When will indyref2 happen?

[Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach]

In my case it's both.  Women who have been raped and subsequently have a child should not have to jump through hoops to get state support. Putting a two-child limit on CTCs is brainless and short-sighted.

If you're going to have a 2 child CTC cap, what would be an appropriate and compassionate way for a woman to disclose the third child was a result of a rape?

Is it a case of just a general disagreement on the 2 child cap or is it they way they'd have to disclose the rape?

[Shades75]

2 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

 

If you're going to have a 2 child CTC cap, what would be an appropriate and compassionate way for a woman to disclose the third child was a result of a rape?

Is it a case of just a general disagreement on the 2 child cap or is it they way they'd have to disclose the rape?

 

If there is no two child cap, and there shouldn't be, then there is no need for a rape clause.

We are means testing a child's right to a benefit here based on how and why it was conceived.  It comes to down to the fact that the child will be penalised for being born.

In the case of the rape clause - there will be an appeals process for those denied the benefit.  Are you happy that some mothers who have been raped will have to go through a bureaucratic process to prove it?  Against a system which has deemed them to be lying in the first place?

If you don't think that will happen then you must think that the DWP are going to suddenly become beholden to common decency.

[DublinMagyar]

What the f**k comes next?

Congratulations! You're having triplets!
Choose the two you like most.

[Baxter Parp]

12 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

If you're going to have a 2 child CTC cap, what would be an appropriate and compassionate way for a woman to disclose the third child was a result of a rape?

Is it a case of just a general disagreement on the 2 child cap or is it they way they'd have to disclose the rape?

 

 

There should be no two child cap.  I thought I made that clear.

[Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach]

I am more than comfortable with a 2 child cap. I find the idea of having more children than you can afford to pay for without additional government assistance to be grossly negligent.

 

Edited to add, in the event of twins /triplets etc taking you over the threshold, I would want CTC for every child

 

 

 

 

[Shades75]

6 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

I am more than comfortable with a 2 child cap. I find the idea of having more children than you can afford to pay for without additional government assistance to be grossly negligent.

 

Edited to add, in the event of twins /triplets etc taking you over the threshold, I would want CTC for every child

 

 

 

 

In that case, surely having any children that you can't afford without government assistance is grossly negligent?

My wife was once made redundant while pregnant, luckily we could afford that but something like that can change a mother's circumstances between conception and birth.  Is that just tough shit?

What about one parent doing a runner, dying, becoming ill - tough shit again?

[Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach]

In that case, surely having any children that you can't afford without government assistance is grossly negligent?
My wife was once made redundant while pregnant, luckily we could afford that but something like that can change a mother's circumstances between conception and birth.  Is that just tough shit?
What about one parent doing a runner, dying, becoming ill - tough shit again?

I'd happily have no CTC but a better and potentially more generous means tested benefits system (taking into account no. children etc) for those who fall on hard times.

I would rather pay more, and by that I mean the government and myself through more tax, for a fairer system, even if it was costlier

[NotThePars]

What if you accidentally fall pregnant when you already have two kids and you can't afford it? Have an abortion regardless of your personal belief on the issue? Keep them for a year and raffle aff the one that does your head in the most? Do a Kate McCann? It's just quite staggering that people would rather force women to relive an incredibly traumatic event and go through this government's awful bureaucratic procedures for the sake of about 13 quid a week.

 

 

The problem with means testing is two-fold. One is that it's difficult to build a means testing system that isn't costly and doesn't miss people out who still need it. Already you've got people responding to Corbyn's FSM policy claiming that anyone earning over 16k a year is middle class and shouldn't be entitled to it. The other problem is that means tested services are typically poor services, viewed by many as FOR the poor and are much easier to get rid of as a result. Give the middle classes a stake in a system and they'll protect it. Make it for the most vulnerable and the comfortable will bin it off as soon as they can justify it.

[Shades75]

7 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

 

I'd happily have no CTC but a better and potentially more generous means tested benefits system (taking into account no. children etc) for those who fall on hard times.

I would rather pay more, and by that I mean the government and myself through more tax, for a fairer system, even if it was costlier

 

It's fine to advocate a fairer system - but you should oppose this move if that really is what you want.

