Urgent Statement from PM today

[Deleted member 16999]

No I'm not. The issue is about stopping tax credits after two children for new claimants. This argument about a women having a third child after a rape is a very special case and not what the change is aimed at. I think any normal thinking person rather than gerrymandering opportunists like Sturgeon would understand that.

Read the link, Women who have a third child by rape or whilst in an abusive relationship have to fill in a form to prove what they are saying, it's inhumane, haven't they suffered enough? it should be put in with the other exemptions, it's nothing to do as per your first answer, it's about doing the right thing and providing the support these women need.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Read the link, Women who have a third child by rape or whilst in an abusive relationship have to fill in a form to prove what they are saying, it's inhumane, haven't they suffered enough? it should be put in with the other exemptions, it's nothing to do as per your first answer, it's about doing the right thing and providing the support these women need.

That's not actually true. They have to write their name on a form and the rest can be taken care of by a healthcare professional. They aren't being asked to prove anything and they don't even have to have reported the offence to the police.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

That's not actually true. They have to write their name on a form and the rest can be taken care of by a healthcare professional. They aren't being asked to prove anything and they don't even have to have reported the offence to the police.

The fact they have to go and find a healthcare professional and one they trust is wrong, the whole issue is a disgrace

 

[Hacker Khan]

No I'm not. The issue is about stopping tax credits after two children for new claimants. This argument about a women having a third child after a rape is a very special case and not what the change is aimed at. I think any normal thinking person rather than gerrymandering opportunists like Sturgeon would understand that.

Yes you are. The post by DFT which you responded to was specifically referring to the '2 child rape clause'. Please read it again. That specific phrase was used by DFT and is referring to what is causing disgust in DFT, P42 and I would argue many right thinking people. Not the principal of a 2 child limit on tax credits, no one has argued against that in any way shape or form. Separate discussion. If you want to twist the argument by equating that phrase to a 2 child limit on tax credits and spouting off about that then so be it. But I would argue it does you no favours whatsoever.

 

[ColchesterFC]

They don't have to go and find a healthcare professional. The fact that they are pregnant means that they will already be seeing a nurse or midwife so it's not as though they have to go hunting for someone. It's a very emotive subject and some of the language being used around it such as "women having to prove to the DWP that they have been raped" and "forcing victims of rape to endure further trauma" isn't at all helpful or in actual fact true.

How would you suggest dealing with the issue? It can't simply be put in with the other exemptions as you previously suggested. A multiple birth or someone adopting a child or children are exempt and these are straightforward cases - a woman has either had triplets or she hasn't, a couple have adopted a child or they haven't. A woman who has had a child after a sexual assault absolutely should get child benefit for that child but how are the DWP supposed to know that is the case unless the victim, women's aid, healthcare professional or rape charity informs them of it.

 

[User62651]

Lamposts are festooned with SNP flyers now, didn't take long. But why do any of em do that? Do some folks drive past and think 'Gosh I forgot there's an election.... I'll vote for them on that flyer I saw first then?'
Imo could be something that is banned - kind of pointless when you get 4 different ones stuck in the same place, so are there some areas of UK you already cant do that - The Mall London, Royal Mile Edinburgh etc?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

They don't have to go and find a healthcare professional. The fact that they are pregnant means that they will already be seeing a nurse or midwife so it's not as though they have to go hunting for someone. It's a very emotive subject and some of the language being used around it such as "women having to prove to the DWP that they have been raped" and "forcing victims of rape to endure further trauma" isn't at all helpful or in actual fact true.

How would you suggest dealing with the issue? It can't simply be put in with the other exemptions as you previously suggested. A multiple birth or someone adopting a child or children are exempt and these are straightforward cases - a woman has either had triplets or she hasn't, a couple have adopted a child or they haven't. A woman who has had a child after a sexual assault absolutely should get child benefit for that child but how are the DWP supposed to know that is the case unless the victim, women's aid, healthcare professional or rape charity informs them of it.

This puts it far better than I ever could and hopefully answers some of your questions or the problem with them.

https://amp.theguardian.com/comment...pe-rule-tax-credits-rights-children-sex-crime

 

[Hacker Khan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39676922

Is it only me that actually does not mind if any party says they will increase tax a bit if it means that our public services like schools, prisons and the NHS can be funded a bit better? Don't get this absolute fear of someone saying they will raise taxes really. In fact I'd admire the honesty and would much rather see that than every chancellor attempting to say they have cut the burden on the honest tax payer whereas what they are really doing is raising more revenue through other very complicated and opaque methods.

