Should We Give Incentives to Stay Married With Tax Reform?

Tax Incentives for Staying Married?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
BBC Clicky

I'm with the Tories on this one. For too long Labour has tried to destroy the institution of marriage. I'm not naive enough to think that marriages don't break down; but when people choose not to get married because they are better off as single parents or when women have kids because they are rewarded for it but have no involvement form the fathers it shows that the system is wrong.

But Labour said the proposals would "discriminate" against some families.
- And of course Labour has never discriminated against anybody!
 
#2
Horridlittleman said:
BBC Clicky

I'm with the Tories on this one. For too long Labour has tried to destroy the institution of marriage. I'm not naive enough to think that marriages don't break down; but when people choose not to get married because they are better off as single parents or when women have kids because they are rewarded for it but have no involvement form the fathers it shows that the system is wrong.

But Labour said the proposals would "discriminate" against some families.
- And of course Labour has never discriminated against anybody!
I agree with you; if we think that marriage is good for society then we should reward it. If we think something is bad, then we tax it.

No difference... unless you are a Member of Parliament with huge salaries and expenses without paperwork!

I will point out however, that it was certainly the previous bunch of incompetent Tories who first restricted the tax relief available to married couples. And it may have been them who finally killed it, but my memory ain't up to it....

And it wasn't all that long ago that every penny of interest paid on your mortgage could be set against your tax bill (as it is still in the States, IIRC)!

Litotes
 

qman

War Hero
#3
They are right (labour that is) it will discriminate against families who are not in a recognised marriage or formalised partnership.........Feck em I'm married give mesome money. The thing is it's gonna take more than a £20 quid tax break to keep me hitched to Mrs Qman!
 
#4
As every other combination of sexual pairing seems to get some sort of incentive simply to breath, I don't see why I shouldn't get some too.

I'm in favour, at least until a sensible approach is taken and the whole benefit scheme is reset to nought.
 
#5
qman said:
They are right (labour that is) it will discriminate against families who are not in a recognised marriage or formalised partnership.........Feck em I'm married give mesome money.
And people choose not to be in a marriage or partnership because they can exploit the system - however this also has a negative impact on society by devaluing the practical and social aspect of marriage.

qman said:
The thing is it's gonna take more than a £20 quid tax break to keep me hitched to Mrs Qman!
LOL. Mrs HLM would only use it to buy shoes!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
It's not a lot of money is it? Why don't the Cons simply provide the funding required for people to GET married in the first place. That costs an awful lot of money and is subject to VAT.

This is the only thing stopping me and Mrs Biped-to-be from tying the knot (that and the fact that she might kill me for my life insurance).
 
#7
Biped said:
It's not a lot of money is it? Why don't the Cons simply provide the funding required for people to GET married in the first place. That costs an awful lot of money and is subject to VAT.

This is the only thing stopping me and Mrs Biped-to-be from tying the knot (that and the fact that she might kill me for my life insurance).
Stop paying your life insurance - 2 effects would be that you'd have more money to pay for a wedding and also the future Mrs Biped has no incentive to kill you and get a new patio! :wink:

It doesn't have to be expensive to get married. It is however expensive if you (or more likely the future Mrs Biped) choose to do the expensive option! Weddings are an industry and the cost as such is up to the individuals concerned.

I think the important thing is that the Tories are hopefully going to do away with the current thinking that says traditional values are bad.
 
#8
Horridlittleman said:
qman said:
They are right (labour that is) it will discriminate against families who are not in a recognised marriage or formalised partnership.........Feck em I'm married give mesome money.
And people choose not to be in a marriage or partnership because they can exploit the system - however this also has a negative impact on society by devaluing the practical and social aspect of marriage.
Wait a minnit! 'Scuse me!
Me and Ms Chuffit chose not to be married because we're not into that Christian (Or Anyone-elsian) shizzle.
You want to discriminate against me for being a non-believer of a religion in which one of the leading players, a carpenter, gets to enjoy the ultimate carpenters irony of dying whilst nailed to a piece of wood?
It's all a bit harsh innit?
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#9
In Germany income tax is applied in classes. When single you are in the standard class, but when married either partner has the option to "trade" classes - eg. the lower earner takes a higher class and bigger tax hit, the high earner vice-a-versa meaning a gain in net income.

As a single guy loses almost half his income in various taxes, there is a big incentive to marry even a poor woman :D
 
#10
Chuffit said:
Wait a minnit! 'Scuse me!
Me and Ms Chuffit chose not to be married because we're not into that Christian (Or Anyone-elsian) shizzle.
You want to discriminate against me for being a non-believer of a religion in which one of the leading players, a carpenter, gets to enjoy the ultimate carpenters irony of dying whilst nailed to a piece of wood?
It's all a bit harsh innit?
But you can have a Civil Marriage with no mention of which imaginary friend you follow.
 
