This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
I am beginning to realise it is not so straight-forward. I think it is the ignominy of having to fill in the form which is difficult for some people to accept.
Does "rape" have to be proved ? This is a classic case of something which was perhaps well intentioned begin with, takes on complications simply to implement it. What about the right of the father ? Does he have a say ?
Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated that should be more than enough.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
I am beginning to realise it is not so straight-forward. I think it is the ignominy of having to fill in the form which is difficult for some people to accept.
Does "rape" have to be proved ? This is a classic case of something which was perhaps well intentioned begin with, takes on complications simply to implement it. What about the right of the father ? Does he have a say ?
I don't believe it has to be proved in a court of law, and I don't think the father is involved at all.
Indeed the father has to be absent.
Presumably third children conceived within the context of an abusive relationship that continues do not get ChB or tax credits.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
It is the filling of the form. Basically, you are telling a bureaucrat, "I have been raped". Which could be true and also, may not be true. You are also bringing into the picture, the father, who may or may not have "raped". I really would prefer not to use that word.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/
Or you need to send 'evidence of a conviction for rape or controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, where this relates to the conception of your child'.
In addition the exception only applies if you are already claiming child benefit for 2 children, so if you have a child conceived through rape, then 2 children in a consensual relationship, your benefit would still capped after the 2nd child.
The realisation that multiple people were involved in designing and implementing this policy really makes you despair about the people running the country.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
"Every once in a while there is a national story that captures so much of what is wrong about American society today. The shocking video of a United Airlines customer being forcibly dragged off a plane in Chicago this weekend is precisely that story."
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
It is the filling of the form. Basically, you are telling a bureaucrat, "I have been raped". Which could be true and also, may not be true. You are also bringing into the picture, the father, who may or may not have "raped". I really would prefer not to use that word.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/
Or you need to send 'evidence of a conviction for rape or controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, where this relates to the conception of your child'.
In addition the exception only applies if you are already claiming child benefit for 2 children, so if you have a child conceived through rape, then 2 children in a consensual relationship, your benefit would still capped after the 2nd child.
The realisation that multiple people were involved in designing and implementing this policy really makes you despair about the people running the country.
If they had just stuck to a blanket two child limit, then the howls of outrage would be the same.
One of the reasons the social security system is such a mess is people wanting exemptions and caveats for this and that.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
When can we expect the Sun or the Daily Mail splashing a front page story of a woman claiming 4 such "rapes" ? In the meantime, many rich bastards are not paying millions in tax.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?
Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/
Or you need to send 'evidence of a conviction for rape or controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, where this relates to the conception of your child'.
In addition the exception only applies if you are already claiming child benefit for 2 children, so if you have a child conceived through rape, then 2 children in a consensual relationship, your benefit would still capped after the 2nd child.
The realisation that multiple people were involved in designing and implementing this policy really makes you despair about the people running the country.
You've understood that form a lot more thoroughly than I have, I got as far as needing the correct signatures and thought that was it. Hence why I hated my stint in local government.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they don't, punish the children for having the nerve to be born into the wrong family?
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
When can we expect the Sun or the Daily Mail splashing a front page story of a woman claiming 4 such "rapes" ? In the meantime, many rich bastards are not paying millions in tax.
Thanks to Osborne those rich bastards are paying more tax than ever before. And the tax shelter abroad have largely been closed down and hidden money forced back onshore. And they don't get any CB. You can argue that even more should be done but the taxes on the well off are way ahead of what Gordon Brown or Darling thought appropriate.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
What if circumstances change? Should support we ruled out automatically? Unfortunately life has a nasty habit of changing people's plans.
HYUFD Posts: 27,416 10:23PM Did SNP MPs abuse short money on NYC visit?
The answer is a firm No. By Guido standards this is a rubbish story copied from the Daily Mail's mini tartan edition which makes their London end look like a textbook of truth and justice. The Scottish Tories have been whining about it despite the fact that they had an MSP on the trip paid for by the Scottish Parliament!!!
