .
Adam, the solution to reducing the defecit is removing child benefit, then, is it.
mick_salt
No, Vlad, it's just one of many solutions.
Mike A Smith
I have never agreed with child benefit anyway..if you cannot afford them, don't have them!
MichaelStinton
So only rich people can have children then!!! You're clearly in the right party.
El Bubsio
Can you give me next week's lottery numbers please, Mike? Sorry, I assumed you had a crystal ball that could let you know the future. No?! Well, that just makes your comment seem stupid then really, doesn't it.
Steven White
Let them starve mike, good idea.
Michael Hawkins
El Bubsio wrote "Can you give me next week's lottery numbers please, Mike? " 1 to 49 inclusive the same as they have been from the start - hope this helps
Malcolm Charlesworth
There would be a far simpler way of dealing with this: abolish child benefit altogether and load it onto the Child Tax Credit system. That way those that need help get it and those that don't don't.
Kayleigh Dinabrok Taylor
That's a great and simple idea. Which means the government won't do it!
Jonathan Goodwin-Self
It MUST have been a vote in the Commons because 90% would have voted NO. So Cameron is a dictator and should be arrested
john byrne
I understand why he wants a child benefit cut off just never understood why he wanted done that way. Oh yeah just another way of creating a division in society. Instead of calling all benefit claimants work shy or disability claimants as cheats, its between couples who have two good incomes and those with one good income. Time to put aside petty differences and stand as one against this government.
mick_salt
You're right, John, it's not ideal to "penalise" one good family earner, but to take it off combined earnings of more than £50,000 is an administrative nightmare of Poll Tax proportions. How do you keep track of the people who comprise a marriage / partnership when they're frequently changing? There's nothing sinister about it - it's a matter of practicality.
shaun spencer
Too right john
Nick Bowden
If you carnt afford kids don't have them there was no handouts in the 80s you bigots have it to easy now moaning the taxpayer wont pay for your children you want kids fine you pay for them
El Bubsio
So couples can only have kids if they have the ability to see 18 years into the future then? What a well thought out comment (!)
shaun spencer
At least this time you didnt use the word chavs nick.you cant stop peaple having children .what do you propose have poor woman steralized or terminate their pregnency.its a fundamental human right to have children rich or poor.
jane cumming
At least he didnt call working class kids parasites shaun as one person did on previous page. Chavs is bad enough but parasites.my god some peaple have no idea.they really live in a bubble.
shaun spencer
Yes jane.in fact i was livid at that comment its not conservative but bordering on fascist
Nick Bowden
So why should other people pay for your kids most people with kids have 3 or 4 never worked and have no intention of it not all people but most its a handouts here and there now this country
DeadUniqueGamer
i think you do your research child benefit was introduced in 1977!!!!! its all the tax credits that people have been collecting thats a killer....so its peoples own fault if they lose their job or spouse even worse..become ill... I have just lost my incapacity because of this govrnment, i can hardly walk, get cramps, muscle spasms and loss of sensation in my hands, struggle to lift even a kettle but was given 6 points instead of the 15 i needed....i am not workshy or lazy, i have spent 3 yrs battling cancer and all its side effects but im supposed to go find a job...i am grateful of my child benefits as my children would be going to a home if i didnt have them...not my fault i became ill and lost my job...think before you speak!
shaun spencer
I dont know where your getting your stats from nick but i dont believe youve got em right.there are those that have too many kids agreed but i think their in the minority.its more of a case of being educated in family planning at school i believe.
shaun spencer
Yes you remind me of many peaple coming in to a charity i volunteer for deadunique.have you appealed? If not go to c.a.b and fill in an appeals claim form immediately.also see your doctor and ask him to support your appeal.
Nick Bowden
The country is in the state its in because of people having to many kids parents not working so who foots the bill the taxpayer people wanting more benefits so they have more kids its a fact
bjnk
Nick if you can create around 2million jobs overnight problem solved,parents back in work.