 

[Hobbit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39676922

Is it only me that actually does not mind if any party says they will increase tax a bit if it means that our public services like schools, prisons and the NHS can be funded a bit better? Don't get this absolute fear of someone saying they will raise taxes really. In fact I'd admire the honesty and would much rather see that than every chancellor attempting to say they have cut the burden on the honest tax payer whereas what they are really doing is raising more revenue through other very complicated and opaque methods.

Why would it only be you?

Although perhaps a little more more complicated to do I'd also like to see a cap on profit margins to reduce the cost of living.

 

[jp5]

Is it only me that actually does not mind if any party says they will increase tax a bit if it means that our public services like schools, prisons and the NHS can be funded a bit better?

I think many people feel squeezed enough as it is. Add onto that the feeling that Tories raising taxes would be to fund giveaways for the rich, and I can see why it's not palatable.

For the long term health of the country I'd be looking at fixing the housing situation. No reason why so much of people's incomes need to be tied up in housing, sure if you freed that up then most wouldn't begrudge paying a bit more for public services.

That's no easy problem to fix now, mind.

 

[SaintHacker]

This time round I really do wish there was a ' none of the above' option. I may just spoil my voting slip.

 

[Hacker Khan]

This time round I really do wish there was a ' none of the above' option. I may just spoil my voting slip.

Dare you to stage a dirty protest.

 

[USER1999]

I would pay more tax, may be, to support the nhs, education, etc, but on one condition. That an independent commission, of totally non affiliated people, be appointed, to review structure and waste. Because my belief is that there is plenty of money there now, but it is wasted on poor burocracy.

 

[Old Skier]

I would pay more tax, may be, to support the nhs, education, etc, but on one condition. That an independent commission, of totally non affiliated people, be appointed, to review structure and waste. Because my belief is that there is plenty of money there now, but it is wasted on poor burocracy.

Which is fairly common in the public sector unfortunately. The NHS does need a few bob but it needs to bin the hangers on first and be radically reorganised

 

[SocketRocket]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39676922

Is it only me that actually does not mind if any party says they will increase tax a bit if it means that our public services like schools, prisons and the NHS can be funded a bit better? Don't get this absolute fear of someone saying they will raise taxes really. In fact I'd admire the honesty and would much rather see that than every chancellor attempting to say they have cut the burden on the honest tax payer whereas what they are really doing is raising more revenue through other very complicated and opaque methods.

I thought the Lefties were saying that the millions of immigrants were contributing shed loads of tax, surely we should be flush enough to spend it on the NHS and Schools.

 

[Hobbit]

I thought the Lefties were saying that the millions of immigrants were contributing shed loads of tax, surely we should be flush enough to spend it on the NHS and Schools.

What the lefties fail to tell us is that if an immigrant decides to stay for less than 2 years he can choose to pay tax in his country of origin as opposed to in the UK. For example, a Romanian can choose to pay 10% income tax in Romania rather than pay 20% here. And a Bulgarian can choose to pay 16% income under the same EU/UK tax rules.

OOooohhh, let me guess... just where would you choose to pay tax if you had that option?

 

[Hacker Khan]

I would pay more tax, may be, to support the nhs, education, etc, but on one condition. That an independent commission, of totally non affiliated people, be appointed, to review structure and waste. Because my belief is that there is plenty of money there now, but it is wasted on poor burocracy.

I'm a chair of governors of a state primary and I can promise you that there is not loads of money there that is being wasted on bureaucracy. There are and will be even more ruthless cuts to teachers in education just to keep schools open. And the tories answer to this is to go mostly completely ignore the funding crisis and prattle on about grammar schools.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I thought the Lefties were saying that the millions of immigrants were contributing shed loads of tax, surely we should be flush enough to spend it on the NHS and Schools.

I believe the argument is that on average they contribute more than they take out.

 

[SocketRocket]

I believe the argument is that on average they contribute more than they take out.

Yes and Billions of it. Problem solved use all this extra tax to solve funding for Education and the NHS. Surely they cant be wrong, can they?

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm a chair of governors of a state primary and I can promise you that there is not loads of money there that is being wasted on bureaucracy. There are and will be even more ruthless cuts to teachers in education just to keep schools open. And the tories answer to this is to go mostly completely ignore the funding crisis and prattle on about grammar schools.

I was a School Governor thirty five years ago and there were the same complaints the Government were cutting spending on education resulting in the loss of Teachers and shortages of text books. With so much of the pot having to fund gold plated pensions for teachers then there will always be a shortfall as the costs escalate. There needs to be an honest and unbiased look at education so that we can create realistic goals and fund them.