[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I think, when limiting family benefits, a rape clause is necessary BUT I don't think expecting a victim to relive the trauma to use benefits they need and are entitled to is not at all right. Rape is not a claim that should be proved for benefits, it's unworkable to do so and a cruel way of limiting the use of benefits that people are entitled to because most women will not feel comfortable going through with reliving their trauma again and they shouldn't be forced to either.

I would be very against having a woman go through reliving the trauma of her rape again to claim the benefit, but if it is a question of ticking a box to say it was reported so it can be checked out then I see no problem.
There has to be some sort of safeguard against fraudulent claims and a report number would seem to be the easiest and less traumatic way forward.
In the case of relationship rape then I think it is fair enough that the rapist should be in no way benefitting from the claim, if your partner thinks it's ok to rape you then you should not stay with him, for the child's sake as much as your own.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I would be very against having a woman go through reliving the trauma of her rape again to claim the benefit, but if it is a question of ticking a box to say it was reported so it can be checked out then I see no problem.
There has to be some sort of safeguard against fraudulent claims and a report number would seem to be the easiest and less traumatic way forward.
In the case of relationship rape then I think it is fair enough that the rapist should be in no way benefitting from the claim, if your partner thinks it's ok to rape you then you should not stay with him, for the child's sake as much as your own.

I think it's a callous move though, I imagine the form was added because it would serve as a deterrent for women to apply for the extra benefit. Even if it's just ticking a box, it's still going to affect the victim needlessly.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I think, when limiting family benefits, a rape clause is necessary BUT I don't think expecting a victim to relive the trauma to use benefits they need and are entitled to is not at all right. Rape is not a claim that should be proved for benefits, it's unworkable to do so and a cruel way of limiting the use of benefits that people are entitled to because most women will not feel comfortable going through with reliving their trauma again and they shouldn't be forced to either.

Absolutely right.

Cruel is in my view,the only applicable word, of course the victims of rape are going to have to think about it again and the horrors of it.

No victim of rape should have to,possibly years on be forced to bring it back to the forefront of their minds.
Cruel,yes that is exactly all this is.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Child tax credit are for parents who work but are low earners.

Think of it as a government loan. Every child born in this country is used as collateral for government borrowing. They base that collateral on the child growing up and being a long term tax payer. If people stopped having children because they couldn't personally afford them without a bit of help the future economy would fail because there wouldn't be enough people.

Oh I'd be willing to help people who are working and not earning much, but it's the ones who just keep having babies as a means of living off the state that I object to.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I think it's a callous move though, I imagine the form was added because it would serve as a deterrent for women to apply for the extra benefit. Even if it's just ticking a box, it's still going to affect the victim needlessly.

I can't see ticking a box anywhere near as traumatic a reminder as looking at the child you love everyday know what kind of person their father was.
Unfortunately there won't be an easy answer, but there does have to be some proof otherwise anybody could use the loophole.

[Northern Monkey]

Well i mean obviously the claimant is going to have inform the government in the first place that the third child was conceived from a rape.That would obviously involve the original claim form at a minimum.
Then maybe if there was some kind of court database that can be checked to see whether anybody was convicted then that would be a more sensitive way.
Any disputes would still have to be sorted.Chances are though if there was a dispute then it's more than likely a fraudulent claim if all cases were logged on the database.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Ah, just read it.
All looks pretty confidential to me then.
So a report of the rape to the police does count as proof, even if the case is not proved in court, I am pleased about that.
You can also claim rape in a relationship as long as you are prepared for the man not to gain by the tax credit as well. So get rid of the tosser.
All seems reasonable to me.

And me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Child tax credit are for parents who work but are low earners.

Think of it as a government loan. Every child born in this country is used as collateral for government borrowing. They base that collateral on the child growing up and being a long term tax payer. If people stopped having children because they couldn't personally afford them without a bit of help the future economy would fail because there wouldn't be enough people.

The top part is actually incorrect DR, Child Tax Credits are paid regardless of employment status, its only Working Tax Credits that are dependent on employment.

Totally agree with all of the rest of it, though. I keep seeing the same people saying that the government shouldn't fund people having kids, and at the same time, that they want less immigration. Absolutely zero understanding of the fact that a declining population would collapse the economy. Not debatably or in theory... It's just what would happen. Aging populations are screwed.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The top part is actually incorrect DR, Child Tax Credits are paid regardless of employment status, its only Working Tax Credits that are dependent on employment.

Totally agree with all of the rest of it, though. I keep seeing the same people saying that the government shouldn't fund people having kids, and at the same time, that they want less immigration. Absolutely zero understanding of the fact that a declining population would collapse the economy. Not debatably or in theory... It's just what would happen. Aging populations are screwed.

Ah ok. Thanks for the correction TS