This Rape Clause Thing

[Nobby]

On 4/16/2017 at 1:53 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

All I know is that the Tories will NEVER get my vote. A party with abhorrent policies such as Poll Tax, YTS and more bidding to throttle the NHS and ensuring a Hard Brexit. Also intent on taking unions out of the equation for employees to be treated like dirt by employers. No thanks.

All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was !

[Glasgowmancity]

3 minutes ago, Nobby said:

All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was !

I agree with this 100%

 

As for the rape clause, I think the reaction is way over the top.  The problem is the 2 child limit, not the clause. If there is a 2 child limit, then there has to be a clause for people with a 3rd child through no fault of their own IMO.

[Caledonian Craig]

5 minutes ago, Nobby said:

All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was !

Really? It rallied the whole of the UK against the government and ended up seeing Thatcher quit. There were riots in the streets over this and so much adverse reaction that it was axed by John Major immediately.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38382416

Hey ho though if you believe it to be fair then fair enough that is your opinion.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Caledonian Craig

[Glasgowmancity]

2 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Really? It rallied the whole of the UK against the government and ended up seeing Thatcher quit. There were riots in the streets over this and so much adverse reaction that it was axed by John Major immediately.

In general people don't like paying tax - it was a far fairer tax than council tax IMO

[Parklife]

1 minute ago, Glasgowmancity said:

As for the rape clause, I think the reaction is way over the top.  

The reaction is way, way too mild IMO. I can't believe how many folk are accepting the society that is being created. 

I've never been raped but i can only imagine that having to prove you were raped in order to claim £7/wk in child support, which you need because you are so poor and destitute due to the Tory Governments ideological war on welfare and public services, is a pretty horrific experience. 

 

[Nobby]

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Really? It rallied the whole of the UK against the government and ended up seeing Thatcher quit. There were riots in the streets over this and so much adverse reaction that it was axed by John Major immediately.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38382416

Hey ho though if you believe it to be fair then fair enough that is your opinion.

Just because people objected to paying it doesn't make it abhorrent. I would've thought left leaning individuals would've had no objection to paying their share towards the community cost. One of thatchers more socialist policies. Oh the irony !!!

[Caledonian Craig]

2 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said:

In general people don't like paying tax - it was a far fairer tax than council tax IMO

Public opinion would suggest otherwise. Unless of course it was the case of one policy too far from Thatcher.

[Glasgowmancity]

1 minute ago, Parklife said:

The reaction is way, way too mild IMO. I can't believe how many folk are accepting the society that is being created. 

I've never been raped but i can only imagine that having to prove you were raped in order to claim £7/wk in child support, which you need because you are so poor and destitute due to the Tory Governments ideological war on welfare and public services, is a pretty horrific experience. 

 

I get your point, but surely the ire should be directed at the hard 2 children rule rather than the workaround to make allowances for terrible circumstances

[Caledonian Craig]

2 minutes ago, Parklife said:

The reaction is way, way too mild IMO. I can't believe how many folk are accepting the society that is being created. 

I've never been raped but i can only imagine that having to prove you were raped in order to claim £7/wk in child support, which you need because you are so poor and destitute due to the Tory Governments ideological war on welfare and public services, is a pretty horrific experience. 

 

Spot on Parklife.

The trauma of going through rape is enough without having to admit to and re-account to it to earn child taxes.

[Glasgowmancity]

4 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Spot on Parklife.

The trauma of going through rape is enough without having to admit to and re-account to it to earn child taxes.

So in your opinion, is the problem the 2 child limit, or the workaround?

[Caledonian Craig]

10 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said:

So in your opinion, is the problem the 2 child limit, or the workaround?

I don't hold an opinion on that one way or the other.

The premise that a rape victim has to re-account for a traumatic event in her life and re-hash painful grounds in order to prove validity for a child tax payment is sick in my opinion.

[Glasgowmancity]

Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

I don't hold an opinion on that one way or the other.

The premise that a rape victim has to re-account for a traumatic event in her life and re-hash painful grounds in order to prove validity for a child tax payment is sick in my opinion.

So if the 2 child limit stands, you think it's right for a victim of rape to miss out on help through the tax credit system?  If not, how else could this be achieved? 

[Caledonian Craig]

15 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said:

So if the 2 child limit stands, you think it's right for a victim of rape to miss out on help through the tax credit system?  If not, how else could this be achieved? 

All I know it is criminal that rape victims are being forced into re-accounting a psychologically crushing event in their lives which is wrong however those in power want to spin at.

[Regenmann]

49 minutes ago, Nobby said:

All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was !

In terms of fairness I totally agree. Unfortunately, it was too easy for people to avoid, so from a practical angle it wasn't a great idea. Still waiting on the SNP replacement for the "unfair Council Tax" though...

[sbcmfc]

51 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

It's a clear consequence of the two child policy that probably was never thought about.  Good for Alison Thewliss for highlighting.

If you asked the public about the two child policy, you would get a more nuanced opinion.  There will be people on this board who agree with it in isolation.  Let's say you agree with that part.  What is the solution for the above?  Have the SNP got a solution or is it simply axe the two child limit?  

 

38 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said:

As for the rape clause, I think the reaction is way over the top.  The problem is the 2 child limit, not the clause. If there is a 2 child limit, then there has to be a clause for people with a 3rd child through no fault of their own IMO.

This is where my opinion on this is.

