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

Sir_Humphrey

Peelerfart wrote: »

But surely Sir Humphrey the decision to marry or not isn't going to be swayed by a tax code.

Yes it would influence whether you got married. However, it would not influence whether you actually loved the person.

I am arguing that the law should be neutral between marriage or cohabitation (by allowing cohabitees the choice of civil partnerships).

Lotus-eater

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this thread is ridiculous. there is no argument to be had. the institution of marriage is far better than no one being married, and having a transient society. those that claim they are committed to their partner and have a house/mortgage/kids etc cannot offer one sensible argument to not getting married other than the stupid "its only a bit of paper" - then so what, get it, if that is all it is - or they can't afford a party - which is not required to be married.

Please tell me why it is better not to be married? why is it better? i am really intrigued.

I think you've really proved not only are you a pretty nasty piece of work on this thread, but as I said before, you've projected your own worries and inadequacies on other people. Go and sort your own stuff out and stop worrying about everyone else.

I'm not going to offer a sensible reason to not get married, I can see no difference between the two, do you really think 5 mins in front of a state appointed civil servant, in a tatty registry office makes all that difference?
If it does to anyone, then good luck to them, I wish them all the luck in the world, if that's what works for them, who I am to dispute it.

I say, why do I have to be married? You say, because it's our values and if you don't, we're not going to give you and your family the same personal protection in law and we're going to financially attack you. Your children will be looked down upon and you will be spoken of in derogatory language, even though we know nothing about you.

Take away the marriage wrapping and suddenly it looks slightly like something sinister that would have happened in previous centuries.

The_White_Horse

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I think you've really proved not only are you a pretty nasty piece of work on this thread, but as I said before, you've projected your own worries and inadequacies on other people. Go and sort your own stuff out and stop worrying about everyone else.

I'm not going to offer a sensible reason to not get married, I can see no difference between the two, do you really think 5 mins in front of a state appointed civil servant, in a tatty registry office makes all that difference?
If it does to anyone, then good luck to them, I wish them all the luck in the world, if that's what works for them, who I am to dispute it.

I say, why do I have to be married? You say, because it's our values and if you don't, we're not going to give you and your family the same personal protection in law and we're going to financially attack you. Your children will be looked down upon and you will be spoken of in derogatory language, even though we know nothing about you.

Take away the marriage wrapping and suddenly it looks slightly like something that would have happened in previous centuries.

a big song and dance, but yet no reason. the reason is YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMIT to your "gorgeous" woman. You want to keep it nice and simple, so you can walk away, when she is old and haggard, and have no responsibility - only to your kids.

fair enough.

if you were truly committed, you would be married. you know your partner wants it. make her happy. do the right thing.

adouglasmhor

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you could get married to your partner in a registry office for about 50 quid. The point is, one of you or both of you, don't want to commit. that is the long and short of it. this is bad for your child and bad for society. if your child asks, when he is 6 or 7 "why aren't you and daddy married?" is your answer really that you wanted to save money on a party???

So instead people should buy into an institution invented by believers in a non existant sky fairy in the desert? Yes that sounds logical - if you are off your rocker.

Lotus-eater

The_White_Horse wrote: »

a big song and dance, but yet no reason. the reason is YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMIT to your "gorgeous" woman. You want to keep it nice and simple, so you can walk away, when she is old and haggard, and have no responsibility - only to your kids.

fair enough.

if you were truly committed, you would be married. you know your partner wants it. make her happy. do the right thing.

:rolleyes:
As usual, being the person you are, you haven't answered any questions, no debate here, just a mindless repetition where you worry about the way other people live.

You're a joke and not even worth talking to.

adouglasmhor

The_White_Horse wrote: »

another one with commitment issues...

I would assume it's only a matter of time before you are committed.

carolt

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So instead people should buy into an institution invented by believers in a non existant sky fairy in the desert? Yes that sounds logical - if you are off your rocker.

Not sure you're going to make a lot of friends with that statement either.

Clue: Replacing one kind of intolerance with another is probably not the answer?

robin_banks

The_White_Horse wrote: »

a big song and dance, but yet no reason. the reason is YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMIT to your "gorgeous" woman. You want to keep it nice and simple, so you can walk away, when she is old and haggard, and have no responsibility - only to your kids.

fair enough.

if you were truly committed, you would be married. you know your partner wants it. make her happy. do the right thing.

I've been going out with a girl, her name is Julie..........

baileysbattlebus

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.

It is a personal choice - to marry or not to marry - neither specifically means more commitment than the other.

But commitment or otherwise marriage is a legal entity - your partnership/contract is legally recognised and registered. Cohabitation is not a legally recognised entity.

Civil partnerships are roughly the same as a hetrosexual marriage - a legally recognised and registered partnership/contract.

If the gov't decide to reinstate the married couples tax allowance then I would imagine it is for couples who are married/in civil partnership.

Especially if it is a conservative gov't as David Cameron has been saying for a number of years that he would like marriage to be recognised in the tax system.

carolt

carolt wrote: »

Not sure you're going to make a lot of friends with that statement either.

Clue: Replacing one kind of intolerance with another is probably not the answer?

Oh, I'm wrong.

StevieJ and Sir Humphrey are as intolerant as you.