This Rape Clause Thing

[Orraloon]

Most of us remember the 2011 election for Iain Gray's "subway moment". I am hoping that this one will be remembered (in Scotland anyway) for the phrase "Rape Clause Ruthie". How can she possibly support such a draconian measure? It's just a disgusting idea and I can't believe that anyone at Tory HQ thought this one through. 

These benefits are supposed to be for the children. Why is a child conceived out of rape any more deserving than a child who wasn't? If parents are so poor that society thinks they need benefit to hep bring up their children then all children should be treated the same. 

And that's on top of this disgusting treatment of rape victims.

Tories really are evil fukers.

[PapofGlencoe]

20 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Can I just ask you what you would consider fair for a rich person from the tax system? Someone earning 100k is paying a huge amount of their salary beyond the state provided benefits they derive.  So at what point do you say they have paid their fair share? Or are they just the people who pay for everyone else's enjoyment of 'fairness'? 

Presuming you believe in a progressive system as most countries in the world do that question is unanswerable in pounds and pence.  We're almost certainly not doing it right in this country.  You need to understand how much needs to be raised in taxes to keep the place going alongside an index of what each citizen's wealth is.  Probably not for a message board haha.

100k would seem that this person is doing very well indeed and should pay proportionally more than most people.  Unless you base a "fair share" on what people use personally?  There but for the grace of god go I.

There is such a thing as a reduction in benefit the more pounds you earn too.  AFter what you actually need...each pound is worth less...too much money for sense.  There's definitely too many of those people.

Out of interest what would you think is fair then?

[thplinth]

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Presuming you believe in a progressive system as most countries in the world do that question is unanswerable in pounds and pence.  We're almost certainly not doing it right in this country.  You need to understand how much needs to be raised in taxes to keep the place going alongside an index of what each citizen's wealth is.  Probably not for a message board haha.

100k would seem that this person is doing very well indeed and should pay proportionally more than most people.  Unless you base a "fair share" on what people use personally?  There but for the grace of god go I.

There is such a thing as a reduction in benefit the more pounds you earn too.  AFter what you actually need...each pound is worth less...too much money for sense.  There's definitely too many of those people.

Out of interest what would you think is fair then?

Personally I would have a bigger personal allowance. Say 15-20k basically a number that no one could say they were living in poverty and being taxed. After that I would have one percentage for all. 

People talk about progressive taxation like it  was fair. It is not. If the rate is 30% and someone earns 10000 above the personal allowance they pay 3000. If someone earns 1000000 above the personal allowance they pay 300000. That is progressive and fair. Ramping it up to 40, 50, 60% is just opportunistic. It is not 'fair'. I defy you to justify it from the rich persons perspective. It can't be done because it is not fair. We are fecking them let's be honest about it.

[Parklife]

The world is so unfair to rich people. So unfair that they still manage to be massively wealthy and enjoy a comfortable life. 

Ohhhh won't someone think of the rich?!?!  

[thplinth]

I am detecting that slightly spiteful attitude again. 

 

[Dave78]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

I am detecting that slightly spiteful attitude again. 

 

Nah, i think he just understands how wealth and privilege work: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

[Alan]

I'm a bit puzzled by this.

Policy is to restrict benefits of people who have more than 2 kids.  Makes sense to me.  Why should taxpayers pay £ to someone who has kids they can't afford?

Then it was flagged that it was not fair if someone had a child not through choice i.e. rape which is an evil evil crime.  So a form is created to exclude the mother from this new rule.  I wonder how many women this applies to?

Seems all straightforward in a bureaucratic social security system.  One that people should be changed by schemes like Universal Credit or Minimum Income or whatever.

Then dozens of politicians start shouting "rape" like something from "Brass Eye".

[Alan]

7 hours ago, aaid said:

Are you being serious?  The Poll Tax was completely regressive.   It was a flat fee for every member of society which took no account of anyone's income or ability to pay.  If someone earned £1million, they would pay the same as someone earning £10k.  It had the end result of driving a lot of people off the electoral register and thus disenfranchising them - that may well have been one of the policies objectives.

The council tax is far from ideal but at least there is a link between the value of a property and the ability to pay and its also a very easy tax to collect and also difficult to avoid.  

