UK General Election 2017 Thread

[Muscular-mouse]

First topic message reminder :

Ok guys what are your predictions, how will you be voting and who do you want to win.

[CaledonianCraig]

Corbyns been invited on as well hasn't he.

Has he?

But point stands. There is so much the Tories have done and been given an easy ride by the BBC (in particular). The tax credit thing with the r*** clause in it - vile. I've heard virtually nothing about it on the news though. The Tory MP's who were involved in scandals (15 wasn't there) and we virtually heard nothing about it or had any Tory pushed on the issue on the news. The pathetic state of the NHS. Yes it gets reported but don't ever see the Tories getting rounded on about it. The multiple backtracked in promising one thing then doing the other (no snap election then there was). The embarrassing budget man sausage-up that had a key part of it having to be scrapped a few days later as the figures didn't add up. Heck Abbott got slaughtered for such a thing and she isn't even in the government.

Oh get off it! It's not a r.a.p.e. clause at all....unless you're SNP.

So you are perfectly fine with a woman who has gone through the psychological and physical nightmare of being r.a.p.e.d being forced to admit to and recollect the details of event to claim money for child? Really? EVERY party barring Tories have voiced their disgust at it in Scotland and even Ruth the Mooth is starting to backtrack on it.

Your description of that is nonsense and you know it. At least I would hope you do. Still, nothing like popular soundbites eh?

Eh no. EVERY party in the Scottish parliament have rounded on the Tories over this matter - not just SNP. Labour, Greens and Lib Dems have all lambasted it. Those that have to implement it in the welfare service say it is not workable either. And yes Ruth the Mooth has begants to shuffle uncomfortably on this in the last few days.

[CaledonianCraig]

Is that even if it's on record Craig? - first time i've heard of it and if that's the case then it's terrible

Yes as far as I know. If a mother wants to claim for a child born through r.a.p.e then they need to fill out the form disclosing this (bad enough being r.a.p.e.d in the first place) the victim then has to admit to such a stigma. Originally, Ruth the Mooth thought she could downplay it but in Holyrood EVERY party has lambasted it and she is now backtracking.

You know what? I have no problem with payments like this but I expect them to go to those that are entitled to them. If they have to check a box on a form, so be it. They don't have to tell anyone the details, or relive anything. If it's recorded as being real, it'll be on record, have a crime number etc etc.

I may be entirely wrong as I can't put myself in the position, but if it was me and I'd been r.a.ped, I'd want it to be those with real cause to have the entitlement to this sort of payment. It would annoy the Hell out of me if shysters were claiming for this sort of thing as a way to rip off money from those deserving of it.

Sorry but they do have to relate it in cases. The Tories are trying to paint it up as no big deal as they claim those trained to be sensitive will help women relate the case. Those in welfare state who are to be designated those tasks doubt it is workable as well.

[navyblueshorts]

I'd honestly rather a few people cheated the system than have people genuinely in need of help be rejected.

This.

It's a necessary feature of providing a fair and workable Welfare system.  

Spoken like a true Tory. Bet you back Fox Hunting too.

You've completely missed by point.  I was agreeing with GSC.  But you go ahead and continue with name calling.

 

Come on tell me what is fair about a r.a.p.e.d woman having to recount such an ordeal. Jeez and is it really in the best interest of welfare given the distress a r.a
p.e victim will go through over this.

Why don't you actually find out about what is that's proposed they have do on whatever form it'll be, instead of listening to (drooling over?) everything Jimmy Krankie says? No-one, but no-one, is saying or proposing they recount, in detail, what happened to them.

[navyblueshorts]

Is that even if it's on record Craig? - first time i've heard of it and if that's the case then it's terrible

Yes as far as I know. If a mother wants to claim for a child born through r.a.p.e then they need to fill out the form disclosing this (bad enough being r.a.p.e.d in the first place) the victim then has to admit to such a stigma. Originally, Ruth the Mooth thought she could downplay it but in Holyrood EVERY party has lambasted it and she is now backtracking.

You know what? I have no problem with payments like this but I expect them to go to those that are entitled to them. If they have to check a box on a form, so be it. They don't have to tell anyone the details, or relive anything. If it's recorded as being real, it'll be on record, have a crime number etc etc.

