Funny how people look at government handouts as a right. They aren't taking away money from what I read, but simply capping the amount of money you can receive by way of kids.
Really, what is wrong with that? I don't see why rape would be an exception to the rule since the kid can be put up for adoption.
Originally posted by EladarYes.
Funny how people look at government handouts as a right. They aren't taking away money from what I read, but simply capping the amount of money you can receive by way of kids.
Really, what is wrong with that? I don't see why rape would be an exception to the rule since the kid can be put up for adoption.
Or sold into slavery.
You really see nothing morally objectable about having women do rape-kits, so they can claim benefits?
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirIs anyone forcing her? If it was rape, there is a rape kit. If it wasn't rape then no extra funding.
Yes.
Or sold into slavery.
You really see nothing morally objectable about having women do rape-kits, so they can claim benefits?
Sold into slavery and mum should be put to death.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhat, exactly, is the alternative here?
They want to cut off the child tax credit at two children. Okay. I don't love the idea, but if that's what they want their tax policy to be, that's their prerogative.
They want to carve out a rape exception so that if the third child was a result of rape, it is funded nonetheless because the policy reason of discouraging third children does not apply. Given that the policy exists, a rape exception sounds reasonable.
So, exactly how else is the rape exception going to be applied other than by the women being asked to report it?
The only possible alternative is simply to not institute either the policy or the exception in the first place.
I don't at all understand the controversy here.
Originally posted by sh76I think the taxes at the low end of the financial spectrum is such that you don't get any more money back for having three kids V 2. Not sure what the tax credit is this year but it was around $2000 so two kids takes $4000 off your taxes and that would amount to the taxes on something like $40,000 a year give or take. Since the people on welfare would get nowhere near that income the difference would be a moot point. Even 1 kid could possibly put her in a position of getting all your tax withheld back. Two kids, for sure.
What, exactly, is the alternative here?
They want to cut off the child tax credit at two children. Okay. I don't love the idea, but if that's what they want their tax policy to be, that's their prerogative.
They want to carve out a rape exception so that if the third child was a result of rape, it is funded nonetheless because the policy reason of discour ...[text shortened]... e policy or the exception in the first place.
I don't at all understand the controversy here.
So claiming 3 child tax credit buys you nothing, they are not going to give her $2000 if her tax was $4000 and two kids brought the tax to zero, the extra kid is wasted as far as the tax credit goes, unless they pull a Trump and get the last years extra credit be able to add to the next year, say assuming she got a real job paying 60K or something. Which is just supposition on my part, I think Trumpf just got away with not paying a billion in taxes.
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not sure if you're referring to US or UK law, but the OP was about a UK policy. Under US tax law, there is no cap on the number of children you can get a child tax credit for, though there is an income cap as the child tax credits phase out at higher incomes.
I think the taxes at the low end of the financial spectrum is such that you don't get any more money back for having three kids V 2. Not sure what the tax credit is this year but it was around $2000 so two kids takes $4000 off your taxes and that would amount to the taxes on something like $40,000 a year give or take. Since the people on welfare would get ...[text shortened]... is just supposition on my part, I think Trumpf just got away with not paying a billion in taxes.
Incidentally, there's nothing that limits tax credits to what you actually paid in income tax. Many lower income workers with families pay negative income tax due to child tax credits and the earned income tax credit.
Originally posted by sh76These tax credits are something different from a regular tax credit in the US. It has nothing to do with income tax, other than being able to qualify by your income. They send out checks during the year to augment income.
I'm not sure if you're referring to US or UK law, but the OP was about a UK policy. Under US tax law, there is no cap on the number of children you can get a child tax credit for, though there is an income cap as the child tax credits phase out at higher incomes.
Incidentally, there's nothing that limits tax credits to what you actually paid in income tax. M ...[text shortened]... with families pay negative income tax due to child tax credits and the earned income tax credit.