In fact attending the Tartan Day and Scotland week events in New York has been the norm for Scottish politicians since Donald Dewar in 1999 .
It is to the SNP Group's credit that they were there on behalf of their Parliamentary party and used Party Group funding and it is well within their parliamentary group activities.
In any case Short money under the rules can cover
"Funding for the opposition parties’ travel and associated expenses"
All in all total non story published by a propaganda rag, recycled by a gossip column and promoted by a bunch of Tory hypocrites.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
When can we expect the Sun or the Daily Mail splashing a front page story of a woman claiming 4 such "rapes" ? In the meantime, many rich bastards are not paying millions in tax.
Thanks to Osborne those rich bastards are paying more tax than ever before.
LOL, you really are like the Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender 40 years on.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
When can we expect the Sun or the Daily Mail splashing a front page story of a woman claiming 4 such "rapes" ? In the meantime, many rich bastards are not paying millions in tax.
Thanks to Osborne those rich bastards are paying more tax than ever before.
LOL, you really are like the Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender 40 years on.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they don't, punish the children for having the nerve to be born into the wrong family?
It is a cut in universal tax credit but a line has to be drawn somewhere and it is not a stop on benefits just a limit, taxpayers cannot be expected to subsidise those having ever larger numbers of children entirely on the state
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
Life doesn't work like that. People get sick, twins happen, condoms split. Sometimes all three.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
What if circumstances change? Should support we ruled out automatically? Unfortunately life has a nasty habit of changing people's plans.
If you want more than 2 children then you should think carefully before doing so and not have them if you are so vulnerable to a sudden change in circumstances, just stick to 1 or 2 like most of the country now does
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
And if they could afford them at the time they had them, but then their circumstances changed (split up from partner, lost their job) later on?
Or, even if the parent(s) was feckless, why should the child suffer just because of the parent's fecklessness anyway?
And most important, why should all the priority be on clobbering benefit-claimants, when the mega-rich tax-dodgers who scrounge off the rest of us have enough to pay the Child Benefit bill about a thousand times over?
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
I had a look around but couldn't find any numbers on the money it would save. A three child limit would have apparently saved £300mn/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31743031), so a number close to £600mn/year is probably not too far off.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Get used to giving him a blow job a bit more often and a bit less of the old missionary position. Take it up the wrong'un perhaps. No babies lurking up there.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
Life doesn't work like that. People get sick, twins happen, condoms split. Sometimes all three.
Unexpected happenings will occur. But most people will be able to plan.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
Life doesn't work like that. People get sick, twins happen, condoms split. Sometimes all three.
Twins are exempted from the new rules. So if you have one child, then twins or triplets, you can claim CB for all of them.
Curious to know how 'people getting sick' applies in this case.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
The deficit is very "serious", yet there's somehow still always money for a bung to big businesses, pensioners and rich people generally.
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
Life doesn't work like that. People get sick, twins happen, condoms split. Sometimes all three.
If you are so vulnerable to circumstance you should not take such risks and twins are a different case and exempted, people have had enough of paying their taxes to subsidise ever larger families on the state, if you want them you pay for them!
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Get used to giving him a blow job a bit more often and a bit less of the old missionary position. Take it up the wrong'un perhaps. No babies lurking up there.
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?
Well yes. Who isn't?
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
When can we expect the Sun or the Daily Mail splashing a front page story of a woman claiming 4 such "rapes" ? In the meantime, many rich bastards are not paying millions in tax.
Thanks to Osborne those rich bastards are paying more tax than ever before.
LOL, you really are like the Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender 40 years on.
From p13: "In 1999-00, income inequality between the bottom and top 50% of taxpayers (on total income before tax) was shown by a 52.4 percentage point difference in their share of total income: the bottom 50% had 23.8% of total income before tax whilst the top 50% had 76.2%. Inequality on this measure grew in the years leading up to the 2008 recession, showing a 55.8 percentage point difference in 2007-08 (77.9% compared to 22.1%). By 2013-14 inequality had fallen below its 1999-00 level to 51.2 and is expected to decline further to 49.4 percentage points in 2016-17."