Nick Bowden
The reason the unwashed masses wont work is because if you have a kid you get benefits bills payed and free rent free dental free prescriptions so why would people with kids work when you get handouts like that
GillieLouise
How I agree with you Nick..... Dont have kids if you can not afford them.
pjbeckett
How many more times do you need to be told ? there are plenty more Bilderburgers where he came from.
Nick Bowden
Seems more people are more concerned with what benefits they can have over looking after and paying for there own kids
johnny_1234
i actually agree with this new rule. if you are earning over £50,000 a year then you certainly don't need child benefit. i would actually go further and say that any household with a combined income of over £50,000 should stop receiving it.
shaun spencer
Its not that nick but benefits being cut and cut .like the second bedroom tax when others have second homes which are empty for most of the year and arent being effected by any tax.also mansion dwellers should be taxed.the working class has had enough cuts whilst the rich are getting richer..
Nick Bowden
I speak for us all when I say this country is a JOKE
shaun spencer
I think its the bankers that are having a joke.in fact their laughing all the way to the bank, and even back out of it and back in again.lol
Kayleigh Dinabrok Taylor
Am I alone in wondering why the woman speaking on the news last night who's husband earns over 60k and therefore won't get CB, actually needs the extra 120 a month or so it would contribute? I can only dream of 60k a year even if I was promoted to manager or area manager! She's just greedy. If you earn that much you're already well off and twice as comfortable if not 3 times more than the majority!
Michael Hawkins
To pay for the new range Rover ?
shaun spencer
Agreed kayleigh
field_pete
Agreed, but it should be on combined earnings as well.
infamousaljones
The principle is right - if you earn a lot then you receive less. Tough to say what the perfect solution is. Cameron isn't doing himself favours though during recessions.
andy hanson
If Labour was still in charge I would still be not working in Toolmaking. I lost my job in 2009 and get a job at TNT then the torries took over and engineering picked up again and it's the strongest it's been in years. I can't really comment on child benefit but the £80 we get a month just about covers her food and nappies.
shaun spencer
Its an odd thing really, but its always the working class that do all the giving even amongst themselves yet the greedy rich or well off get even greedier with their penny pinching ,often from the working class.i really cant see how these peaple earning 50.000 + can complain.
Helen Little
Most people on benefits actually don't enjoy it.The honest ones among us need them for food,gas,electricity and a roof over our heads,not luxuries
Adrian Wagstaff
Why should someone earning £1,000 per week be entitled to any benefit to help look after all their children? If £1,000 per week isn't enough to look after your children, then what is? It seems like a very sensible way of reducing benefits being paid to people who don't need any, so that it can go to people who do need help, like disabled people for instance!
delthrower
How can he defend the indefencible. I guess an idiot would think so.
david
11:24am on 6/1/2013
STOP GIVING JUNKIES METHADONE THAT WILL SAVE BILLIONS TO
john byrne
12:23pm on 6/1/2013
More likely it would cost billions. What do you propose, giving them heroin? Letting them go without until they steal or mug for money to buy it off a dealer? Only people benefiting from your idea would be the dealers.
shaun spencer
12:25pm on 6/1/2013
Could always tax it.david
Diane Rogers
2:03pm on 6/1/2013
No send them all to deserted island give them food and water and nothing else
infamousaljones
2:11pm on 6/1/2013
Such a short sighted statement...get a grip.
Vladtheinhaler .
2:13pm on 6/1/2013
Stop the state pension for people with wealth. Everyone in the uk to pay for prescriptions, including the Welsh. University to be paid for by the Scottish. Utilities companies to be re nationalized, as well as the rip off railways. Extremely high tax rates for people earning more than 60k. Vlad for Prime Minister.
shaun spencer
2:25pm on 6/1/2013
You can count on my vote vlad.
Vladtheinhaler .
3:18pm on 6/1/2013
That's one vote in the bag, just need one more and i can at least form a co-alition.