I may be entirely wrong as I can't put myself in the position, but if it was me and I'd been r.a.ped, I'd want it to be those with real cause to have the entitlement to this sort of payment. It would annoy the Hell out of me if shysters were claiming for this sort of thing as a way to rip off money from those deserving of it.

Sorry but they do have to relate it in cases. The Tories are trying to paint it up as no big deal as they claim those trained to be sensitive will help women relate the case. Those in welfare state who are to be designated those tasks doubt it is workable as well.

BS. They don't need to relate any case if they've been r.a.ped. It's on file and someone's been convicted.

[CaledonianCraig]

They do have to relate it. This from BBC website:-

The HMRC website states: "You'll need to complete the non-consensual conception form with the help of an approved third-party professional". It says: "You don't have speak to, or give details about the circumstances of the conception to HMRC staff."

[CaledonianCraig]

Is that even if it's on record Craig? - first time i've heard of it and if that's the case then it's terrible

Yes as far as I know. If a mother wants to claim for a child born through r.a.p.e then they need to fill out the form disclosing this (bad enough being r.a.p.e.d in the first place) the victim then has to admit to such a stigma. Originally, Ruth the Mooth thought she could downplay it but in Holyrood EVERY party has lambasted it and she is now backtracking.

You know what? I have no problem with payments like this but I expect them to go to those that are entitled to them. If they have to check a box on a form, so be it. They don't have to tell anyone the details, or relive anything. If it's recorded as being real, it'll be on record, have a crime number etc etc.

I may be entirely wrong as I can't put myself in the position, but if it was me and I'd been r.a.ped, I'd want it to be those with real cause to have the entitlement to this sort of payment. It would annoy the Hell out of me if shysters were claiming for this sort of thing as a way to rip off money from those deserving of it.

Sorry but they do have to relate it in cases. The Tories are trying to paint it up as no big deal as they claim those trained to be sensitive will help women relate the case. Those in welfare state who are to be designated those tasks doubt it is workable as well.

BS. They don't need to relate any case if they've been r.a.ped. It's on file and someone's been convicted.

Do you know the stats for how many women are r.a.p.e.d but do not report the crime because they cannot bear the stresses of examinations and questioning and court cases? There are plenty. Therefore women such as those too terrified to report the crime will undergo the questioning in any case to get this tax credit.

EDIT Stats says 

• Only around 15% of those who experience sexual violence choose to report to the police
  
  

[Derbymanc]

think some of you have entirely missed the point re child tax credits. It is not a 'right' for everyone to have a child and if you choose to have children then you should already be looking at your income/home etc to see if it's suitable to raise the child in a good home. If you cannot and require government assistance then I don't see an issue with the government assisting for TWO children.
As always though, mistakes happen but getting pregnant multiple times is a pretty big mistake so they need something to deter that (not only that but it may make certain areas think twice about continuing that cycle). The case to case basis would ONLY apply in case of R ape and no they wouldn't have to recount every detail (that's pretty bad).
Whilst it is a small minority at the moment, what some of you aren't realising is that this becomes a generational problem with it becoming the norm in families who get larger and larger until eventually it will be a bigger problem (not for us, but the next generation etc).

As for the money side of things, sorting all the messes we've got out is going to cost a lot of money, are we just saying it's not worth it so lets carry on?


@Craig
Touchy touchy issue really, on the one hand maybe (and i do mean maybe) it will help people report the crimes more, on the other a tick in the box should suffice. (probably one time i'd just leave it as how we do it now :-)

[TRUSSMAN66]

You don't get it....There is broad agreement that it isn't a right for anybody...

Some of us however don't want to see kids missing out through irresponsibility of the Parents...

Must say all this is a bit rich coming from a guy that lectures on bringing Communities closer together yet voted for Brexit..and works tirelessly for disadvantaged kids in his gym but wants to see them disadvantaged in other ways.

Britain gives one billion a year to India who give one billion a year away to others in foreign aid.....Review other things before you hit the disenfranchised.

You sound more and more like my Father in law everyday.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Maybe they shouldn't.. But I want to live in a compassionate society....

[Derbymanc]

I actually think we should have a mass over haul of nearly everything we have Truss. I also believe that you have to start somewhere and not just carry on with the status quo.

Your missing the bigger issue which is that them kids still miss out, and their kids then miss out and so on and so forth as it becomes a cycle and has been pointed out is now seen (by some) as a lifestyle choice.

