Jump to content

Rape Clause


Pudgie

Recommended Posts

The actual evidence of this where it has been tried has shown this not to be the case.

What evidence?

 

When people think about the idea of a universal income they often think about what they think other people would do instead of what they would do themselves. They somehow assume everyone is going to suddenly decide to live off the state when in fact most people would probably do what they themselves would do.

 

CS, ask yourself what you would do with £500 a month. That's what other people would do with it as well. Seriously, how many people on here would take £6k a year and say, "well, that'll do me, I'm off to call Sky and get some fags"?

 

The happiest countries in the world are those which have higher taxes and bigger welfare. If there is a safety net, people can be more entrepreneurial and take bigger risks.

OK, I have thawed to the idea somewhat after reading Manboobs' post that folk would still actually work and so the minimum income is a "top up" rather than a hand out.

 

I am just very skeptical of welfare, I think a lot of the problems we hear of are down to certain recipients having poor priorities, rather than there being anything wrong with the system as such.

 

In the 1990s I used to get the train daily from blairhill into queen st and, at the garrowhill stop, I used to marvel at the council flats I could see in barlanark. At that time they were very run down (renovated now) and scabby looking.

Yet, nigh on every one of them would have a satellite dish outside it.

I used to wonder about that, as our family never relied on the state to house us, yet we never had money to waste on sky tv.

 

Similarly, at school I would note how it was often the boys from single parent families and/or council housing who would always have the flashiest trainers at PE. £100 trainers etc.Despite being what would have been called middle class, I never had £100 trainers at school.

 

Dont get me wrong, im not saying people dont deserve nice things / luxuries, if they can afford them, I just think these kinds of observations mean that some folk are receiving help from the state and spending it on shite.

Link to comment

Jesus you must've lead a sheltered life. I have family who have numerous kids and have lived mostly on benefits so i know 1st hand what goes on. I have fell out with some over it because they take the complete piss. I told one of them they should apply for a job at the council because they know the benefits system better than the folk on the other end of the fone.

 

Even thinking of the "minks" in Garthdee, I can't think of a single unemployed parent with more than 2 kids that I grew up with. Neither can a mate. There's one deef lassie I went to school with that either has 4 or 5 kids.

 

 

Doubt all you want pudge. The schemes in Glasgow are quite something.

 

As for whether you'll have 3 kids now... You might not because you won't get a few quid child support?! Really?

I'd maybe had a wider view of the term areas. Aye, run down areas of run down cities will certainly have a higher percentage of benefit swicks but I'd still say the norm is way off the mark.

 

 

And you never know what's round the corner. Anyone could need that support! Surely that's especially prevalent up here where there's people that were on >£50k a year now getting fuck all and canna find a job!

Link to comment

Plenty of folk from all sorts of areas and backgrounds have several kids. It's just far more prevalent in the schemes. There is a mentality with some that this is the norm - don't work and get 'your wages' every other Tuesday.

 

You could use your arguement for not having any kids. Or buying a house or car!

Link to comment

 

 

If you take a minimum wage job, you're making roughly 15k a year (take home of 1113 on a 37.5 hour week)

There are still tax credits etc

Not rich but still surely enough to live on.

£1,113

 

The issue with that is, if you're a single parent, rent would probably be about £500 a month and child care is abouit £1000 a month for a full time place in a nursery for one child. Short fall without even considering council tax, gas/electricity, food, clothes and money to actually do things. How would you resolve that?

 

I'm all for the benefits system for people who need it genuinely. My gripe is that the people who pay high taxes, generally get fuck all back when the time comes that they do need it. Ive paid 40% tax since i was 23 years old, yet I can guarantee if i lost my job and needed benefits, I'd have to blow any savings, and bend over backwards in order to qualify for my 75 pound a week. And because i happen to own my house and not pay rent, id not be entitled to any housing benefit. That's how the system is flawed in my opinion.

Link to comment

The issue with that is, if you're a single parent, rent would probably be about £500 a month and child care is abouit £1000 a month for a full time place in a nursery for one child. Short fall without even considering council tax, gas/electricity, food, clothes and money to actually do things. How would you resolve that?