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
The deficit is very "serious", yet there's somehow still always money for a bung to big businesses, pensioners and rich people generally.
Don't the richest 1% account for an increasingly large share of the total tax take these days?
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
A cut which brought in more revenue. What do you want the government to prioritise -bringing in the dosh, or a spurious political soundbite, as you've just used?
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistas
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believe
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely proper
For heartless Tory barstewards maybe
There is nothing heartless about saying if you want to have more than 2 children you should get a job to support them
And if they already have a (low-paid) job, as most Child Benefit claimants do?
Well if you can't afford to have any more children then don't, it is not rocket science!
Life doesn't work like that. People get sick, twins happen, condoms split. Sometimes all three.
Twins are also exempt. As are higher multiple births of course.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
The 45% top rate of income tax is still higher than it was throughout the Blair years
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
No it isn't, it is a disapproval of people taking the clear choice to have 3 or more children and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab. There is no choice in rape
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
A cut which brought in more revenue. What do you want the government to prioritise -bringing in the dosh, or a spurious political soundbite, as you've just used?
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
The deficit is very "serious", yet there's somehow still always money for a bung to big businesses, pensioners and rich people generally.
The Tory magic money tree is fertile for their pet projects.
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shocking
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.
David, Surely if it was reported to the police and investigated at the time then that should be more than enough.
Of course it would be. And the professional would confirm it. And that would be that. 18 years of taxpayers money. Easy.
In the grand scheme of things, how much are we talking about ? Remember we used to pay this before. We could afford it then and now , much richer, as we are told we are, we cannot afford it.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
We still have a very serious deficit. What I find genuinely incredible is that the Coalition government and this one have taken £100bn out of the deficit and reduced the public sector headcount by 1m and we have barely noticed. Ridiculous squawks about the bedroom tax and now this. It has been astonishingly painless given where we were. Of course some things are starting to creak, notably social care, but it could have been so much worse.
The deficit is very "serious", yet there's somehow still always money for a bung to big businesses, pensioners and rich people generally.
Don't the richest 1% account for an increasingly large share of the total tax take these days?
This is a bit like those politicians who were telling people during the EU Referendum in South Wales (or wherever) that they should be grateful to the EU, because of all the local projects which EU money was supposedly paying for. Which, to most people, missed the point, since they perceived it was merely a slice of their own money which they had sent to Brussels being sent back over.
Since IMO the mega-rich are illegitimately gobbling up ever more of the country's wealth and assets, on the backs of everyone else, it follows that I'm not going to be impressed by them dribbling a tiny % of their illegitimate gains back in tax.
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
A cut which brought in more revenue. What do you want the government to prioritise -bringing in the dosh, or a spurious political soundbite, as you've just used?
Nah. That was disproved. Just spin.
We're making progress. I think I've almost got you - reluctantly - to admit that IF the tax cut brought in more dosh, that would totally destroy your point. With me so far?
Three roadside bombs that struck Borussia Dortmund team bus were detonated by 'MOBILE PHONE' as police say they found a letter near the scene taking responsibility – but won't reveal other details
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
A cut which brought in more revenue. What do you want the government to prioritise -bringing in the dosh, or a spurious political soundbite, as you've just used?
Nah. That was disproved. Just spin.
We're making progress. I think I've almost got you - reluctantly - to admit that IF the tax cut brought in more dosh, that would totally destroy your point. With me so far?
Nope. It took in more dosh in a single year rel.to the previous one because people deferred income to benefit from the change. If rate had remained more revenue would have been received overall. And that would continue to accrue.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
Nope. It took in more dosh in a single year rel.to the previous one because people deferred income to benefit from the change. If rate had remained more revenue would have been received overall. And that would continue to accrue.
