Should We Give Incentives to Stay Married With Tax Reform?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Horridlittleman, Jul 10, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.

    - And of course Labour has never discriminated against anybody!
  2. 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)!

  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. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    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. 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.

    LOL. Mrs HLM would only use it to buy shoes!
  6. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    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. 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. 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?
  9. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    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. But you can have a Civil Marriage with no mention of which imaginary friend you follow.
  11. 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. 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.