#11
Chuffit said:
Wait a minnit! 'Scuse me!
Me and Ms Chuffit chose not to be married because we're not into that Christian (Or Anyone-elsian) shizzle.
You want to discriminate against me for being a non-believer of a religion in which one of the leading players, a carpenter, gets to enjoy the ultimate carpenters irony of dying whilst nailed to a piece of wood?
It's all a bit harsh innit?
I know the bible's a bit harsh and it could have had a better ending but you could always have a civil ceremony. So no you wouldn't be discriminated against for being a non-believer.

Edited to add that Vimeiro types faster than me!
 
#12
If it sets this country back on track in valuing families and sticking together (whether in a regular marriage or a civil partnership) it can only be a good thing. The monetary benefits aren't exactly great, but I think it's more of a nod towards recognising what used to be a good way of life.
 
#13
Would you consider tax breaks for keeping mistresses.

Asking merely out of 'interlechual' curiosity
 
#14
Chuffit said:
Horridlittleman said:
qman said:
They are right (labour that is) it will discriminate against families who are not in a recognised marriage or formalised partnership.........Feck em I'm married give mesome money.
And people choose not to be in a marriage or partnership because they can exploit the system - however this also has a negative impact on society by devaluing the practical and social aspect of marriage.
Wait a minnit! 'Scuse me!
Me and Ms Chuffit chose not to be married because we're not into that Christian (Or Anyone-elsian) shizzle.
You want to discriminate against me for being a non-believer of a religion in which one of the leading players, a carpenter, gets to enjoy the ultimate carpenters irony of dying whilst nailed to a piece of wood?
It's all a bit harsh innit?
Can't disagree.

Any self-respecting carpenter would have at the very least glued & screwed, with a combination of dowelled mortice & tenon joints and strapped mitres being of preference to really stabilise the artifice, but nails? That's not irony - that's just shoddy.
 
#15
I think the Romans used Gang Nails which when properly walloped with a hammer at the appropriate angle are very secure.
 
#16
qman said:
I think the Romans used Gang Nails which when properly walloped with a hammer at the appropriate angle are very secure.
Cheers for that - I'll have a gander through the Screwfix catalogue next time the missus wants me to put up a set of martyrs in the kitchen.
 
#17
qman said:
I think the Romans used Gang Nails which when properly walloped with a hammer at the appropriate angle are very secure.
Ah, I see a mistranslation has occurred. The use of large hammers and nails to secure things leads me to believe they were in fact Remeans, not Romans.

But surely the best incentive to stay married is for the wife not to let herself go to the dogs the moment the wedding ring slides on her finger? Hard to see how tax breaks could encourage that, other than by making McVities a luxury item.
 
#18
[quote="Chuffit]
Wait a minnit! 'Scuse me!
Me and Ms Chuffit chose not to be married because we're not into that Christian (Or Anyone-elsian) shizzle.
You want to discriminate against me for being a non-believer of a religion in which one of the leading players, a carpenter, gets to enjoy the ultimate carpenters irony of dying whilst nailed to a piece of wood?
It's all a bit harsh innit?[/quote]

Chuff old chap...hate to mentions this bit, but Marriage is not a religious state it is a legal state. The legal process of marriage can, if you want it to, be linked to a religious event (although not if you aren't on the list). BUT the civil ceremony specifically excludes any religious involvement...to the extreme of the registrar at my wedding insiting that they must be given 5 minutes to leave the premesis before we started the religious part of the wedding.

As for expense, which others have mentioned...I think the whole process costs about £200 and takes a total of about 3 hours, including the forms. We even had a guy at work go get married in his lunch hour at work.

S_R
 
#19
It's not a case of the missus going to the dogs it's the loss of humour and that inate ability to sap the fun out of every situation. I am thinking of nailing (not secksuarly) her to the wall in some sort of mixed up scenario from this thread!
 
#20
It's true. There can be no religious references at a civil wedding (I know this as my mum's a registrar and regularly comes home ranting about this sort of thing).
There are also a number of other benefits of being married. For instance - If I remember rightly if you were to die whilst on tour and weren't married, your 'partner' (I really hate that term) wouldn't be allowed to register your death and go down on your death certificate as the informant as they were not your spouse or present at the time of death. There are a few more factors involved but to be honest most of the time I switch off when she starts ranting...
IMHO, marriage isn't about religion, it's about a man and a woman (not two blokes or women - thats a civil partnership and although a great commitment in itself, not a marriage) making a commitment to each other, something which seems to have been cheapened these days by a government who is more concerned with not upsetting the minority. If for whatever reason you don't want to get married thats your call, but I personally feel that there should be tax breaks available to people who have made the commitment to enter into a marriage or civil partnership.

PuD!
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top