How long has it been in force? More than one year, I think you'll find..
Edit: In any case, you've conceded my point. What matters is the detail of the tax take, not the naive Labour 'the only thing that can possibly be wrong with any tax rate that affects anyone but the poorest is by definition that it's too low' nonsense.
Your would have a point if they hadn't cut top rate income tax. The rich look after their own. To hell with the rest.
A cut which brought in more revenue. What do you want the government to prioritise -bringing in the dosh, or a spurious political soundbite, as you've just used?
Nah. That was disproved. Just spin.
We're making progress. I think I've almost got you - reluctantly - to admit that IF the tax cut brought in more dosh, that would totally destroy your point. With me so far?
Nope. It took in more dosh in a single year rel.to the previous one because people deferred income to benefit from the change. If rate had remained more revenue would have been received overall. And that would continue to accrue.
What if we took in more money on the second year after the change?
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
I think it is easy to underestimate how chaotic and unplanned many Briton's lives are, and how little savings many have.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
I think it is easy to underestimate how chaotic and unplanned many Briton's lives are, and how little savings many have.
How much should we accomodate that? If people already have two kids, surely they need to learn to be less chaotic in at least one area? Some things are beyond everyone's control, but others are not.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
I think it is easy to underestimate how chaotic and unplanned many Briton's lives are, and how little savings many have.
That's the good thing about free stuff, it's free!
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
Osborne cheerleading aside, do Richard Nabavi and DavidL really, in their heart of hearts, believe lowering tax rates means MORE tax revenues?
I mean seriously??
This is the mirror image to Ed Balls in the middle of the last Parliament saying that less spending cuts would mean the deficit falling more quickly.
So you think a 100% tax rate would bring in more? Why stop there? Why not 200%?
I really hope the Tories put your "if we lower the rich's taxes, they'll be nice to us and pay more!" message front and centre at the next election. It would take care of a lot of the economic competence gap between the two main parties.
Unfortunately for Labour, May will probably not do that, and instead will just act like the 50p tax rate never happened when asked about it in mainstream interviews.
Osborne cheerleading aside, do Richard Nabavi and DavidL really, in their heart of hearts, believe lowering tax rates means MORE tax revenues?
I mean seriously??
This is the mirror image to Ed Balls in the middle of the last Parliament saying that less spending cuts would mean the deficit falling more quickly.
So you think a 100% tax rate would bring in more? Why stop there? Why not 200%?
We need an updated Laffer curve that deals with complexity of the tax system. It seems intuitively correct that the easier it is to comply, the more people will.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
I think it is easy to underestimate how chaotic and unplanned many Briton's lives are, and how little savings many have.
How much should we accomodate that? If people already have two kids, surely they need to learn to be less chaotic in at least one area? Some things are beyond everyone's control, but others are not.
The price of enforcing middle class values is likely to be some very poor children, in often chaotic homes. It may work out very much more expensive for society in the end
IGovernment benefits like this just distort markets anyway. No benefits for 2nd horses
That's defensible in my view, as would getting rid of old age pensions. It's your job to look after your children and to prepare for your retirement. Otherwise these and other benefits have to be rationed according to what's in the pot. Cutting benefit off after two children is simply wrong. Either CB is necessary and useful, or it is not. And if it is necessary, all children have the need regardless of how many older siblings they have, just as we educate all children and we provide healthcare for them all.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
Are we going to ignore that there was a (global) uplift in the economy generally between those two periods? And that the US tax take increased by more than the UK's in that time, despite the US increasing taxes for the rich?
In all honesty, I've never been wealthy, but taking literally half of someone's income always seemed unreasonable. Seems like if you earned it (or got payed it) you should get to keep at least half and a bit and that would be fair.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
I think it is easy to underestimate how chaotic and unplanned many Briton's lives are, and how little savings many have.
Like my friend whose partner has left her, and left her in the financial shit ?
She owns her own home (Though has no equity), doesn't have kids and keeps a modest job. So no benefits for her.