There are a number of things that need reviewing across the board that would raise money

-Foreign aid (as you mentioned)
-Top heavy departments need thinning out
-government contracts with ridiculous clauses and prices
-contracts that don't allow for upgrades (especially in regards to comps)
-Budgets that HAVE to be spent no matter what (massive massive problem in my eyes)

and so on. I could talk about most of this stuff for hours but at the moment it's on the child tax credits bit which I think needs changing.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Viewed as a lifestyle choice by some people...(Some truth in that probably)

I imagine some people think unemployment is a lifestyle choice by some (Truth in that too)...

I imagine some people look at a 17 year old girl pushing a pram and think cheap low rent tart...

I prefer grey areas to black and white ones...

Amusing that plenty of people I know and you do too probably think getting around paying the appropriate tax is being responsible.

I see as much of the picture as I want...I see people as individuals not statistics on a page to be played with..

[Derbymanc]

to be honest Truss, life is one whole grey area and you can't ignore certain aspects because it may cause hardship.

Tax's is an issue as well, why we don't have a system with no loopholes is beyond me (I also don't understand the argument against a flat tax rate for everybody)

Kids are a lifestyle choice as me and you are both well aware :-), your life changes massively with having kids and I sometimes think we should prepare more people (especially youngsters for that).

Again you've hit the nail on the head, for some unemployment is a lifestyle choice (I know far too many like that) as is following it up with crime etc. what we need is someway to deter these as choices and giving more money is not the answer (as we can see it hasn't worked).

the younger generation just sees it as weak really. (I can't remember where it's from but I think it was a documenatry on the Noonans and they asked one of the young lads about there chosen life. the answer was 'The older 'generation' had to fight, we don't have to now, but we like it' or something similar.

Unfortunately with how ALL of the underclass's are portrayed in the media your analogy of the 17 year old is spot on for a majority which is very wrong. Again from my own experience i remember the really young lass and lad from Gorton (I think) that had kids at 14/15 and were utterly villified, one of the papers did a follow up and they'd worked extremely hard and brought up a decent family (although they weren't together any more). We need more stories liek that to balance the books.

People are individuals your correct, but why should the few be rewarded when there's ways to stop it which would then free up more money (you'd hope) for the needy

[Muscular-mouse]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

I'm saying exactly that, if you can't afford to have children then don't have them, it's nobody's God given right. I want a Bugatti but can't afford it so don't have one.

[TRUSSMAN66]

to be honest Truss, life is one whole grey area and you can't ignore certain aspects because it may cause hardship.

Tax's is an issue as well, why we don't have a system with no loopholes is beyond me (I also don't understand the argument against a flat tax rate for everybody)

Kids are a lifestyle choice as me and you are both well aware :-), your life changes massively with having kids and I sometimes think we should prepare more people (especially youngsters for that).

Again you've hit the nail on the head, for some unemployment is a lifestyle choice (I know far too many like that) as is following it up with crime etc. what we need is someway to deter these as choices and giving more money is not the answer (as we can see it hasn't worked).

the younger generation just sees it as weak really. (I can't remember where it's from but I think it was a documenatry on the Noonans and they asked one of the young lads about there chosen life. the answer was 'The older 'generation' had to fight, we don't have to now, but we like it' or something similar.

Unfortunately with how ALL of the underclass's are portrayed in the media your analogy of the 17 year old is spot on for a majority which is very wrong. Again from my own experience i remember the really young lass and lad from Gorton (I think) that had kids at 14/15 and were utterly villified, one of the papers did a follow up and they'd worked extremely hard and brought up a decent family (although they weren't together any more). We need more stories liek that to balance the books.

People are individuals your correct, but why should the few be rewarded when there's ways to stop it which would then free up more money (you'd hope) for the needy

Child poverty rate...

2015....3.9 million.
2017.....4.1 million......

Food banks are running out of food in some places.

I get your drift and sympathise ....But not for me where kids are involved.

[Muscular-mouse]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

I'm saying exactly that, if you can't afford to have children then don't have them, it's nobody's God given right. I want a Bugatti but can't afford it so don't have one.

But no parent (excluding the super rich) can afford children without public help (benefits?). Children get free education which is paid for by the state, free school meals for many children, paid for by the state. Children get free travel on public transport or heavily discounted travel fare paid for by the state. Children get free school uniform, free health care all paid for by the state. And these are children of parents who are working and many earning 30k a year plus.

