'Should married couples get a tax break?' poll discussion

WelshGandalf

Here's the Tories' latest soundbites on family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8451861.stm

I think most of what they say is good, as long as "intervening" doesn't go too far. For sure I think there should be more help available (and publicised) for those who need it.

Wendle

I'd rather the money were given to families so that one parent could stay at home and look after their children full time if that's is what they choose to do. I have girl friends who would dearly love to stay at home with their small children and just don't have that option because stretched finances won't allow it.

teddyco

I think the best solution is to lower taxes and cut public spending. Giving benefits to one group over another always causes fighting.

Bobl

Wendle wrote: »

I'd rather the money were given to families so that one parent could stay at home and look after their children full time if that's is what they choose to do. I have girl friends who would dearly love to stay at home with their small children and just don't have that option because stretched finances won't allow it.

And that's the taxpayers problem because?

People choose to have children! If you can't afford them, don't have them!

Stop all tax breaks, just get everyone to pay the relevant level of tax and use it to pay for services.

Paul_Herring

Wendle wrote: »

I'd rather the money were given to families so that one parent could stay at home and look after their children full time if that's is what they choose to do.

Once again, this is what child benefit and WTC are for. :rolleyes:

Gavin83

harryhound wrote: »

As long as they don't expect the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of their self centred choice.

Yes I can quite agree. Unfortunately we live in a society where people are allowed to be propped up by others.

I don't think your relationship status makes a difference to how productive you are to society though, besides the fact that children are needed to secure the future of the nation. Even then I don't think marriage specifically makes a difference and people are already rewarded for having sprogs. I don't necessarily agree with this but it is the right decision to keep the country moving.

jrawle wrote: »

Because they are being financially rewarded for good luck, as if having a much happier life wasn't already reward enough.

Something tells me your a little bitter. You can't get angry with people just because they're in a happy relationship. Living in a partnership is always going to be cheaper than living alone but you don't have to be in a relationship to gain the benefits of this, just live with a friend.

zygurat789 wrote: »

Absolutely not.
Don't be a spoilt selfish brat and think.
Your lifestyle choices may seriously affect others. We all have to live within a society the laws which govern that society are made by an elected body. You have to abide by them or suffer anarchy.

Wow, what a pointless post.

This really isn't a discussion based on laws. Naturally people have to stick by the laws when making their lifestyle choices so it isn't even a factor in this discussion so I'd appreciate it if you could stay on topic and drop the aggression.

It isn't against the law to remain unmarried. As long as people stick within the laws they are entitled to make whatever lifestyle choices they wish. Thats the beauty of living in a democracy and frankly it isn't your place or mine to make judgements on this as long as they are a contributing member of society.

PasturesNew

As a single person I used to be annoyed that couples would get an extra tax free amount just for being married. As I saw it, they already had two incomes, two lots of tax free amounts on their household income and their living costs (each) were less than mine.

kags

It would have been interesting if the options had all been repeated with "... and I'm married" and "... and I'm single" options.

DocBambs

El_Stevo wrote: »

Forget Oscar Wilde. Look up correlation and causation.

I'll sum it up: correlation does NOT imply causation. If there is one thing in the field of statistics you should learn it is this. It is a very important point.

He did say...

“Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.”

which does seem on the right topic (though perhaps not very helpful!)

DB

kilapot

Hmmm whats the point in having an opinion poll asking people if they believe in married couples getting a tax break and NOT asking if they are married or single?

Clearly tax has no place on marriage or civil partnerships or longterm relationships. People in these groups (and that includes me) gain already by most of them co-habiting and therefore only paying one set of utility bills, council tax and not to mention not finding that their bread and milk expires before its consumed! i.e. economies of scale.

Now I have a pension and I can nominate someone to recieve a death in service payment and that lucky sod doesn't actually get my full pension.... thats the truely unfair situation that exists they should get the full value of my pension. Regardless of whether they are my mum, my girlfriend or my postman. But hey they prey on you not actually selecting a person.