Now if she'd have had 3 kids by different Dads, was renting somewhere and had no job things would be a whole lot different...
I really hope the Tories put your "if we lower the rich's taxes, they'll be nice to us and pay more!" message front and centre at the next election. It would take care of a lot of the economic competence gap between the two main parties.
Unfortunately for Labour, May will probably not do that, and instead will just act like the 50p tax rate never happened when asked about it in mainstream interviews.
A classic illustration of my earlier point. You don't actually want to maximise the tax take from the rich, you just want to be able to weave a cynical political argument from the notional rates. And I note that you have ignored my question.
I'm a simple chap. I just know that when the government helps itself to well over half of any incremental income I might earn (and don't forget that, with employer's and employee's NI we can be talking about marginal rates of 70% plus), I'll think about rearranging my affairs so as to mitigate the damage.
Nope. It took in more dosh in a single year rel.to the previous one because people deferred income to benefit from the change. If rate had remained more revenue would have been received overall. And that would continue to accrue.
How long has it been in force? More than one year, I think you'll find..
Edit: In any case, you've conceded my point. What matters is the detail of the tax take, not the naive Labour 'the only thing that can possibly be wrong with any tax rate that affects anyone but the poorest is by definition that it's too low' nonsense.
I reject you point. At best it is sophistry. At worst it's a fig leaf to cover the rich aggressively pursuing their self interest.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Isn't contraception available for free? Would be interesting to see the breakdown for first/second/third+ child.
I think it is easy to underestimate how chaotic and unplanned many Briton's lives are, and how little savings many have.
How much should we accomodate that? If people already have two kids, surely they need to learn to be less chaotic in at least one area? Some things are beyond everyone's control, but others are not.
The price of enforcing middle class values is likely to be some very poor children, in often chaotic homes. It may work out very much more expensive for society in the end
What was the historic situation? I was in a four child family raised by a single mother, in not a well paying field, and sadly I cannot ask her how the hell we managed to get by when I know others had it worse.
I'm a simpler chap. I just know that when the government helps itself to well over half of any incremental income I might earn (and don't forget that, with employer's and employee's NI we can be talking about marginal rates of 70% plus), I'll think about rearranging my affairs so as to mitigate the damage.
And the answer to that is to close off all avenues that allow you to "rearrange your affairs", not to allow you to think you're above the rules that the rest of us play by if the government doesn't do what you want.
We don't rewrite the laws to accommodate people who refuse to comply with the spirit of most laws, so I don't see why tax law should be any different. Should we also increase the drink-drive limit because of some mystical belief that people will be more reasonable if you meet them halfway (as opposed to just enforcing the laws properly)?
Three roadside bombs that struck Borussia Dortmund team bus were detonated by 'MOBILE PHONE' as police say they found a letter near the scene taking responsibility – but won't reveal other details
IGovernment benefits like this just distort markets anyway. No benefits for 2nd horses
That's defensible in my view, as would getting rid of old age pensions. It's your job to look after your children and to prepare for your retirement. Otherwise these and other benefits have to be rationed according to what's in the pot. Cutting benefit off after two children is simply wrong. Either CB is necessary and useful, or it is not. And if it is necessary, all children have the need regardless of how many older siblings they have, just as we educate all children and we provide healthcare for them all.
The state has an interest in having a birthrate close to or slightly above the replacement rate, and acts to encourage this through the tax regime.
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidson
I would say the "Were you raped?" form demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire policy. Apart from humiliating would-be claimants, the degree of consent in the intercourse is irrelevant to the subsequent needs of the child. Either all third children need the benefit or none do. The policy simply becomes an official disapproval of conception and the birth of children, expressed through the benefits system. If the SNP oppose this miserable policy, I, for one, will cheer them on.
Many will make the conscious decision not to have more children because they can't afford to. They should receive support if they were raped, or had a child in a controlling relationship.
Only 55% of British births are planned, 16% unplanned and the remainder ambivalent.