So no parent can afford to raise a child on their own without the state's help so your point is mute unless you want to ban all parents who cant afford private school fees and private health care from having kids.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

I'm saying exactly that, if you can't afford to have children then don't have them, it's nobody's God given right. I want a Bugatti but can't afford it so don't have one.

But no parent (excluding the super rich) can afford children without public help. Children get free education which is paid for by the state, free school meals for many children. Children get free travel on public transport or heavily discounted travel fare paid for by the state. Children get free school uniform, free health care all paid for by the state.

So no parent can afford to raise a child on their own without the state's help so your point is mute.

It's not mute at all, you just choose to see things how you want to. I'm not super rich and aside from education don't rely on any additional help for my daughter, I had the sense to make sure I was financially secure enough to provide her with the best possible life before deciding to have children. Nothing you mention is actually free, I work and pay my taxes which provides money for schooling and travel allowances, harsh as it may seem I don't feel that people who don't pay into it when they can physically work should be afforded such privileges.

I don't want to help people less fortunate than me when there sheer stupidity or irresponsibility has put them in that situation. There are times when things beyond a parents control happen to make things difficult, these people should be helped not those who feel it's a lifestyle choice or a right.

[CaledonianCraig]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

I'm saying exactly that, if you can't afford to have children then don't have them, it's nobody's God given right. I want a Bugatti but can't afford it so don't have one.

But no parent (excluding the super rich) can afford children without public help. Children get free education which is paid for by the state, free school meals for many children. Children get free travel on public transport or heavily discounted travel fare paid for by the state. Children get free school uniform, free health care all paid for by the state.

So no parent can afford to raise a child on their own without the state's help so your point is mute.

It's not mute at all, you just choose to see things how you want to. I'm not super rich and aside from education don't rely on any additional help for my daughter, I had the sense to make sure I was financially secure enough to provide her with the best possible life before deciding to have children. Nothing you mention is actually free, I work and pay my taxes which provides money for schooling and travel allowances, harsh as it may seem I don't feel that people who don't pay into it when they can physically work should be afforded such privileges.

I don't want to help people less fortunate than me when there sheer stupidity or irresponsibility has put them in that situation. There are times when things beyond a parents control happen to make things difficult, these people should be helped not those who feel it's a lifestyle choice or a right.

Like being r.a.p.e.d?

[Muscular-mouse]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

I'm saying exactly that, if you can't afford to have children then don't have them, it's nobody's God given right. I want a Bugatti but can't afford it so don't have one.

But no parent (excluding the super rich) can afford children without public help. Children get free education which is paid for by the state, free school meals for many children. Children get free travel on public transport or heavily discounted travel fare paid for by the state. Children get free school uniform, free health care all paid for by the state.

So no parent can afford to raise a child on their own without the state's help so your point is mute.

It's not mute at all, you just choose to see things how you want to. I'm not super rich and aside from education don't rely on any additional help for my daughter, I had the sense to make sure I was financially secure enough to provide her with the best possible life before deciding to have children. Nothing you mention is actually free, I work and pay my taxes which provides money for schooling and travel allowances, harsh as it may seem I don't feel that people who don't pay into it when they can physically work should be afforded such privileges.

I don't want to help people less fortunate than me when there sheer stupidity or irresponsibility has put them in that situation. There are times when things beyond a parents control happen to make things difficult, these people should be helped not those who feel it's a lifestyle choice or a right.

Wow wait a minute, why do I have to spend my taxes on your child's education? if you cant afford to educate your child yourself why should I have to foot your bill? I want a Bugatti but if I cant afford it I wont buy it so why are you having kids when you clearly can't afford them?

No doubt your child also uses the NHS and gets free health care and has probably visited an NHS dentist as well which is something else that I am having to pay for because you can't afford private care. Why did you have a kid if you can't afford to pay for it yourself?

That is basically your mentality, a very selfish mentality. Thankfully I am more open-minded than you and outward thinking and don't think like you do.

[Hammersmith harrier]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

[CaledonianCraig]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

[Hammersmith harrier]

[
Wow wait a minute, why do I have to spend my taxes on your child's education? if you cant afford to educate your child yourself why should I have to foot your bill? I want a Bugatti but if I cant afford it I wont buy it so why are you having kids when you clearly can't afford them?

