Protesters took to the streets of Glasgow last week to push back against the “rape clause” in the UK welfare system. After reforms of the welfare system took effect in April, the tax credits a family can receive for having children are now capped at two children–except in the case of mothers who have a third child as a result of rape. However, those mothers have to provide evidence that the child was in fact conceived from rape–a provision decried as inhumane.

Rape survivors have to fill out an eight-page form detailing the attack and a third party (such as a healthcare provider or a social worker) must provide additional testimony. The woman can only receive tax benefits if she is not living with the perpetrator and if she has not received financial compensation following a conviction of the perpetrator. But psychologists across the UK have expressed concern that this rape clause will harm survivors. In a letter to The Guardian, a set of psychologists write that forced reliving of the attack may cause “flashbacks, renewed shame and emotional turmoil, and consequently affect how mothers bond with their children.”

The clause was an amendment to an existing law, so it was not debated or voted on in parliament. First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP has decried the clause and has fought against it. SNP MP Alison Thewliss led the Scrap the Rape Clause campaign, presenting a petition with 10,000 signatures asking for the clause to be struck from the tax reforms. Members of the Scottish Parliament have filed a motion to debate the clause, which could push the UK Parliament to also debate it. The SNP is not alone in its discontent: the rape clause may particularly harm women in Northern Ireland, where reporting serious crimes, including rape, is mandatory. If women apply for a tax credit for a third child conceived through rape, they may be drawn into a criminal investigation against their will.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has argued that the Scottish government could set up new benefits to aid families with more than two children, outside of the UK government’s reforms. Davidson accused Sturgeon of simply writing the rape clause off as part of her list of complaints against the UK government instead of actively considering how Scotland could adapt the tax credit system.

Whether or not the rape clause is upheld, families across the UK will find themselves in a new financial bracket thanks to the tax reforms. Historically there has not been a limit to how many children a parent can claim–so large families that have previously benefited from tax credits may now find themselves slipping out of financial stability. The tax reforms disproportionately affect low-income families and will push them deeper into poverty. The rape clause was established in an odd effort to be “compassionate” but the misguided attempt to soften the blow of the tax reforms has only exacerbated ideological divides both within Scotland and the UK as a whole.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Scotland’s Battle Against the UK Welfare “Rape Clause” appeared first on Law Street.

After seven years of nonstop handwringing, GOP lawmakers have finally made some progress in their promise to undo the Affordable Care Act. On Monday, House Republicans unveiled two draft laws that, taken together, provide a sketch for what the future of health care in America will look like. There is still a long way to go: hardline conservatives in the House have already admonished the new GOP health care plan for not changing enough; some GOP Senators have expressed reluctance to pull back Medicaid too much; and, of course, Democrats will be pushing back hard while the Republican-controlled Congress tries to push its new health care vision. Here is what you need to know.

What Won’t Change?

Though Obamacare has been the target of much Republican ire over the past seven years, some of the law’s most popular tenets would remain unchanged under the new law. For one, young adults can remain on their parents’ health plan until the age of 26, so many millennials can breathe a sigh of relief. In addition, in what was one of the ACA’s most lauded achievements, insurers will not be able to turn a customer with preexisting conditions away, or charge them more. Critics say that retaining these Obamacare staples while overhauling other elements is untenable. Remember, the GOP plan revealed on Monday is a rough draft, sure to go through many edits before any laws are actually changed.

What Will Change?

Mainly: tax credits. Income-based tax credits will still be part of the plan, but they will be phased out over time. Instead, tax credits will shift to an age-based model. Under 30? You’re eligible for $2,000 per year. Sixty or older? You could be eligible for as much as $4,000. Families would also receive more. Another change: in lieu of the mandate–Obamacare imposed a tax on the uninsured–insurers can levy a 30 percent increase on premiums if your insurance lapses.

Medicaid would be significantly altered under the Republican plan. Essentially, the federal government would pay a per-person cash allotment to individual states. The amount given would be determined by different categories of a state’s residents: children, elderly, people with disabilities. Mirroring the Republican ethos, the plan takes a bottom-up approach (states have more flexibility) rather than a top-down one (the federal government calls the shots). In addition, Planned Parenthood could stop receiving federal funding for one year.

The changes to Medicaid could be a step too far for some Republicans. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), four GOP Senators expressed their concerns. “We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” Senators Rob Portman (OH), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Cory Gardner (CO), and Lisa Murkowski (AK) wrote.

What Happens Next?

More handwringing and, most likely, Republican infighting. In the coming days, two House committees, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, will review the plan. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said he hopes to get the full House to vote on the bill by the April 7 recess. The legislation faces a rocky road ahead. A number of House caucuses, including the Tea Party stalwart the Freedom Caucus, have branded the new health plan as “Obamacare Lite” and “Obamacare 2.0.” Whether hardline conservatives will squeeze more of their priorities into the final bill remains to be seen.

And of course, it is highly likely that no Democrats, in the House or the Senate, will support the plan. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, had this to say about the newly revealed Republican plan: “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage — and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely.”

But President Donald Trump, who promised to revamp Obamacare during his first days in office, is confident the plan will pass:

Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster – is imploding fast!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the New GOP Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

In a world where the price of gas is costly for both our wallets and the environment, environmentally friendly cars are becoming increasingly popular. In fact, the United States government is encouraging the purchase and use of environmentally friendly cars by offering tax credits. Read on to learn about the environmental car trend, tax credits offered, and their effects.

 What are environmentally friendly cars?