Are we going to ignore that there was a (global) uplift in the economy generally between those two periods? And that the US tax take increased by more than the UK's in that time, despite the US increasing taxes for the rich?
You mean the eurozone crisis uplift?
The tax take has risen while tax rates have fallen.
I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.
In all honesty, I've never been wealthy, but taking literally half of someone's income always seemed unreasonable. Seems like if you earned it (or got payed it) you should get to keep at least half and a bit and that would be fair.
The idea that the rich have all earned their wealth does not have a huge amount of evidence to support it.
I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.
Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.
Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?
And the answer to that is to close off all avenues that allow you to "rearrange your affairs", not to allow you to hold the country to ransom and say that, if the government doesn't do what you like, you're going to not cough up your fair share.
What 'fair share'?
Here's an example. I was advising someone recently who earned just shy of £100K. Lucky her. She was thinking of taking a non-exec directorship which would have pushed that up to £120K. That extra £20K would have been taxed at over 70%. Are you seriously expecting someone in that position not to change her behaviour, for example by making a bigger pension contribution or rearranging the timings so that she earns £100K in one year and £140K the next year - which, bizarrely, is much more tax-efficient than £120K in each year?
F##k me I didn't realise the often comical cook report was first expose jezzas best mate Martin McGuiness as head of IRA.
The Cook Report was brave investigative journalism!
My memory was of him often chasing low level thugs and conmen around. All good stuff and certainly not for the faint hearted. I didn't remember him doing something quite that big and dangerous.
In all honesty, I've never been wealthy, but taking literally half of someone's income always seemed unreasonable. Seems like if you earned it (or got payed it) you should get to keep at least half and a bit and that would be fair.
The idea that the rich have all earned their wealth does not have a huge amount of evidence to support it.
Did you not see the parenthetical part? That was to cover that not all wealth is earned. But how exactly would you go around assessing how well someone has earned something, what is the level by which no one could possibly have earned what they received?
Obviously people I think should earn more do not, and people I think deserve less do not, if there is a fix for that, if there is even a consensus that could be reached, I don't have it. But working with what we have, as a general rule I feel 49% and below is the range that is fair.
Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?
No I didn't, for the extremely good reason that I don't earn enough to be affected.
Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?
No I didn't, for the extremely good reason that I don't earn enough to be affected.
I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.
Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.
I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.
Comments
It can't be long before someone claims that YouGov are 'oppressing' them.
Presumably third children conceived within the context of an abusive relationship that continues do not get ChB or tax credits.
In addition the exception only applies if you are already claiming child benefit for 2 children, so if you have a child conceived through rape, then 2 children in a consensual relationship, your benefit would still capped after the 2nd child.
The realisation that multiple people were involved in designing and implementing this policy really makes you despair about the people running the country.
"Every once in a while there is a national story that captures so much of what is wrong about American society today. The shocking video of a United Airlines customer being forcibly dragged off a plane in Chicago this weekend is precisely that story."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/04/11/unfriendly-skies-increasingly-coarse-country/tdAXH3YWZDPXTz7XKn4fII/story.html
One of the reasons the social security system is such a mess is people wanting exemptions and caveats for this and that.
Do Sweden, Denmark, Norway have a problem like this ?
10:23PM
Did SNP MPs abuse short money on NYC visit?
The answer is a firm No. By Guido standards this is a rubbish story copied from the Daily Mail's mini tartan edition which makes their London end look like a textbook of truth and justice. The Scottish Tories have been whining about it despite the fact that they had an MSP on the trip paid for by the Scottish Parliament!!!
In fact attending the Tartan Day and Scotland week events in New York has been the norm for Scottish politicians since Donald Dewar in 1999 .
It is to the SNP Group's credit that they were there on behalf of their Parliamentary party and used Party Group funding and it is well within their parliamentary group activities.
In any case Short money under the rules can cover
"Funding for the opposition parties’ travel and associated expenses"
All in all total non story published by a propaganda rag, recycled by a gossip column and promoted by a bunch of Tory hypocrites.