No doubt your child also uses the NHS and gets free health care and has probably visited an NHS dentist as well which is something else that I am having to pay for because you can't afford private care. Why did you have a kid if you can't afford to pay for it yourself?

That is basically your mentality, a very selfish mentality. Thankfully I am more open-minded than you and outward thinking and don't think like you do.

I pay for all that with MY taxes I think you'll find, my contributions more than cover her education whilst I also don't use the NHS. Good try though.

Are you more open minded or do you merely feel that's the opinion you should purvey to try and make yourself feel like a more accomplished human being?

[Hammersmith harrier]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

I don't really pay much attention to what you say Craig, it's always going to be anti Tory and a love in for the SNP, you're too narrow minded.

[Muscular-mouse]

The responsible shouldn't have to pay for the irresponsible, if you can't afford to raise a child make sure it doesn't happen.

So what you are saying is that having children is only for the rich or middle class families? Poor people cant have children according to you?

I am glad that we live in a nation where everyone has the chance to succeed. Poor people are given the right to start a family because those of us who are more fortunate help those who are less fortunate.

I'm saying exactly that, if you can't afford to have children then don't have them, it's nobody's God given right. I want a Bugatti but can't afford it so don't have one.

But no parent (excluding the super rich) can afford children without public help. Children get free education which is paid for by the state, free school meals for many children. Children get free travel on public transport or heavily discounted travel fare paid for by the state. Children get free school uniform, free health care all paid for by the state.

So no parent can afford to raise a child on their own without the state's help so your point is mute.

It's not mute at all, you just choose to see things how you want to. I'm not super rich and aside from education don't rely on any additional help for my daughter, I had the sense to make sure I was financially secure enough to provide her with the best possible life before deciding to have children. Nothing you mention is actually free, I work and pay my taxes which provides money for schooling and travel allowances, harsh as it may seem I don't feel that people who don't pay into it when they can physically work should be afforded such privileges.

I don't want to help people less fortunate than me when there sheer stupidity or irresponsibility has put them in that situation. There are times when things beyond a parents control happen to make things difficult, these people should be helped not those who feel it's a lifestyle choice or a right.

Like being r.a.p.e.d?

I would also add other reasons why the poor might have children, one of the reasons is religious beliefs which prohibit contraception. Also many people might not be able to afford contraception and therefore end up pregnant and also a lot of pregnancies are unplanned, and unwanted but happen due to unforeseen circumstances.

[Muscular-mouse]

[
Wow wait a minute, why do I have to spend my taxes on your child's education? if you cant afford to educate your child yourself why should I have to foot your bill? I want a Bugatti but if I cant afford it I wont buy it so why are you having kids when you clearly can't afford them?

No doubt your child also uses the NHS and gets free health care and has probably visited an NHS dentist as well which is something else that I am having to pay for because you can't afford private care. Why did you have a kid if you can't afford to pay for it yourself?

That is basically your mentality, a very selfish mentality. Thankfully I am more open-minded than you and outward thinking and don't think like you do.

I pay for all that with MY taxes I think you'll find, my contributions more than cover her education whilst I also don't use the NHS. Good try though.

Are you more open minded or do you merely feel that's the opinion you should purvey to try and make yourself feel like a more accomplished human being?

wait a minute your taxes cover the complete cost of your childs education? how much in tax are you paying? it costs about 25k a year to send a child to school so you must be earning a ton of money to be paying 25k a year in taxes to cover the kids school costs and then you still need to pay tax to cover all the other costs that the average persons tax goes to.

[CaledonianCraig]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

I don't really pay much attention to what you say Craig, it's always going to be anti Tory and a love in for the SNP, you're too narrow minded.

Blah blah blah mate. Not too open-minded yourself though. At least I am not here defending a party that wants r.a.p.e victims to recount such an ordeal to get tax credit.

[Hammersmith harrier]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

I don't really pay much attention to what you say Craig, it's always going to be anti Tory and a love in for the SNP, you're too narrow minded.

Blah blah blah mate. Not too open-minded yourself though. At least I am not here defending a party that wants r.a.p.e victims to recount such an ordeal to get tax credit.

I'm very self centred when it comes to voting and i'll be honest i'm not against it, it boils down to those who are entitled to help getting it and those who are not not getting it.

