We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The best policy the Tories could introduce is a proper married couples allowance
Comments
-
robin_banks wrote: »You some kind of socialist ?
i help them to understand they are less fortunate than me.
wash your mouth out with soap and water.0 -
How are people less fortunate than you?.
Not blessed with your in-depth insight perhaps?."An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".
!!!!!! is all that about?0 -
Peelerfart wrote: »But surely Sir Humphrey the decision to marry or not isn't going to be swayed by a tax code.
but it is.
lets say you have two committed couples of 5 years with a baby and a home. one is married, one is not. if the govt say tomorrow "we are introducing a scheme whereby the working partner and use the non-working partners tax free allowance whilst the non-working partner is looking after a child" then the non-married couple would have to think long and hard why they are not married.
it may well persaud the sensible ones to get married. if the others don't want the tax saving, no one is forcing them to marry.0 -
robin_banks wrote: »How are people less fortunate than you?.
Not blessed with your in-depth insight perhaps?.
exactly. in exactly that way.0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »but it is.
lets say you have two committed couples of 5 years with a baby and a home. one is married, one is not. if the govt say tomorrow "we are introducing a scheme whereby the working partner and use the non-working partners tax free allowance whilst the non-working partner is looking after a child" then the non-married couple would have to think long and hard why they are not married.
it may well persaud the sensible ones to get married. if the others don't want the tax saving, no one is forcing them to marry.
But it's not a sensible policy in the first place. Your argument is based on a false assumption."An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".
!!!!!! is all that about?0 -
At the risk of encouraging the OP (who has obviously been at the liniment - anybody remember White Horse Oils, which was a popular remedy for sprains back in the day ??) He did have a valid point about marriage, or at least committed relationships being good for children and society as a whole, and the fact that they should be rewarded in some way, when so often these days, it seems it pays to be selfish. Its just a shame he has to express his views in such an agressive way.
True you do not have to get married to have a stable relationship - and it is also true, that 100% of divorces begin with marriageso other posters have made the valid point that those who stay together, would probably have done so, married or not. However it is still true that marriage does confer certain legal advantages as regards next of kin/inheritance issues - and if you have had the time, and good sense, to write a will, you can sort these issues out in a cohabiting relationship as well.
However from what I have seen the inherent nature of cohabiting relationships seems to be 'one eye on the exit route'. It was certainly the case from my perspective. Hence when we bought our house (as an unmarried couple) we bought as tenants in common, so if the worst came to the worst, we could each take our interest in the house and go our separate ways. Other posters on this thread are obviously more committed cohabitees than we were at that stage in our relationship. If you are prepared to wait, to save up for the special day you both want, this seems to me to be proof of commitment. Certainly more sensible than getting into debt for the sake of a big bash and then the inevitable strains busting you apart!
Maybe there should be a 'loyalty bonus' for committed couples, whether in a legally recognised relationship or not. After all, as wageslave said:-Tax breaks? I think people who get married, and more importantly stay married, deserve a medal never mind an extra couple of hundred quid.
Successful relationships require so much effort. I honestly admire anyone who doesn't give up from sheer bliddy exhaustion.SMILE....they will wonder what you are up to...........;)0 -
WhiteThierry wrote: »biggest load of twaddle ive read on here, and thats saying something!!!
why do some idiots think a signing a bit of paper(marriage) suddenly makes you a better parent. Marriage is an out dated institution that people only do because its the "done" thing and it should have been phased out years ago. If marriage didn't exist would it be invented??? i doubt it.
why is it acceptable to run down the instituition of marriage, yet no-one is allowed to have an unfavourable of opinion of unmarried couples? Touchy subject maybe?0 -
why is it acceptable to run down the instituition of marriage, yet no-one is allowed to have an unfavourable of opinion of unmarried couples? Touchy subject maybe?
It's a personal choice, but the OP states that any tax benefit should only be conferred to those that are married without really explaining why a married couple are more 'commited' than an unmarried couple."An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".
!!!!!! is all that about?0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »this thread is ridiculous. there is no argument to be had. .
No your ridiculous stating that unmarried couples shouldn't have the same tax rights as married couples:rolleyes:
You keep spouting on about if your partner doesn't want to get married its because they don't love you or have commtment issues. But from what your saying the only 'incentive' to getting married would be for money. 'get married and you can earn more money'
People have choices, if they don't want to get married they don't have to, I don't see why it would make them; bad parents, commitment phobes or the reason why society is in a 'mess'.
I mean !!!!!! you on about?0 -
robin_banks wrote: »It's a personal choice, but the OP states that any tax benefit should only be conferred to those that are married without really explaining why a married couple are more 'commited' than an unmarried couple.
Its entirely possible in an unmarried situation one partner or other does not want the other partner to have the legal ''benefits'' of marriage (next of kin, inheritance whatever). Not most couples I would imagine though.
I understand entirely the lack of want for a religuious thing, but a legal recognition of marriage is perhaps a result of that discussion about formal/public commitment. I absolutely agree that buying a home and having children are significantly more responsible, demonstrable life choices: but similarly see how those things are supported by official recognition of commitment. (e.g. ease of apportioning non-financial contribution to childrearing on any breakdown, or taxation or benfit in/eligablity).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards