Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

mitchaa

LibbyR26 wrote: »

Perfect example proves my point: single person puts out 1 bag of rubbish, families in my street generally put out far more than that. The costs of emptying the larger household's bins eg landfill site, transport and manpower costs, will be greater because of the greater volume of rubbish. So I am subsidising them

How can you be if they are paying 100% 100% is 100%

Surely you are subsidising those who do not pay council tax?

Strangely enough my next door neighbour is single, I am in a family of 3. My bin is exactly the same size as hers and granted I probablly will fill mine to the top in comparison to hers at probably half full but it takes the exact same amount of time for the binman to haul hers over to the lorry and empty it as it does mine. So there is no extra work required in picking it up. Exactly the same when dropping it off and emptying the thing into a landfill, the truck just gets emptied in 1 and its then mashed into the ground.

If I am on holiday for 2wks and she is not, my bin will be completely empty in comparison to hers that is half full.

Its a silly argument, you are not subsidising anyone that is paying 100% of their council tax bill. I would argue that couples are subsidising you as you are getting your bin emptied at a reduced rate.

ukcarper

macaque wrote: »

It is perhaps a reflection of how deeply political correctness has contaminated our national psyche that someone can concoct a response like the one above.

No one is forcing anyone to get married or even telling them to for that matter. Giving couples a small tax incentive to stay married is a sensible and pragmatic thing to do. It benefits children, society and the tax payer.

So you really think a small tax incentive is enough to stop someone getting divorced

mitchaa

This plan is just the sharing of a non working personal allowance isn't it?

It's hardly going to be beneficial to families that already have 2 persons working.

I take it the £6475 is doubled to £12,950 and then 20%(31%) tax between £12,950 and £43,875 followed by 40% (41%) tax thereafter.

Assuming NI exempt too...

31% of £6475 is an extra £2007pa or £167pm

mitchaa

ukcarper wrote: »

So you really think a small tax incentive is enough to stop someone getting divorced

£167pm may push long term partners into getting married

I'd rather have it than not

esuhl

macaque wrote: »

No one is forcing anyone to get married or even telling them to for that matter. Giving couples a small tax incentive to stay married is a sensible and pragmatic thing to do. It benefits children, society and the tax payer.

It could only be a pragmatic solution if the small tax incentive persuaded people to stay married, AND if such a marriage that was held together purely for the purposes of taxation was beneficial for children.

Do you really think that people decide to get married for the tax break? And do you think that individuals who want to separate but remain married for tax reasons would provide the same support to their children as a couple who wanted to keep the marriage going regardless?

This is simply a ludicrous argument.

Fewer marriages last these days because of greater social mobility, and because their is less of a taboo about being divorced.

Maybe we should parade divorcees through the streets, throwing rotten tomatoes at them. That might persuade married couples to stay together.

Spartacus_Mills

crank_girl wrote: »

We did alright without marriage pre-Roman invasion. Handfasting ruled the day.

When I have been single I, too, have appreciated handfasting.

ukcarper

mitchaa wrote: »

£167pm may push long term partners into getting married

I'd rather have it than not

Do you really want them marrying you for money?

mitchaa

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really want them marrying you for money?

My wife already has;)

I was just stating that if they want to be approx £167pm better off then a quick wedding with a witness present is all that would be stopping long term partners from being able to benefit from this (Assuming only 1 person working in the first place)

Like I said, I'd rather have it, than not have it. Long term partners are as good as married anyway, they just dont have the piece of paper stating that they are.

ukcarper

To be serious the main problem with under achieving and delinquent children is not with the middle and the responsible working classes, which is where the bulk of the money would go. So the 4 billion or whatever it is would have little effect on the real problem.

ukcarper

mitchaa wrote: »

My wife already has;)

I was just stating that if they want to be approx £167pm better off then a quick wedding with a witness present is all that would be stopping long term partners from being able to benefit from this (Assuming only 1 person working in the first place)

Like I said, I'd rather have it, than not have it. Long term partners are as good as married anyway, they just dont have the piece of paper stating that they are.

I agree with all of that but could the money be better spent