[Muscular-mouse]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

I don't really pay much attention to what you say Craig, it's always going to be anti Tory and a love in for the SNP, you're too narrow minded.

Blah blah blah mate. Not too open-minded yourself though. At least I am not here defending a party that wants r.a.p.e victims to recount such an ordeal to get tax credit.

I'm very self centred when it comes to voting and i'll be honest i'm not against it, it boils down to those who are entitled to help getting it and those who are not not getting it.

What you are saying is that if you can't afford to pay for everything for your kids (including paying enough tax to cover the cost of school education and medical care) then you shouldn't be allowed kids. SO basically you are saying anyone on less than a 100k a year should not have kids.

So basically only the super rich can have kids in your view.

What happens in 25 years time if everyone followed this view and those earning less than 100k never had kids, we would have a serious shortage of man-power in this country. There would be no one to work in jobs such as teaching or nursing, no one to work in retail or any jobs as we would have a serious lack of people following a lack of children being born. The economy would go to pants as no one would be paying tax and no one would be able to pay for the elderlys' pensions.

What you are saying makes no sense economically or socially.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The original point was more towards those who contribute nothing in tax but you seem to want to take that to it's most extreme point.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Does that self centred approach extend to businesses or businessmen who get around the tax system..

Or are they smart and responsible because they don't need help ??

[Hammersmith harrier]

Does that self centred approach extend to businesses or businessmen who get around the tax system..

Or are they smart and responsible because they don't need help ??

I also find that abhorrent, I avoid companies like Starbucks at all costs and I can understand the anger from low income households who see these multinationals getting away with it. The companies have all the power, you can guarantee that if Starbucks were made to pay there £340mil tax bill or whatever it was that would filter down and result in reduced pay for the lowest earners.

[Muscular-mouse]

The original point was more towards those who contribute nothing in tax but you seem to want to take that to it's most extreme point.

Well everyone pays tax, VAT, council tax, green tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax so even the unemployed paid tax.

Your point was that if you can't afford a kid don't have one. But the reality is that nearly everyone can't afford a kid if you actually break it down because we as parents rely on the state to provide free school education and free medical/dental care for our kids among many other things which is paid for by other peoples' taxes.

What you are actually doing is just waging a war against the poor which is something the Conservatives are good at doing.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The original point was more towards those who contribute nothing in tax but you seem to want to take that to it's most extreme point.

Well everyone pays tax, VAT, council tax, green tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax so even the unemployed paid tax.

Your point was that if you can't afford a kid don't have one. But the reality is that nearly everyone can't afford a kid if you actually break it down because we as parents rely on the state to provide free school education and free medical/dental care for our kids among many other things.

What you are actually doing is just waging a war against the poor which is something the Conservatives are good at doing.

It isn't free that's the point.

[Muscular-mouse]

The original point was more towards those who contribute nothing in tax but you seem to want to take that to it's most extreme point.

Well everyone pays tax, VAT, council tax, green tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax so even the unemployed paid tax.

Your point was that if you can't afford a kid don't have one. But the reality is that nearly everyone can't afford a kid if you actually break it down because we as parents rely on the state to provide free school education and free medical/dental care for our kids among many other things.

What you are actually doing is just waging a war against the poor which is something the Conservatives are good at doing.

It isn't free that's the point.

It is free at the point of entry for the child and the taxes that parents pay will not cover the costs of sending their child to school, or using the nhs and free dental care.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The original point was more towards those who contribute nothing in tax but you seem to want to take that to it's most extreme point.

Well everyone pays tax, VAT, council tax, green tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax so even the unemployed paid tax.

Your point was that if you can't afford a kid don't have one. But the reality is that nearly everyone can't afford a kid if you actually break it down because we as parents rely on the state to provide free school education and free medical/dental care for our kids among many other things.

What you are actually doing is just waging a war against the poor which is something the Conservatives are good at doing.

It isn't free that's the point.

It is free at the point of entry for the child and the taxes that parents pay will not cover the costs of sending their child to school, or using the nhs and free dental care.

That's simply wrong, without taxes these things don't exist, it is the combined contributions of all tax payers who pay for it.

[Muscular-mouse]

The original point was more towards those who contribute nothing in tax but you seem to want to take that to it's most extreme point.

Well everyone pays tax, VAT, council tax, green tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax so even the unemployed paid tax.