A whole root and branch review - including funding - of Local government in Scotland needs to be undertaken.  The current system pre-dates devolution and needs to be reformed.  Unfortunately, I don't see how that can happen until the constitutional question is settled

I don't get the fuss either but its part of group think of evil and bad.

Poll Tax was very easy to collect.

There were rebates for many.

When Council Tax came in my retired grandparents paid more on their 2 bed ex council in Maryhill.  A tax on property is like something from feudal times with no relation on those who live in property.

I think my council tax for Glasgow is terrible value for money especially when comparing stats of secondary schools.

The constitutional question should have been settled in 2014 and SNP had ability in 2011-2016 to scrap it which they had campaigned on.  They still have a majority with Greens to scrap but they wont as they are too scared of doing anything "radical".

[aaid]

24 minutes ago, Alan said:

 

The constitutional question should have been settled in 2014 and SNP had ability in 2011-2016 to scrap it which they had campaigned on.  They still have a majority with Greens to scrap but they wont as they are too scared of doing anything "radical".

Lies again Alan, must be second nature to you.

The SNP manifesto commitment in 2011 was not replace the council tax but to freeze it for the duration of the parliament which they did.  

[Alan]

"We'll Scrap The Unfair Council Tax" 

Billboard

Salmond & Sturgeon

[Parklife]

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

I am detecting that slightly spiteful attitude again. 

 

You keep saying that tax is unfair to the rich, without referencing anything in society that works in their favour to make them rich and to help them preserve it. There's no point in me continuing if you're just ignoring that. 

[thplinth]

42 minutes ago, Alan said:

I don't get the fuss either but its part of group think of evil and bad.

Poll Tax was very easy to collect.

There were rebates for many.

When Council Tax came in my retired grandparents paid more on their 2 bed ex council in Maryhill.  A tax on property is like something from feudal times with no relation on those who live in property.

I think my council tax for Glasgow is terrible value for money especially when comparing stats of secondary schools.

The constitutional question should have been settled in 2014 and SNP had ability in 2011-2016 to scrap it which they had campaigned on.  They still have a majority with Greens to scrap but they wont as they are too scared of doing anything "radical".

Fuhking hell Alan that was actually a post. Could not agree more. Councils sending huge bills to skint pensioners based on some property value that is meaningless to them.  They then pursue them ruthlessly. I would be curious to see how many folk had been driven into some form of 'escape' by these folk. It is just my view but local government is the worst by far. I'd be tempted just to bin it.

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, Alan said:

"We'll Scrap The Unfair Council Tax" 

Billboard

Salmond & Sturgeon

Here's the 2011 manifesto. Find any reference to Scrapping the Unfair Council Tax in there, go on, I dare you. 

http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Manifesto_2011_lowRes.pdf

[thplinth]

3 minutes ago, Parklife said:

You keep saying that tax is unfair to the rich, without referencing anything in society that works in their favour to make them rich and to help them preserve it. There's no point in me continuing if you're just ignoring that. 

eh?

But cool. I can leave it. For sure better things to be doing! 

[Caledonian Craig]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

I don't get the fuss either but its part of group think of evil and bad.

Poll Tax was very easy to collect.

There were rebates for many.

When Council Tax came in my retired grandparents paid more on their 2 bed ex council in Maryhill.  A tax on property is like something from feudal times with no relation on those who live in property.

I think my council tax for Glasgow is terrible value for money especially when comparing stats of secondary schools.

The constitutional question should have been settled in 2014 and SNP had ability in 2011-2016 to scrap it which they had campaigned on.  They still have a majority with Greens to scrap but they wont as they are too scared of doing anything "radical".

Sorry but Poll Tax was very hard to collect. People could stay unannounced in properties and it was impossible for authorities to keep track on. It says it all here about the poll tax:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge

Edited April 21, 2017 by Caledonian Craig

[hampden_loon2878]

11 hours ago, Alan said:

I'm a bit puzzled by this.

Policy is to restrict benefits of people who have more than 2 kids.  Makes sense to me.  Why should taxpayers pay £ to someone who has kids they can't afford?

Then it was flagged that it was not fair if someone had a child not through choice i.e. rape which is an evil evil crime.  So a form is created to exclude the mother from this new rule.  I wonder how many women this applies to?