Or, even if the parent(s) was feckless, why should the child suffer just because of the parent's fecklessness anyway?
And most important, why should all the priority be on clobbering benefit-claimants, when the mega-rich tax-dodgers who scrounge off the rest of us have enough to pay the Child Benefit bill about a thousand times over?
Fred Goodwin and Adam Applegarth will always be grateful.
Curious to know how 'people getting sick' applies in this case.
From p13: "In 1999-00, income inequality between the bottom and top 50% of taxpayers (on total income before tax) was shown by a 52.4 percentage point difference in their share of total income: the bottom 50% had 23.8% of total income before tax whilst the top 50% had 76.2%. Inequality on this measure grew in the years leading up to the 2008 recession, showing a 55.8 percentage point difference in 2007-08 (77.9% compared to 22.1%). By 2013-14 inequality had fallen below its 1999-00 level to 51.2 and is expected to decline further to 49.4 percentage points in 2016-17."
Since IMO the mega-rich are illegitimately gobbling up ever more of the country's wealth and assets, on the backs of everyone else, it follows that I'm not going to be impressed by them dribbling a tiny % of their illegitimate gains back in tax.
IGovernment benefits like this just distort markets anyway. No benefits for 2nd horses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4402644/Borussia-Dortmund-team-bus-hit-explosion.html
https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/one-six-pregnancies-among-women-britain-are-unplanned
If we are to have such a policy towards benefits, then we should significantly invest in contraception and abortion services.
Edit: In any case, you've conceded my point. What matters is the detail of the tax take, not the naive Labour 'the only thing that can possibly be wrong with any tax rate that affects anyone but the poorest is by definition that it's too low' nonsense.
I mean seriously??
This is the mirror image to Ed Balls in the middle of the last Parliament saying that less spending cuts would mean the deficit falling more quickly.
2015-2016 Tax received: £494.86bn
Unfortunately for Labour, May will probably not do that, and instead will just act like the 50p tax rate never happened when asked about it in mainstream interviews.
rationed according to what's in the pot. Cutting benefit off after two children is simply wrong. Either CB is necessary and useful, or it is not. And if it is necessary, all children have the need regardless of how many older siblings they have, just as we educate all children and we provide healthcare for them all.
She owns her own home (Though has no equity), doesn't have kids and keeps a modest job. So no benefits for her.
Now if she'd have had 3 kids by different Dads, was renting somewhere and had no job things would be a whole lot different...
I'm a simple chap. I just know that when the government helps itself to well over half of any incremental income I might earn (and don't forget that, with employer's and employee's NI we can be talking about marginal rates of 70% plus), I'll think about rearranging my affairs so as to mitigate the damage.
How about you?
newsadverts....We don't rewrite the laws to accommodate people who refuse to comply with the spirit of most laws, so I don't see why tax law should be any different. Should we also increase the drink-drive limit because of some mystical belief that people will be more reasonable if you meet them halfway (as opposed to just enforcing the laws properly)?
Why do you think a number of highly paid people in the public sector are not PAYE employees ?
'No evidence of terrorist connection'
Police have so far found no evidence of a terrorist connection, the German Press Agency (DPA) is reporting.
Ok.................................................
The tax take has risen while tax rates have fallen.
Here's an example. I was advising someone recently who earned just shy of £100K. Lucky her. She was thinking of taking a non-exec directorship which would have pushed that up to £120K. That extra £20K would have been taxed at over 70%. Are you seriously expecting someone in that position not to change her behaviour, for example by making a bigger pension contribution or rearranging the timings so that she earns £100K in one year and £140K the next year - which, bizarrely, is much more tax-efficient than £120K in each year?
Obviously people I think should earn more do not, and people I think deserve less do not, if there is a fix for that, if there is even a consensus that could be reached, I don't have it. But working with what we have, as a general rule I feel 49% and below is the range that is fair.