Environmentally friendly cars, sometimes referred to as “green” cars, are essentially cars that minimize their harmful effects on the environment. They can include, but are not limited to:

• Hybrid cars: While these cars can take many forms, this category of eco-friendly cars include any type of car that uses multiple energy sources to power a vehicle. The most common type is a hybrid-electric vehicle.
• Bio-diesel cars: These cars are powered by diesel, or a mix of diesel and vegetable oil.
• Ethanol-powered cars: This category of eco-friendly cars use ethanol created from a material such as corn, barley, or wheat.
• Electric cars: These cars run on electricity and are plugged in to gain enough charge to function.
• Hydrogen-powered cars: These vehicles use hydrogen for power, in the form of fuel cells. Many versions of hydrogen cars are still in the development processes.

Eco-friendly vehicles make up a relatively small number of the vehicles sold in the United States, but the market is growing. JD Power and Associates has estimated that by 2015 eco-friendly cars that contain some sort of hybrid component could make up as much as 10 percent of the vehicle market share.

What tax credits can you obtain for using an environmentally friendly car?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a series of tax incentives, namely credits, for individuals purchasing or leasing eco-friendly vehicles such as electric cars, hybrids, and alternative-fuel vehicles. This bill was expanded upon by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Because of the added cost of their fuel-efficient technologies as well as their lack of presence in the current auto market, eco-friendly cars are significantly more expensive than similar cars with engines run on gasoline. These federal tax incentives were aimed at increasing the sales of these “green” cars to make them a larger part of the transportation vehicle market and thus reduce harmful carbon emissions in the United States into the environment.

Currently, individuals purchasing electric cars and plug-in hybrids can qualify for a tax credit of up to $7,500 dollars, which in some cases can significantly reduce the cost of these cars. These incentives are designed to gradually phase out for a given manufacturer after that company has sold more than 60,000 electric cars. Individual states also have their own incentives for purchasing “green” cars. Since their introduction into the car market, there has been debate as to whether these incentives are effective reaching their goals or whether they should even be offered in the first place.

What is the argument for creating these tax credits?

Supporters of these incentives argue that tax credits will increase sales of this type of car and help establish eco-friendly car brands such as Tesla or the Nissan Leaf as economically viable options for consumers. When the federal and state tax incentives are combined with the increased fuel economy, they often become just as cheap, if not cheaper, than standard gasoline-combustion cars. Leases are popular for these relatively-new cars, and in many states such as Washington and Georgia, where state tax incentives for eco-friendly cars are high, individuals are able to lease these cars nearly for free.

Supporters assert that these tax incentives allow fledgling hybrid manufacturers to gain an economic foothold and to become serious competitors in the auto market. Through increased sales due to federal tax incentives, Nissan was able to open lithium ion battery factories in Tennessee to cut down on cars being shipped from Japan, allowing them to drop the price of the Nissan Leaf by $6,400. Price reductions such as this will lead to increased sales and company growth, allowing hybrid manufacturers to gain a larger share of the profit from auto sales. Altogether, as hybrid manufacturers grow and as more people purchase and lease hybrid and electric cars, US emissions will be dramatically reduced.

What is the argument against creating the tax credits?

Opponents of these tax incentives argue that the tax credits do not make these environmentally-friendly cars more cost effective; they do not help reduce emissions; and they only make “green” cars more affordable to already-wealthy individuals while requiring taxpayers and the federal government to foot the bill.

The federal government imposes standards on the average fuel economy of all vehicles each company sells, and mandates that a company cannot exceed this limit. By selling more hybrid cars, car companies are in fact able to sell more low-fuel economy cars while still adhering to these federal standards, thus negating the tax incentives’ effect on improving the environment. And while tax incentives in some states may make eco-friendly cars cheaper to lease, some studies indicate that even with the tax incentives cars such as the Chevy Volt could still take up to 27 years to pay off.

The Congressional Budget Office stated in a 2012 report that it would require tax incentives of about $12,000 — $4,500 higher than current incentives — to have a serious impact upon the price of hybrid and electric cars. According to these reports, hybrid and electric cars still are not affordable to the average consumer. Opponents then argue that the tax incentives only serve to make these eco-friendly cars more affordable for affluent families who can already afford them. Meanwhile, the federal government and taxpayers are forced to cover the money lost by these incentives. The Congressional Budget Office report estimated these incentives would cost the federal government roughly $7.5 billion through 2019.

There’s also some concern about whether or not hybrids are actually good for the environment, as depicted in the infographic below.

Conclusion

Environmentally friendly cars are certainly here to stay, and while their market share increases the government has been happy to encourage it. However, as they become more prevalent among the average driver, the government may not have the resources to continue with the tax credits. For now, it’s a innovative program that could be a good choice for those in the market for a new car.

Resources

Primary

State of Utah: Clean Fuel Vehicle Tax Credit

U.S. Congress: Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

Wall Street Journal: To Spark Buyers for Electric Cars, Drop the Price to Nearly $0

Street: Why Electric Cars Are Selling in California: They’re Free

Palisades Hudson Financial Group: Atlanta Turns Over a New Leaf

Seattle Times: Seen a Tesla Today? Electric Cars Turn Up Fastest in Washington State

The New York Times: Payoff For Efficient Cars Takes Years

Fortune: Electric Vehicles Still Struggling to be Cost-Competitive

American Enterprise Institute: Subsidy-Powered Vehicles

Forbes: If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We’d All Save Some Money

Congressional Budget Office: Effects of Federal Tax Credits for the Purchase of Electric Vehicles

Bankrate.com: Tax Breaks For Gas Savers

Green Car Reports: Will Georgia Kill Its $5,000 Tax Credit For Electric-Car Purchases

San Francisco Gate: Car Fuel Efficiency Tax Breaks

Internal Revenue Service: Going Green May Reduce Your Taxes

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Tax Credit Battle Over Environmentally Friendly Cars appeared first on Law Street.