 

I'm all for the benefits system for people who need it genuinely. My gripe is that the people who pay high taxes, generally get fuck all back when the time comes that they do need it. Ive paid 40% tax since i was 23 years old, yet I can guarantee if i lost my job and needed benefits, I'd have to blow any savings, and bend over backwards in order to qualigy for my 75 pound a week. And because i happen to own my house and not pay rent, id not be entitled to any housing benefit. That's how the system is flawed in my opinion.

 

do you not have subsidized child care spaces? or are they just in such short supply, that many of those that would qualify for them based on income-testing, can't get them anyway?

Link to comment

 

do you not have subsidized child care spaces? or are they just in such short supply, that many of those that would qualify for them based on income-testing, can't get them anyway?

Free child care for all starts at 3, where you get half days, 5 days a week. Still need to pay for any extra. My daughter is 19 months old and we arent entitled to any free child care, other than getting my full entitlement of child care vouchers through my work, but the only benefit of that is that it is tax free and comes off your top line. And due to my salary, the highest amount of my salary i can sacrifice a month is £124. The rest of her nursery bill I pay in cash every month.

 

For people on benefits, there may well be additional free child care, but if as is the content of this post, we scrapped the benefits system, then that would cease would it not?

Link to comment

Behold, the madness of social change.

 

Women working to pay other women to look after their children for them.

 

Madness.

Sometimes needs must in this day and age, especially living in Aberdeen. Putting your child to nursery is beneficial to both the mum and child. I've noticed a difference in my daughter since she started interacting with more children her age on a regular basis.

Link to comment

What evidence?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

 

You'll have to click through some links as this is a pretty shit page in terms of actually telling you the outcomes but does at least list the where / when of where it has been tested.

 

A brief summary of outcomes from my reading:

 

  • Has a marginal effect on hours worked, some places go up some places go down but overall it's a few % points each way (though some studies say the temporary nature of this scheme may skew these results slightly meaning perhaps more people would work less if they knew the scheme was permanent)
  • Generally has a bigger impact on the hours worked by women and women are more likely to take more time off after having kids
  • Money not squandered on luxuries and drugs, actually led to a reduction in alcohol consumption in native Americans in one particular trial
  • Reduction in poverty
  • Improved health and wellness
  • Improved educational attainment
Link to comment

1.) There's 650,000 lone parent households in the UK who aren't in employment.

 

Nearly 9 in 10 couple families with three or more dependent children had either one or both parents working.

 

Is there really going to be that many swicks that it's worth having rape victims and those in abusive relationships humped into a room with a glorified secretary to be judged over whether they were raped or if their partner is abusive?

 

 

 

2.) Wouldn't it be better trying to invest in publicly funded childcare for parents that work? Get more people back to work and have money come into the system that way to pay for it?

 

 

 

Surely to fuck those that have, say, 4 kids and lose their jobs like we've seen happen in Aberdeen deserve help rather than being told that they don't deserve it and their wife is a fucking baby factory!

 

 

With regards to the first point, the only statistic that has any meaning is what is the forecasted number of (third or later) children to parents on benefits that this would apply too. Your stats are pointless.

 

Point 2, the money saved from this could be used for that possibly?

 

You probably don't know many people this applies to because you live in what is still an affluent part of the country, and also has a social demography that doesn't favour big families.

 

 

 

 

Universal basic income is a great idea.

Link to comment

Free child care for all starts at 3, where you get half days, 5 days a week. Still need to pay for any extra. My daughter is 19 months old and we arent entitled to any free child care, other than getting my full entitlement of child care vouchers through my work, but the only benefit of that is that it is tax free and comes off your top line. And due to my salary, the highest amount of my salary i can sacrifice a month is £124. The rest of her nursery bill I pay in cash every month.

 

For people on benefits, there may well be additional free child care, but if as is the content of this post, we scrapped the benefits system, then that would cease would it not?

 

i imagine it would, yes.