Seems all straightforward in a bureaucratic social security system.  One that people should be changed by schemes like Universal Credit or Minimum Income or whatever.

Then dozens of politicians start shouting "rape" like something from "Brass Eye".

RE capping benifits to two children, i can see the argument for it as the press have given a lot of air time to unemployed mothers having lots of kids just for benifits, however we as a country  need to boost or encourage our fertility rate to grow, especially if immigration is going to be cut following brexit 

[scoobydoo]

As the population is declining they should be paying people to have kids not stop their credits.

[ErsatzThistle]

I see on twitter that Georges Foulkes and SLab's "rising star" Martin McCluskie are now blaming it all on the SNP.

[Toepoke]

18 hours ago, Alan said:

"We'll Scrap The Unfair Council Tax" 

Billboard

Salmond & Sturgeon

That was in 2007.

The UK Labour government threatened to remove £400m of funding if the Scottish government went ahead with the change and the policy was dropped....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_income_tax_in_Scotland

 

[TDYER63]

You could argue forever about a fair tax system, it ls pretty subjective as everyone's definition of fair is different. Personally, I am with Parklife, I would pay more tax as I can afford to. The reason I can afford to is because I have benefitted hugely on house prices having bought my first house in 1988. I did nothing to earn this profit.  Also I have worked in an industry with high salaries most of my working life. Yes,  I have worked my butt off but it is nothing more than luck that i chose that career path. Others work their butt off for a lot less. I am happy with my lot and would see paying higher taxes as a bit of payback for a lot of the luck I have had. This is purely a personal thing. Others will not be of this opinion. 

However, what any decent human should agree on is that no woman should have to prove she was raped in order to receive a few pound a week for her child. 

[Mox]

On 21/04/2017 at 0:53 PM, thplinth said:

I find peoples attitude to folk who have some money very interesting...

Wealth at some point was income and as such it will have been taxed when it was earned. To go back and tax it again is double taxation.

A house if it is sold at a profit would be subject to capital gains tax. Your primary residence is exempt from it for good reason. You always need somewhere to live and if you sell your own home you typically have to buy another one and house prices tend to go up or down in unison. If they clobber you for tax on your home you'd struggle to buy a comparable home to the one you just sold.

It is just this constant let's shaft rich people attitude come across loud and clear.   And it does seem to be SNP supporters in particular. 

Good God, this is up there with some of your best work, utter nonsense from start to finish. The only people being shafted and have been shafted for the best part of 10 years (and years prior) since the financial crash is the poor. They have been systematically targeted and no matter what their health, housing situation, family situation, have been told that the Government does too much for them and it's time to start really testing how little money these people can live on.

If you honestly believe and sometimes I think you just say this s h it just to be different, I really pity you my man, I really do.

[andymac]

21 minutes ago, Mox said:

Good God, this is up there with some of your best work, utter nonsense from start to finish. The only people being shafted and have been shafted for the best part of 10 years (and years prior) since the financial crash is the poor. They have been systematically targeted and no matter what their health, housing situation, family situation, have been told that the Government does too much for them and it's time to start really testing how little money these people can live on.

If you honestly believe and sometimes I think you just say this s h it just to be different, I really pity you my man, I really do.

Care to explain why it is utter nonsense from start to finish? I would exempt the last sentence from Thplinth

[Mox]

13 minutes ago, andymac said:

Care to explain why it is utter nonsense from start to finish? I would exempt the last sentence from Thplinth

The remarks regarding income and housing, are on face value valid remarks, but to then use them in the context of the rich being shafted is utter nonsense. Anyone who believes the rich are being shafted or indeed will be shafted, is living in a completely different world from me. 

 

 

[phart]

He never said the rich were getting shafted.

he said " this constant let's shaft rich people attitude"

In the context of the prevailing attitude on the TAMB as opposed to it actually happening or being likely to happen.

As my  Dad always tells me measure twice cut once.

 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, phart said:

He never said the rich were getting shafted.

he said " this constant let's shaft rich people attitude"

In the context of the prevailing attitude on the TAMB as opposed to it actually happening or being likely to happen.

As my  Dad always tells me measure twice cut once.

 

So basically, the rich aren't getting shafted but they should be.