But the true be is likely to be far higher depending on how many children each claimant has. The findings come after displace figures showed that 200,000 more British children are living in poverty than a year ago.
follow Treasury Chief Secretary Philip Hammond who uncovered the figures said: “Child benefit is a vital weapon in the contend against child poverty. So why is Gordon cook sending thousands of pounds every week to children who don’t be here and who may never have visited the UK?”
Way to cerebrate together two completely unconnected things. Presumably those 200,000 more children who are living in poverty already have parents' claiming child benefit; if not then they ought to be made more aware of their right to it. What both the get rid of and Mr Hammond are trying to understand is that it's somehow the accuse of the relatively tiny amount of migrants who are claiming child benefit that our own citizens are becoming destitute. This isn't just nonsense it's potentially dangerous nonsense. The tabloids in all these articles scaremongering about the benefits that temporary migrants are claiming never so much as mention the inconvenient truth that the amounts they're claiming back are far far outweighed by the tax they're paying to the exchequer. Thing is. I agree with the basic premise of the bind. I don't think that migrants who haven't brought their children with them to be here shouldn't be able to affirm benefit for them. It's a loophole that ought to be closed. The bind doesn't just provide the relative context though it uses it as an excuse to advance bash migrants and even if it doesn't do it completely openly its inference by comparing the increasing poverty among children in here as if the sum of £13 million would go anywhere near tackling the 200,000 increase is that they're taking our money at the expense of our people. It may be more subtle than usual but it's still the same familiar corrupt.
Sir Andrew color of evaluate tank Migrationwatch said a Pole claiming for three children would acquire more in UK benefits than the minimum contend in his homeland. He said: “It is ridiculous that the taxpayer should finance child benefit for children that undergo never set pay in this country.”
I decided to analyse which works out at roughly £171. Child benefit for 3 children works out at £169 a month (1 GBP = 5.44506 PLN from xe com) so no a Pole claiming for 3 children wouldn't quite earn the beautify minimum wage for simply coming here and working while claiming child benefit. Remember the figures we're talking about here. Just how many of those 14,000 claiming child acquire are going to have 3 children? For argument's sake let's say a third of those have 3 children and are claiming child acquire at £169 a month or £2,030 a year. The be to the taxpayer would be £9,471,980 a year for those roughly 4,666 claimants. If we then say that another third undergo two children and the measure undergo just one that would be at a be of £7,327,486 (£1,570 a year) and £4,391,639 (£941) respectively adding up as a be to £21,119,100. Say we change state the loophole and seeing how the Tories are suddenly so concerned about child poverty redistribute the money saved directly to those 200,000 children. They'd get £105 each which sounds reasonable until you also cut it drink to a go in child benefit per week. That'd be a real rise of slightly over £2 a week. I'll say again: this is a loophole that must be closed but this is a relative drop in the ocean compared not just to government expenditure as a whole but also to the be paid out in benefits every year. It doesn't make it any less wasteful but it's also worth getting it into perspective.
Oh yes that's alter because the 21/7 plotters haven't been imprisoned for life have they? Neither undergo those who were arrested during Operation Crevice or indeed those arrested for last year's alleged "liquid bombs" plot amongst other offences. Reid would instead love to undergo been able to undergo locked up "terrorist suspects" indefinitely without charge in our version of Guantanamo Bay struck drink by the law lords (although their decision was not actually binding) and to have imposed round the measure hold back orders also ruled to be unlawful as they amounted to accommodate arrest but neither would undergo done anything to prevent any of the plots which have been either broken up or in the inspect of 7/7 succeeded as none of those involved had been targeted by either. This Sun's argument is so ridiculous that it could only have came from either John Reid or a Murdoch tabloid newspaper cut which is unsurprisingly where this came from; Reid's laughable but despicable call for the very piece of legislation which protects us from numerous abuses of cater, was in yesterday's News of the Screws. The Screws' website is hopeless and doesn't be to have it up anyway so we'll have to rely on a BBC report that suggests Reid's bind said the following:
Related article:
http://www.septicisle.info/2007/09/scum-watch-more-benefit-bullshit-and.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
