ChatterBank3 mins ago
How Can This Be A Bad Thing?
41 Answers
http://
Well according to this report the Left seem to think it is, so can the Left of Answebank explain please?
Well according to this report the Left seem to think it is, so can the Left of Answebank explain please?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As an average wedding now costs 18 grand apparantly
http://
That's 90 years to break even!
http://
That's 90 years to break even!
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes
/// If people choose to get married, they get married - it has nothing to do with wanting the approval of a bunch of anally retentive public school boys who think that society's values can be bought like this. ///
No one least of all Cameron is saying that people should be forced to get married, but if they so wish, then he is just making a tax allowance for those that do.
Might just as well complain that some get other allowances that others do not.
But it is nice to see you can't fail to throw the usual left-wing insults around.
/// wanting the approval of a bunch of anally retentive public school boys ///
/// You don't have to beft-wing to find this policy odious in the extreme - just possessed of some moral fibre and a mind of your own. ///
No but it helps, 'Moral Fibre' ?????????? 'a mind of your own' Ba, Ba, Ba
/// If people choose to get married, they get married - it has nothing to do with wanting the approval of a bunch of anally retentive public school boys who think that society's values can be bought like this. ///
No one least of all Cameron is saying that people should be forced to get married, but if they so wish, then he is just making a tax allowance for those that do.
Might just as well complain that some get other allowances that others do not.
But it is nice to see you can't fail to throw the usual left-wing insults around.
/// wanting the approval of a bunch of anally retentive public school boys ///
/// You don't have to beft-wing to find this policy odious in the extreme - just possessed of some moral fibre and a mind of your own. ///
No but it helps, 'Moral Fibre' ?????????? 'a mind of your own' Ba, Ba, Ba
When I was first married we could allocate our tax allowance to our spouse if one wasn't working or earning enough to pay tax.
Then we had MIRAS which gave tax relief on mortgages. Married couples were penalised as only one person could claim it, but if two single people bought a house together they could both claim it.
Even now married people are penalised. If two people share a house they each get the maximum Winter Fuel Allowance, if they are married they each get half.
Then we had MIRAS which gave tax relief on mortgages. Married couples were penalised as only one person could claim it, but if two single people bought a house together they could both claim it.
Even now married people are penalised. If two people share a house they each get the maximum Winter Fuel Allowance, if they are married they each get half.
// Even now married people are penalised. If two people share a house they each get the maximum Winter Fuel Allowance, if they are married they each get half. //
This is the kind of thing they should be addressing. Ie ensuring that people aren't penalised for either being married or unmarried, rather than just putting another unfairness in place to try and counterbalance existing ones.
This is the kind of thing they should be addressing. Ie ensuring that people aren't penalised for either being married or unmarried, rather than just putting another unfairness in place to try and counterbalance existing ones.
"Jim, so this is rubbish is it?
//The most up-to-date research in social science has demonstrated conclusively that the 50-year trend away from marriage has been a catastrophe: and a catastrophe especially among the poorest sections of society that Labour claims to care about most.//"
I highly doubt that the sole cause of societal breakdown is the decline in marriage. There have been many other changes going on as well. Changing attitudes to relationships. Changing attitudes to authority and privacy and openness. Even the changing face and culture of Britain due to immigration. All of these are contributing factors to the change; to pin it solely on marriage is speculative at best. Declines in marriage are more likely to be an effect, rather than the cause, of the "catastrophe" referred to in your quote.
Marriages aren't good. Good marriages are good. But then, so are good relationships. I think it's quite likely (albeit based on a sample size of not much more than five marriages) that many marriages have been maintained beyond their "best before" date because of the financial security it provided even though the relationship was broken. Or, equally, many marriages that contained horrible abuse and so were also damaging.
If a relationship is destined to last, it will most likely do so with or without marriage on top of it. In that sense marriage should be a choice of the two people involved, and only those two people. Some form of financial incentive seems the sort of thing the government shouldn't be doing.
For the record, I'd very much like to be able to refer to my wife in future conversation. So I'm not opposed to marriage. I just think it should be a choice, and couples shouldn't be judged or penalised if they choose not to marry.
//The most up-to-date research in social science has demonstrated conclusively that the 50-year trend away from marriage has been a catastrophe: and a catastrophe especially among the poorest sections of society that Labour claims to care about most.//"
I highly doubt that the sole cause of societal breakdown is the decline in marriage. There have been many other changes going on as well. Changing attitudes to relationships. Changing attitudes to authority and privacy and openness. Even the changing face and culture of Britain due to immigration. All of these are contributing factors to the change; to pin it solely on marriage is speculative at best. Declines in marriage are more likely to be an effect, rather than the cause, of the "catastrophe" referred to in your quote.
Marriages aren't good. Good marriages are good. But then, so are good relationships. I think it's quite likely (albeit based on a sample size of not much more than five marriages) that many marriages have been maintained beyond their "best before" date because of the financial security it provided even though the relationship was broken. Or, equally, many marriages that contained horrible abuse and so were also damaging.
If a relationship is destined to last, it will most likely do so with or without marriage on top of it. In that sense marriage should be a choice of the two people involved, and only those two people. Some form of financial incentive seems the sort of thing the government shouldn't be doing.
For the record, I'd very much like to be able to refer to my wife in future conversation. So I'm not opposed to marriage. I just think it should be a choice, and couples shouldn't be judged or penalised if they choose not to marry.
There are virtues of marriage but it isn't compulsory. Not sure why a couple who have lived happily together for years should be denied a tax break but a couple who have lived together for the same amount of time, but conveniently went to the Altar first, should benefit. Marriage is essentially a religious institution. Should everybody be believers then ?
Mike, marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Bearing in mind the divorce rate, i think marriage should definitely not be "encouraged" in any way. I think people should take it more seriously, if anything. It's actually easier to get married than get divorced. How does that make sense?
Personally marriage is not for me and a tax break of about 3.5 pounds a week is going to incentivise me, but what does annoy me is that I am in a long term relationship (coming up 20 years) and somehow this implies that a good friend of mine who is on his third marriage in the same time I have been with my partner is doing something better or more beneficial to society.
“If two people share a house they each get the maximum Winter Fuel Allowance, if they are married they each get half. “
Not so, I’m afraid hc.
WFA is paid on a per household basis and the marital status of those living in the same household is not relevant. The government website gives you the details:
https:/
To save you looking all through it says this about “what you will get”:
“You qualify and live alone (or none of the people you live with qualify) - £200”
“You live with someone under 80 who also qualifies - £100”
There are higher rates for people over 80, but the principle is the same. The issue is not whether they are married (or in a civil partnership) or whether they are single, but whether they share a household. If they share then the WFA is split.
Not so, I’m afraid hc.
WFA is paid on a per household basis and the marital status of those living in the same household is not relevant. The government website gives you the details:
https:/
To save you looking all through it says this about “what you will get”:
“You qualify and live alone (or none of the people you live with qualify) - £200”
“You live with someone under 80 who also qualifies - £100”
There are higher rates for people over 80, but the principle is the same. The issue is not whether they are married (or in a civil partnership) or whether they are single, but whether they share a household. If they share then the WFA is split.
