The best policy the Tories could introduce is a proper married couples allowance

The_White_Horse

cut all the benefits and let the working partner use the non-working partners tax allowance.

yes, it discriminates against non married couples - GOOD.

Idiophreak

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yes, it discriminates against non married couples - GOOD.

Why's that good, exactly?

Sir_Humphrey

Idiophreak wrote: »

Why's that good, exactly?

It's good because he likes it.

Presumably next he will be proposing policies such as banning beards because he thinks they're ugly. :rolleyes: At least with the internet these loons can foam online without actually trying to take power.

lemonjelly

The_White_Horse
MoneySaving Stalwart


Join Date: Dec 2008
Post Count: 366
Thanked 671 Times in 233 Posts



aka

The_White_Horse

because the breakdown of the family is part of the problem in this country. mothers forced to work because the family can't cope on one salary is bad for the children.

let children grow up (at least until full time school age) with their mother at home.

Idiophreak

The_White_Horse wrote: »

because the breakdown of the family is part of the problem in this country. mothers forced to work because the family can't cope on one salary is bad for the children.

let children grow up (at least until full time school age) with their mother at home.

Right....and being married has *what* to do with that, exactly?

Graham_Devon

The_White_Horse wrote: »

cut all the benefits and let the working partner use the non-working partners tax allowance.

yes, it discriminates against non married couples - GOOD.

I agree with the usage of the non working partners tax allowance.

But you ruined your post with the rest of the guff.

Really2

It would be a good substitute working tax credits etc.

I Don't think it is odd that their is an incentive to raise children in a stable family environment.

I eared the other day it was not financially beneficial for young mums to be with their partners.
That is surely not good for society surely?

Were we a happier society when marriages lasted longer?

Lunary

I'm not married but I have a one year old son. I live with my partner, who is my son's father. He works, as he earns the most, I stay at home and take care of my son. This policy you propose would benefit us if I was able to give my unused allowances to my partner. I'm just wondering why it is that I should have to be married in order to qualify. I mean, this is a money saving website, just think of how much money couples can save if they don't get married. Even the cheapest of weddings require a marriage licence, and that is ignoring the fact that the majority of people pay £10k to £15k on their special day.

Jennifer_Jane

Although I've never been married, I do think that bringing back a benefit for married people is a good thing for society in general. I find it both heartbreaking and irritating when people talk of how they've been left impoverished by a partner who has died or run off when, if they had been married, they would be in a stronger position.

In general, however, I think I would prefer less tinkering with society by the Government rather than more.

Lemonjelly - I'm interested to know why you are comparing The White Horse with a mad mass-murderer?

Sir_Humphrey

It's odd, when lefties propose these sorts of policies, they are accused of "social engineering".

Shome mistake shurely?