Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Mar '17 23:171 edit
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/29/tax-credits-rape-test-third-child-chilling-way-to-save-money

    "A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money."

    "In other words, a rape test will be introduced into our welfare law. The
    implication being that those mothers who can provide evidence of rape
    will not have their tax credits removed, presumably because they did not
    choose to have a third child.

    This proposal is chilling. It is well recognised that the vast majority of
    women subjected to rape are unlikely ever to come forward and report
    to the authorities what has happened to them. Under-reporting of rape
    has been running at 80%-90% for years. Does the chancellor seriously
    think that women, who find the prospect of reporting a rape to the police
    so horrendous that they would rather remain silent, will come forward
    and disclose it to the DWP? That proposition only needs to be stated to
    be seen to be absurd; and the government’s distorted thinking does not
    end there.

    Are women really expected to identify their third-born as conceived
    during rape to avoid losing their tax credits: something most, if not all,
    would find wholly anathema?"

    "Yet women who have a third child because they fear the consequences
    of not complying with their partner’s threats and demands are to be
    deprived of tax credits because of their “choice”. How does that sit with
    the government’s commitment to tackle domestic violence?"

    So, in order to avoid losing her tax credits, a woman may be required to declare,
    if not also to prove, that her third-born child was conceived through rape.
    How many women ever tell their own child that he or she was conceived through rape?
  2. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    04 Mar '17 23:30
    Ah, socialism, *sigh*... what can't it do?
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    05 Mar '17 16:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/29/tax-credits-rape-test-third-child-chilling-way-to-save-money

    "A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money."

    "In other words, a rape test will be introduced into our welfare law. The
    implication being that those mothers who can provide evidence of rape
    will not have their tax credit ...[text shortened]... rough rape.
    How many women ever tell their own child that he or she was conceived through rape?
    I couldn't link to the piece.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    05 Mar '17 21:25
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I couldn't link to the piece.
    I just tested it, and the link works fine for me in Google Chrome and Internet Explorer.
  5. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Mar '17 21:33
    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.
  6. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    281496
    06 Mar '17 05:26
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/29/tax-credits-rape-test-third-child-chilling-way-to-save-money

    "A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money."

    "In other words, a rape test will be introduced into our welfare law. The
    implication being that those mothers who can provide evidence of rape
    will not have their tax credit ...[text shortened]... rough rape.
    How many women ever tell their own child that he or she was conceived through rape?
    DWP? The dept. of water and power controls abortion funding?
  7. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56301
    06 Mar '17 05:56
    Originally posted by Eladar
    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.
    Yes.
    Or sold into slavery.

    You really see nothing morally objectable about having women do rape-kits, so they can claim benefits?
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    92189
    06 Mar '17 06:27
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Yes.
    Or sold into slavery.

    You really see nothing morally objectable about having women do rape-kits, so they can claim benefits?
    😞
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    06 Mar '17 11:221 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Yes.
    Or sold into slavery.

    You really see nothing morally objectable about having women do rape-kits, so they can claim benefits?
    Is anyone forcing her? If it was rape, there is a rape kit. If it wasn't rape then no extra funding.

    Sold into slavery and mum should be put to death.
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    06 Mar '17 13:52
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/29/tax-credits-rape-test-third-child-chilling-way-to-save-money

    "A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money."

    "In other words, a rape test will be introduced into our welfare law. The
    implication being that those mothers who can provide evidence of rape
    will not have their tax credit ...[text shortened]... rough rape.
    How many women ever tell their own child that he or she was conceived through rape?
    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 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.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    06 Mar '17 15:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    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.
    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 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.

    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.
  12. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82232
    06 Mar '17 16:15
    Originally posted by Eladar
    ......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.
    Were you dropped on your head at birth?
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    06 Mar '17 18:05
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Were you dropped on your head at birth?
    Seriously, if they'd just not worry about the rape exception to the rule, then everything is fine.

    This thread is the result of actually trying to help a group which didn't really need help to begin with.
  14. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    07 Mar '17 13:58
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    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. Many lower income workers with families pay negative income tax due to child tax credits and the earned income tax credit.
  15. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    07 Mar '17 17:11
    Originally posted by sh76
    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.
    These 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.
Back to Top