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

The_White_Horse

wxmlad wrote: »

Thought so

You thought I was the White Horse? You'd be correct.

movingforward2010

Empty vessels make the most noise..............

lostinrates

re religion and marriage: DH and I (different religions of birth) have a registery office wedding. It was very non-religious feeling - I can't rememeber if God was mentioned though, it certainly felt no more religious than swearing to tell the truth in court..for which there is a godless option, so if God were referred to it would have been fairly fleetingly I guess. The big issue was signing the book. The rest took moments really.

In reality anyone ignoring this as a legal but not religious solution might be misguided (or using it as avoidance for something else, lol). The legal aspect of the marriage was what we wanted: we felt any sprititual aspect (and for us there is that aspect) had been dealt with privately between us before that, long before that.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The rational solution would be for the state to only recognise civil partnerships, and keep the religious aspects of marriage to religious authorities. AIUI, non-Christian marriages need a separate legal registry office ceremony. Why not the same for any marriage? That would remove religious preference from the legal issue, which would be good thing in a free society IMO.

Yeah, I agree. What's religion got to do with it?

carolt

Pennywise wrote: »

I think a potentially good topic has been side tracked by the marriage versus non marriage argument. Can we get back to the original topic?

For tax purposes, "marriage" has the same status as civil partnerships, so any objection of grounds of religion or cost of marriage is irrelevant here as any proposed transferrable marriage tax allowance would legally have to extend to all civil partnerships including same sex couples.

I would have thought that some form of "contract" i.e. either marriage or civil partnership was desirable for people living together and committed to eachother anyway - i.e. formalisation of next of kin, inheritances, ownership of property, etc., especially where children are concerned. Perhaps a transferrable tax allowance would be an incentive for people in informal long term relationships to formalise either by marriage or civil partnership?

The transferrable tax allowance is a brilliant idea, especially if extended to tax bands as well. It is completely absurd that a household where one person works and earns £70k per year pays more tax than a household where two people work both earning £35k. It's obvious that this is wrong and needs to be addressed. I worry that bringing rational debate on this point down to the marriage versus non marriage argument devalues the whole topic and makes us lose sight of the basic stupidity of the existing position.

How about transferrable tax allowances for people living together regardless of marital status?

Agree totally. Ignoring all the obvious trolling, the point is a good one.

There are currently huge financial incentives (a) not to stay with the father of one's children at all, or lie about it, if unemployed or a low earner, as the state will provide far better, and (b) for all mothers of young children to go back to work asap, and pay someone else to look after their children. It would be laughable if it weren't so very, very sad, that two mothers, if both registered as childminders, can be paid by the state to look after each others' children, but receive precisely zero to look after their own children.

As a parent of young children, this is just so WRONG!! In happy, successful countries like Scandinavia, all mothers are entitled and funded to stay with their children till they're 2, when an excellent state nursery system kicks in.

In the long-term, money 'saved' by not paying mothers to stay at home with their young children is not really a saving at all, as it costs far more in later intervention, crime figures, health figures, family breakdoqwn, mental health etc.

NB Should add I've used 'mother' here as shorthand for 'the lower earning parent who wants to stay at home with their kid' - for biological and social reasons, this is usually the mother, but I see no reason why the father shouldn't be able to opt to be the main parent at home whilst children are tiny.

Obviously, putting babies in nursery may be the right option for some, but for those who would rather look after their children themselves, the economic and social benefits of that work should be recognised.

baileysbattlebus

lostinrates wrote: »

re religion and marriage: DH and I (different religions of birth) have a registery office wedding. It was very non-religious feeling - I can't rememeber if God was mentioned though, it certainly felt no more religious than swearing to tell the truth in court..for which there is a godless option, so if God were referred to it would have been fairly fleetingly I guess. The big issue was signing the book. The rest took moments really.

In reality anyone ignoring this as a legal but not religious solution might be misguided (or using it as avoidance for something else, lol). The legal aspect of the marriage was what we wanted: we felt any sprititual aspect (and for us there is that aspect) had been dealt with privately between us before that, long before that.

You are absolutely right - we were married in a registry office - we are not religious - we just wanted to be married - legally

I agree wholeheartedly regarding the legal issue - the differences in law between cohabiting and married couples is immense. From housing rights to inheritance and inheritance tax - from financial support to giving evidence - from pensions to next of kin. There is a big difference in a lot of things if you are married.

And I suppose unless the law is changed there always will be - unlikely under the next gov't I would have thought.

I know people say there is no difference - it's just a bit of paper - but it's bit of paper that can make all the difference.

mewbie_2

As my wife is Islamist and I am Falun Gong we had a tricky wedding. Got married in Bali (as you do) and had to fly everything in, including an imam and a top Falun. First time I've seen my mum eating halal meat with chopsticks. The traditional punch up between relatives was a mixture of extreme violence and peaceful protest. But we got our piece of paper, and now my wife has been able to get a library card.

Peelerfart

mewbie wrote: »

As my wife is Islamist and I am Falun Gong we had a tricky wedding. Got married in Bali (as you do) and had to fly everything in, including an imam and a top Falun. First time I've seen my mum eating halal meat with chopsticks. The traditional punch up between relatives was a mixture of extreme violence and peaceful protest. But we got our piece of paper, and now my wife has been able to get a library card.

So there you go proof positive that the White Horse is right !

We all agreed ?, can we go to bed now ?

PasturesNew

What did used to annoy me was when the married man got an extra allowance. So both working, both get the basic tax free bit AND an extra bit, just for being married.

As a single person it's expensive to live and these people would be sharing costs AND getting an extra bit just because they were married (we're not talking about having kids here, just for being married). That was wrong.

Maybe we should have a spinster's tax allowance, get double because you weren't wanted.

PasturesNew

I'd want to be married. I'd feel a bit dirty just shacking up with somebody. A little grubby and ashamed.

But I was brought up in the 70s, pregnant girls "disappeared" to aunts, babies were taken away at birth and the girl would reappear after the event and it was never spoken of again. Some just suddenly had another "sister" and their mother brought their kid up as their young baby sister and the girl moved on with her life. And the few people in their 20s that did live together, weren't really very open about not being married.

It was all a bit "grubby".