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

pawpurrs

I think its actually a good idea to let a non working partner, allow their partner their tax allowance, but I dont think they should either have to be married, or have children.

boyse7en

Something I was thinking of last night as I was going to sleep (so it might not make much sense, but then internet forums were made for half-baked theories)

I'm not married, but co-habiting. My partner could theoretically leave at any time to go off with someone else. Therefore, do I work harder at making our relationship work than I would if we were married? If we were married, would I feel that she is less likely to leave, and therefore I don't have to make as much effort?

Like I said, it is just a theory.


Why not allow the non-working partner's tax allowance to go to the working partners? At the moment, I'm paying tax, then have to go through a bureaucratic maze to get some back as tax credits.
The major problem is that it would benefit higher tax rate payers more than the lower rate payers - and that would not be politically popular.

StevieJ

prowla wrote: »

The Labour government we've had for the past decade has been so anti-family that anything will be an improvement.
(It's a wonder they haven't brought in a 3rd child stealth tax!)

Anti family! with all those tax credits :eek:

pawpurrs

StevieJ wrote: »

Anti family! with all those tax credits :eek:

Presicisly what I was thinking, drop a sprog or two and sudenley your entiltiled to the earth :rolleyes:

JayScottGreenspan

boyse7en wrote: »

Why not allow the non-working partner's tax allowance to go to the working partners? At the moment, I'm paying tax, then have to go through a bureaucratic maze to get some back as tax credits.
The major problem is that it would benefit higher tax rate payers more than the lower rate payers - and that would not be politically popular.

I guess they could do it as follows:
You can use your partner's tax free allowance to shift up where the basic rate kicks in for you, but the point at which top rate kicks in remains unchanged. That way everyone gets the benefit at basic rate.

And I think you may be implying that this could replace at least part of the tax credits system - in which case I agree unreservedly.

movingforward2010

How old are you White Horse?

fedupfreda

boyse7en wrote: »

I'm not married, but co-habiting. My partner could theoretically leave at any time to go off with someone else. Therefore, do I work harder at making our relationship work than I would if we were married? If we were married, would I feel that she is less likely to leave, and therefore I don't have to make as much effort?

Actually in my experience being married makes you think twice about splitting it up, keeps you going through the bad times. (Apologies in advance for the long story which follows)

In my own case me and my Husband lived together for 4 years before getting married and there was always this impression (in the back of my mind, at least, can't speak for OH) that if I felt like it, I could just walk out, there were no children, we could sell the house and divide the proceeds, there would be no pain.

However when my biological clock started ticking it felt 'right' to be married. Because we could not afford a great deal, we slipped away quietly and had a register office wedding with 2 passers by acting as witnesses. There was no flash reception, car or honeymoon. I got some flowers from a market stall on the day and had made my own dress. It was memorable for the right reasons because it was our day, not hijacked by parent's expectations, having to invite a load of people we couldn't stand because of family obligations etc. Ok there was a lot of carp to put up with from his family when we got home - but my family's view was 'it was what we did anyway, its your life'.

2 years later we started a family, and with the inevitable strains, cracks started to appear at the seams. More than once one or the other walked out. However we always came back that same night - because we had that commitment. And after a few hours away from the 'coalface', as it were, we were able to talk things out.

At any time in the past we could have decided to break it all up but the effort and expense (not to mention the pain to the children) was just not worth it. We see a lot of neighbours who co-habit, the blokes just decide to up and leave because 'the state will look after the kids, innit'. And the woman sees no reason to keep a bloke when she can rely on the state to support her. The slightest problem, and they're off.

Before anyone sees red, let me explain that I DO NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone in an abusive/violent relationship to tolerate it just for the sake of finances. There should still be support for such circumstances. But it seems to me there are too many people who think that the state has absolved them from all personal responsibility. All too many seem to think their 'right' to personal happiness counts above all else - the feelings of the partner and children are cast aside. Marriage is worth it because it makes you think twice about the implications before you break it up.

BTW - this is just my personal opinion

movingforward2010

Would this extend to civil partnerships for gay men and women or just straight couples getting married White Horse?

Lotus-eater

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I am not saying people have to get married. they can live together all they like - I am not religious in the slightest - but they should not get the same rights as those that are married.

If they want those rights, get married. there is no reason not to - other than commitment issues as I keep saying.

I don't see why in the slightest why married people should have more rights than non married.
Who wants us to be married? The church, the people who know "what is right for us" and sometimes the state. We can ignore the church, because if you are religious, you are going to get married anyway.

The people who know what is right for us (ie people like you) think you know how we all should live, you project your personal worries and inadequacies on the rest of us.

Well here is a newsflash sunshine, nobody needs to get married, if you need to get married to stay together, then something is wrong with the relationship.
I'm sure many people get married because of social pressure, not helped by people like you.

I don't care or judge if anyone is married or not, I would like to have the same openmindedness from everyone else as well. But I certainly don't expect it, as idiots like you show very clearly.

I suspect you are going to answer "I presume you're not married then " and no I'm not, I don't have commitment problems, have kids and the only reason I would want to marry is because of social pressure on them.


I still don't get it, you aren't religious, yet you still want people to get married..... why?
Either you are a troll, a small minded bigot, or you think you know better than anyone else, therefore your way must be right.

What would happen if you lived in the middle of the amazon, would you still need desperately to get married then?
Civilization is just a thick layer on human life, get back to basics and see what really matters.

movilogo

A major reason behind fast growth of many Asian economies, is their traditional family life, which the western society lack very much nowadays.

History taught us a strong social bonding and family is good for a prosperous country.

Current state of Britain has many things to do with broken family lives.

Not having money for marriage is a lame excuse! Same people spend thousands in holidays, flasy cars, night outs etc etc. People just don't want commitments.

Yes, a marriage certificate is not just a piece of paper - but a commitment, that's why many still fear it.