Your point was that if you can't afford a kid don't have one. But the reality is that nearly everyone can't afford a kid if you actually break it down because we as parents rely on the state to provide free school education and free medical/dental care for our kids among many other things.

What you are actually doing is just waging a war against the poor which is something the Conservatives are good at doing.

It isn't free that's the point.

It is free at the point of entry for the child and the taxes that parents pay will not cover the costs of sending their child to school, or using the nhs and free dental care.

That's simply wrong, without taxes these things don't exist, it is the combined contributions of all tax payers who pay for it.

That is exactly my point, low income families and middle income families rely on the tax contributions of OTHER people to pay for services such as school education and medical care/dental care for their children.

The taxes of 90% of families does not cover the cost of sending their children to school and thus it is other peoples taxes who are paying for their childrens' upbringings.

So when people like you say that if you can't afford a kid don't have one that would have to include all middle class families who send their children to state school and use the nhs for their children because they too can't afford kids hence why they have to rely on other people's tax to raise their children. That is why it is nonsense to say if you cant afford kids don't have them because the overwhelming majority of parents cant afford to raise their kids on their own and rely on other peoples tax.

[JuliusHMarx]

You're right M-M. As a standard rate tax payer, there's no way my taxes cover cost of my 2 children's education and NHS care. And there's no way I could afford to go private (even if I didn't pay that part of my taxes that goes to those things). Theoretically I could down-size my home and we could all share 2 bedrooms and never go on holiday, but fortunately I don't have to make that choice. I rely on the taxes of others.

The idea that poor people be denied the basic right to pro-create, to have the greatest gift of children to love and be loved by - which is far more important and profound that any materialistic considerations - is beyond me. It's borderline fascist.

[CaledonianCraig]

You're right M-M. As a standard rate tax payer, there's no way my taxes cover cost of my 2 children's education and NHS care. And there's no way I could afford to go private (even if I didn't pay that part of my taxes that goes to those things). Theoretically I could down-size my home and we could all share 2 bedrooms and never go on holiday, but fortunately I don't have to make that choice. I rely on the taxes of others.

The idea that poor people be denied the basic right to pro-create, to have the greatest gift of children to love and be loved by - which is far more important and profound that any materialistic considerations - is beyond me. It's borderline fascist.

And in any case who is to say who brings up children best? Rich people who haven't brought up their kids using tax credits or poor people brought up in poverty? Off the top of my head some of the greatest talents this country has produced (going by HH's estimate should never have been conceived). I am thinking The Beatles were brought up from large families in poverty and that is just for starters.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Seems to me that putting in measures that will financially dissuade all but about the top quarter of income household having children is recipe for destabilising society. Many people (not least Brexiteers) keep complaining at levels of immigation to the UK. But if birth rate plunges over a sustained period we'll be facing a major crisis with an ageing population having to be supported by continually dwindling work age population. The only way out would be to encourage immigration on a scale way beyond anything we've experienced so far....

[Muscular-mouse]

Seems to me that putting in measures that will financially dissuade all but about the top quarter of income household having children is recipe for destabilising society. Many people (not least Brexiteers) keep complaining at levels of immigation to the UK. But if birth rate plunges over a sustained period we'll be facing a major crisis with an ageing population having to be supported by continually dwindling work age population. The only way out would be to encourage immigration on a scale way beyond anything we've experienced so far....

Yep I agree and I mentioned this earlier. If middle income and below families are prevented from having children then that will leave a huge shortage in population. We only have to look at some parts of Scotland a few years ago to see how bad the affects of a dwindling population are to a country.

it is funny because restricting having children is a very right wing proposal and those same people who believe in restricting poor people from having children are usually anti-immigration, and as you said if the birth rate in the uk plunges then someone still has to work in the jobs that are currently available otherwise those jobs and businesses disappear (very bad for the economy) and that means drafting in more immigrants to fill those jobs which is the exact opposite that those right wing fanatics want

The reason why a ban on having children for poor people is not law is because of a few reasons. Firstly it goes against the morals and standards of being British, we are a nation who pride ourselves on equality and a law like this would destroy the past 100 years of workers rights and equality laws we have fought so hard to create.