If there's a 2 child limit, which in my opinion is fair enough, there should certainly be concessions/exemptions for circumstances like rape.

The process is horrible, but unfortunately seems unavoidable.

How many people have a 3rd child as a result of rape/abuse? I'd have to presume it's a fairly small amount of people who will actually be affected.

Has anybody offered up a suitable alternative? Unfortunately there are folk out their sick enough to exploit the situation, but it seems completely inhuman to make folk prove they were raped/abused to get a few pounds a week.

So to sum up, while I agree it's pretty inhuman, it seems unfortunately necessary with the 2 child limit.

[Nobby]

Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

All I know it is criminal that rape victims are being forced into re-accounting a psychologically crushing event in their lives which is wrong however those in power want to spin at.

Nope rape is criminal. I suspect we are talking about an extremely low number of cases here and this clause has become a stick to bash someone with. a better solution is needed granted but if a solution isn't in place I suspect the number of third  child "rape" claims would spike significantly as people play the system. 

[Glasgowmancity]

6 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

All I know it is criminal that rape victims are being forced into re-accounting a psychologically crushing event in their lives which is wrong however those in power want to spin at.

So, again, what's the alternative?

[Parklife]

26 minutes ago, Regenmann said:

In terms of fairness I totally agree. Unfortunately, it was too easy for people to avoid, so from a practical angle it wasn't a great idea. Still waiting on the SNP replacement for the "unfair Council Tax" though...

They brought one forward in their first administration. Opposition parties voted it down. So sniping on that one is a bit bizarre and totally foolish from opposition parties. 

P.S. I still think they should've replaced it. 

[Caledonian Craig]

17 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said:

So, again, what's the alternative?

Remove the questioning of a rape victim's honesty. Have the government run checks with authorities to ascertain that the woman in question was raped/abused and pay out. If proof cannot be found and the woman feels uneasy relating the events leading to her pregnancy offer counselling session and the counsellor passes on the account of the case. Something like that handled with compassion. Certainly not handling it the way they are.

[thplinth]

1 hour ago, Glasgowmancity said:

I agree with this 100%

 

As for the rape clause, I think the reaction is way over the top.  The problem is the 2 child limit, not the clause. If there is a 2 child limit, then there has to be a clause for people with a 3rd child through no fault of their own IMO.

Yeah. As soon as you have that rule it becomes inevitable. 

What if it is one of the first two kids who was a product of rape? Does that mean you don't get anything for a third? 

What would concern me is that the kid would find out somehow. That would be pretty devastating. All the paperwork would have to be very carefully handled.

[PapofGlencoe]

4 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Remove the questioning of a rape victim's honesty. Have the government run checks with authorities to ascertain that the woman in question was raped/abused and pay out. If proof cannot be found and the woman feels uneasy relating the events leading to her pregnancy offer counselling session and the counsellor passes on the account of the case. Something like that handled with compassion. Certainly not handling it the way they are.

Somewhere in amongst this there may be a solution.  I don't know.  If there is a 2 child policy, there has to be a check.  However, surely if someone has been raped it's in the system somewhere and doesn't need to be proved??

 

It's all very well everyone getting moral.  I think it's sickening too but what's the solution?

 

Separately, I actually do not agree with a child benefit limit set at 2.  This country needs young people.  It's all fine and dandy importing educated cheap immigrants but part of the solution should be encouraging our own people to raise our own.  I'd cut it at 3.   I also think 1000 a child doesn't really help either and should be increased.  We've got child raising all wrong in this country.  Some system cheats shouldn't make a policy.

 

[PapofGlencoe]

1 hour ago, Nobby said:

All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was !

It wasn't necessarily the policy.  It was the democratic deficit that was the issue.

Although did it not show that wealthy people would pay less than the poor in many ways?

 

A tax system that takes into account more than income to ascertain wealth is a good thing.  I totally agree with some rates being based on property value. Wealth is not just income.

Edited April 21, 2017 by PapofGlencoe

[Glasgowmancity]

12 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 

What would concern me is that the kid would find out somehow. That would be pretty devastating. All the paperwork would have to be very carefully handled.

That is a very, very good point.

13 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Remove the questioning of a rape victim's honesty. Have the government run checks with authorities to ascertain that the woman in question was raped/abused and pay out. If proof cannot be found and the woman feels uneasy relating the events leading to her pregnancy offer counselling session and the counsellor passes on the account of the case. Something like that handled with compassion. Certainly not handling it the way they are.

Some good points there Craig, but due to data protection, I would think it would be difficult for the government to check the details of every claimant

[Caledonian Craig]

2 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said:

That is a very, very good point.

Some good points there Craig, but due to data protection, I would think it would be difficult for the government to check the details of every claimant

Well surely not if as someone above claimed that these numbers are so small (that have been raped/abused)?

[Nobby]

8 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

It wasn't necessarily the policy.  It was the democratic deficit that was the issue.

Although did it not show that wealthy people would pay less than the poor in many ways?

 

A tax system that takes into account more than income to ascertain wealth is a good thing.  I totally agree with some rates being based on property value. Wealth is not just income.

Whats wealth got to do with it thats income tax. this is about paying for local services etc. Why should a retired couple pay extra because they bought their house 50 years ago and its now worth a few quid ? Presumably now the democratic deficit has gone the SNP given their socialist leaning  will introduce something similar to the poll tax ? Everyone over 18 in gainful employment pays their fair share, seems fair enough to me.