This is an ideologically driven policy which creates an issue where there was none.  It does not seek a fairer system.  It seeks to put an issue in the public forum and ask people what they think of it, when they condemn it they're then asked "well what is better - these people are stealing your money?".

It's standard "hate the poor and blame them for all your ills" Tory practice - "Here's an enemy to hate."  They're the easiest section of society to demonise and vilify, because they have no voice, no money and no influence.

Here we are talking about something that will save an insignificant amount of money, will hurt poor families and penalise kids, yet again, that are born into poorer families.  It will not help your life, my life or anyone else's life that you know - so why on earth would you support that?

The answer is simple, some people are so bitterly twisted that if anyone, anywhere and for any reason gets something that they might not be entitled to then they want no one getting it.  You know, just in case someone gets a bottle of white lightning that they're not entitled to....We simply can't have that, can we.

[Baxter Parp]

Scotland's burden grows ower heavy

[Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach]

Maybe I'm just a b*****d, but I do not think the government should pay anyone just for having children, either in the form of CTC or Child Benefit.

[Shades75]

2 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

Maybe I'm just a b*****d, but I do not think the government should pay anyone just for having children, either in the form of CTC or Child Benefit.
 

So first you were happy for the rape clause to exist.  Then you were happy for other exemptions.  Then you explained why 2 was the magic number of children that people should be given government assistance for...

...Now no one should get any assistance for any children.

 

Be fucking raging about it if you like, but realise too that it will make no impact on your life but will impact negatively on others.  That does make you a b*****d, sadly.

[Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach]

So first you were happy for the rape clause to exist.  Then you were happy for other exemptions.  Then you explained why 2 was the magic number of children that people should be given government assistance for...
...Now no one should get any assistance for any children.
 
Be fucking raging about it if you like, but realise too that it will make no impact on your life but will impact negatively on others.  That does make you a b*****d, sadly.

I'm not raging in the slightest. As you say, it has no impact on my life whatsoever.

I am allowed to express views on changes to tax, benefits etc even though they do not directly impact me. For example, I do not agree with increasing the % of tax paid for those in the additional tax bracket, despite the fact I am (sadly) no where near it

[Shades75]

1 minute ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

 

I'm not raging in the slightest. As you say, it has no impact on my life whatsoever.

I am allowed to express views on changes to tax, benefits etc even though they do not directly impact me. For example, I do not agree with increasing the % of tax paid for those in the additional tax bracket, despite the fact I am (sadly) no where near it

 

You can have whatever view you want on any subject you want.

On a moral level, and sometimes politics can be boiled down to that question, you either want to help or hinder people.  Sometimes to help people you must hinder others and when it is correct to do that is always up for debate.

The problem, and what is indicative to the outlook that some people have, is when they think it correct to hinder people people when that action helps no-one.

Those people are useful pawns.

[Shades75]

6 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

 

I'm not raging in the slightest. As you say, it has no impact on my life whatsoever.

I am allowed to express views on changes to tax, benefits etc even though they do not directly impact me. For example, I do not agree with increasing the % of tax paid for those in the additional tax bracket, despite the fact I am (sadly) no where near it

 

My wife is in the higher tax bracket.  I think she absolutely should pay more tax on anything over £43,500 than what she pays under it.

It's redistributive and she can afford to.

[DublinMagyar]

Maybe I'm just a b*****d, but I do not think the government should pay anyone just for having children, either in the form of CTC or Child Benefit.

Those children might become reluctant to pay your pension when you retire. Don't be a dick.

[Baxter Parp]

3 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

Those children might become reluctant to pay your pension when you retire. Don't be a dick.

Yeah, if you can't afford to live after the age of 67 you should just die, right?  Only fair.

[Alert Mongoose]

This is a stunning reposte to the demographic time bomb.

[Granny Danger]

Why can't we just let children starve?  There appears to be a shortage of starving childern in the UK compared to other countries.

For the first 20 years of my life I lived in cardboard box in the middle of a swamp and starved to death on a regular basis.  It never did me any harm.

[NotThePars]

Seeing some people deploy the "nasty nat" thing earnestly on Twitter and the wider media as well. Will be interesting to see whether they go down the abusive Scottish nationalists route again after a British nationalist murdered a sitting MP in 2016 and a bunch of them brutally assaulted an asylum seeker.