Secondly it is impossible to create a law banning people from having kids. It is in our dna to have children, we are programmed to start families and it is a natural instinct to want to pro-create. People will have children whether you impose financial penalties or not. So when you create a law banning all welfare for poor mothers etc all you are doing is creating more poverty and a lack of social mobility for those new born children which in turn creates more unemployment and more crime.

Instead of having the mind-set of saying you're poor so you can't have a family, let's instead say that we are one of the richest countries in the world with enough resources to give everyone the right to start a family and lets give those new born kids the opportunities that their parents maybe never had and hopefully make the next generation more prosperous which in turn will make the UK a richer and a better country to live in.

[navyblueshorts]

They do have to relate it. This from BBC website:-

The HMRC website states: "You'll need to complete the non-consensual conception form with the help of an approved third-party professional". It says: "You don't have speak to, or give details about the circumstances of the conception to HMRC staff."

No need to shout. It doesn't make your point any more important or valid.

I take the point if this is the case. I don't know why anyone would need to relate any details if it's about a crime for which someone has been convicted. That said, it's my money being doled out and as I said before, if I was in that position, I wouldn't want shysters defrauding such a scheme.

[navyblueshorts]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

Oh, get off the hobby horse. It's not a sick anything.

[navyblueshorts]

We should be afraid, very afraid:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

If this is even in some way substantiated, then there should be Hell to pay. Won't hold my breath though...

[Derbymanc]

You all seem to have gone completely off the deep end. Noone's stated people can't have kids, nor has anyone stated there should be NO help for low income parents. What has been said is that there should be a cap on the 2 kids mark. This would then free up more money (no matter how small you think) which imo should then be put back into the system to help those low income families even more.

[CaledonianCraig]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

Oh, get off the hobby horse. It's not a sick anything.

No thanks. And please remove your tongue from the Tory backside. I will say again ALL the political parties barring the Tories recognize the abhorrentness of this clause. Fine you see it as nothing wrong well all I can say is I hope you never know anyone that has been r.a.p.e.d as then you may be able to comprehend the horrors of it.

[TRUSSMAN66]

You all seem to have gone completely off the deep end. Noone's stated people can't have kids, nor has anyone stated there should be NO help for low income parents. What has been said is that there should be a cap on the 2 kids mark. This would then free up more money (no matter how small you think) which imo should then be put back into the system to help those low income families even more.

The argument is kids shouldn't suffer because of adult stupidity..

Don't know about this cannot have kids you are going on about.

[superflyweight]

You're right M-M. As a standard rate tax payer, there's no way my taxes cover cost of my 2 children's education and NHS care. And there's no way I could afford to go private (even if I didn't pay that part of my taxes that goes to those things). Theoretically I could down-size my home and we could all share 2 bedrooms and never go on holiday, but fortunately I don't have to make that choice. I rely on the taxes of others.

The idea that poor people be denied the basic right to pro-create, to have the greatest gift of children to love and be loved by - which is far more important and profound that any materialistic considerations - is beyond me. It's borderline fascist.

No need to qualify it, Jules.

[TRUSSMAN66]

The Labour manifesto has given the Liberals a real problem in this election...The public have two completely different visions for the Country....A stark choice between May and Corbyn.....Hard to see how other parties get a look in now..

Unless they go radical.......

[navyblueshorts]

What relevance does that have to anything Craig?

Being r.a.p.e.d is not in a woman's control, becomes pregnant has third child and has to undergo the third degree to claim credits thanks to the latest sick Tory law.

Oh, get off the hobby horse. It's not a sick anything.

No thanks. And please remove your tongue from the Tory backside. I will say again ALL the political parties barring the Tories recognize the abhorrentness of this clause. Fine you see it as nothing wrong well all I can say is I hope you never know anyone that has been r.a.p.e.d as then you may be able to comprehend the horrors of it.

Nice. You know nothing about my voting profile. At. All. There you go again with your black/white cr@p. All the parties bar the Tories are jumping on the anti-Tory bandwagon. They don't 'recognise' anything.
You're a berk. At least they had a clause in there for cases such as that, but you go and hammer them anyway. The trouble with you and your ilk, is that all you can do is carp from opposition. Tell me how, if there's an introduction of a cap on numbers eligible for child benefits, how you stop the shysters? Go on, how? Maybe up there in Brigadoon, you just allow everyone to claim benefits for all their children and rU.K. gets to pay for it? Go take a hike.

[Sponsored content]