 

so the system assumes, given that no support is provided prior to then age 3, that most women will not work when their child is young, but will stay home til the child reaches age 3 at least?

 

because if the government believes providing some financial support for child care is worth doing (which they apparently do after age 3), they would when children were younger as well, rather than financially penalizing parents returning to work sooner. if you get my drift? (I may not have put that in the best way.)

 

or if that's not the case, for what reason isn't the government providing similar financial supports for younger children?

Link to comment

 

If the kid is starving they could either:

 

  • Cancel their mobile phone contract
  • Cancel Sky TV
  • Stop smoking

A noble thought. Like yourself I have family who for a long time, and still now, don't work but have sky, regular nights out, smoke, and hotlines to the takeaways at least twice a week and it bewilders me how they even get close to managing through p/t jobs and benefits.

 

Stepping away from the rights and wrongs of the benefits system I just wonder why people want to live like that. It's fucking laziness at the end of the day I expect. I see them bringing up their kids and I think what chance have they got.

 

I'm nearly 40, worked continuously since leaving school, as has my other half and I still don't feel secure enough to want to bring another mouth into the world.

 

Costs me a fucking fortune on washing powder for the bedsheets though.

Link to comment
Guest milne_afc

YOU

 

Are the type of Nancy boy that thankfully, is on its way out soon

But how else do you prove you're not just a tart and had a 3rd child you little left wing pansy parasite

P J Watson found

Link to comment

Excuse me while I get this straight

 

FUCKING scum bags that can't afford kids but have them anyway, are angry that only 2 of them will get tax credits?

 

FUCKING NONE of them should

 

This country

 

 

The cunts moan about famine but have 9 kids

 

They are their own biggest enemy

 

s

 

 

Lol always someone else's fault

 

FUCKING man up and let people pay for their own mistakes

 

 

YOU

 

Are the type of Nancy boy that thankfully, is on its way out soon

 

 

But how else do you prove you're not just a tart and had a 3rd child you little left wing pansy parasite

 

 

If you're a lazy cunt and don't get a job aye

 

If you can afford it, let your boyfriend pump you as often as you like

 

Looks like someone had a few too many shandies and let their inner cunt loose on the internet. :laughing:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

No woman would fill out a form saying their child was because of a rape

Would you be able to relive the ordeal

would you trust anyone with this info

 

Also should also be noted its not all scroungers who are on benefits people lose their jobs all the time just look at the oil jobs gone in Aberdeen

 

What next a china 2 kid policy

Link to comment

Is the change retrospective - does it affect families who already have >2 kids?

 

I can understand people being angry about that situation, but other than that I think its a fuss over nothing.

Wait you say a fuss over nothing

 

Its not long ago you said snp named person was a disgrace and invasion of privacy against all children's charities recommendations

 

Yet making woman who have been raped fill out a form to get benefits is a fuss over nothing

 

Genuine question if another party proposed this would your opinion still be the same

Link to comment

Wait you say a fuss over nothing

Yep.

 

The SNP are clinging onto to it as a desperate means of attacking ruth davidson.

 

They are hoping to distract attention from the recent embarrassing photos of Nicola Sturgeon having to stand on a box to reach a microphone, during her recent taxpayer funded jolly important and necessary trip to California.

 

Its not long ago you said snp named person was a disgrace and invasion of privacy against all children's charities recommendations

The UK Supreme Court and established human rights law agreed.

 

Yet making woman who have been raped fill out a form to get benefits is a fuss over nothing

If the law limits benefits, but allows extra in some cases, then I dont see that its wrong to want to establish the facts which grant the extra.

 

No-one would ever want to prolong the ordeal of a rape victim, but the clause is intended as a positive thing, to financially help a woman in such a circumstance.

 

As I said above, this is clearly a joke that people are het up over the one-time need to fill out a form, yet sit back in silence over abortion (which they routinely use rape to justify).

 

Talk about a confused moral compass.

 

Genuine question if another party proposed this would your opinion still be the same

Yes.

 

But I dont think this would be such an inflated issue if it were any other party, I think this is another "oooh....the bad tories" story.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...