Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

Rochdale_Pioneers

The decline of marriage over the last 50 years is one of the reasons we find ourselves where we do. Yes, many marriages in the old days hid the affairs and wife-beating that used to go on, so its by no means the perfect state of affairs.

However, kids get on better in stable families and generally that means marriage. With respect to the people in long term stable relationships who are unmarried - for you to split is much easier than a married couple.

Does that mean marriage should be supported by tax? No - what difference is an extra £20 a month going to make? Its a tax bung to people who have no real need for it. If you want to make marriage stand above other forms of relationship its not by a tax bung. Its by removing the status of pseudo-marriage. You want to adopt? Have to be married. Joint mortgage? Married. Next of kin in a will? Married.

On many social policies despite my left-leaning political compass I am a Conservative. I agree with much that Iain Duncan Smith says on this subject. I just don't agree with the solution being proffered - nice though the cash will be.

peterg1965

ukcarper wrote: »

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

I agree, how many excellent, productive, accountable Quangos could that money fund? :rolleyes:

crank_girl

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

However, kids get on better in stable families and generally that means marriage. With respect to the people in long term stable relationships who are unmarried - for you to split is much easier than a married couple.

I completely disagree. These days couples, whether married or not, are financially entangled via mortgages, loans etc. How is a divorce any more complicated than a house/car sale or remortgage?

I've been in a committed relationship for 11 years. We share responsibility for three cats and a dog, a mortgage, a shared savings account, a car, joint debt. Retaining a solicitor and signing a few bits of paper seems far less of a bind than any of those responsibilities.

And how does a stable relationship equate to marriage? I'm sure there are countless people using these forums who could attest to the damage done to children by warring parents who refuse to divorce, of which I am one.

The issue with our society as I see it is a decreasing support network for families. I don't think a child necessarily needs two parents living together to be happy. That stability can be offered by other family members but the decline of the extended family is seeing that stability eroded.

esuhl

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The decline of marriage over the last 50 years is one of the reasons we find ourselves where we do.

No - that's confusing the cause with the effect! The improvement in affluence, independence and social mobility is responsible for the decline in marriage! :rolleyes:

Unless you want an increase in poverty and a reduction in freedom, the diminishing rate of marriages is an indication of a more prosperous society.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

...kids get on better in stable families and generally that means marriage.

A couple in a stable relationship are more likely to be married. Surely this is common sense! It does not infer that marriage is the cause of the stable relationship!

kennyboy66_2

macaque wrote: »

I cannot agree with the OP.

A tax incentive for married couples will not be a life changing amount and would be a small fraction of the state benefits allocated to unmarried teenage girls. A tax incentive will be a small and welcome signal that marriage is a good thing. The biggest benficiaries will be children. The second biggest beneficiary will the tax payer in terms of reduced costs for police, NHS, benefits and social services.

Ed Balls has used the term 'social engineering'. There is nothing new about using taxes to encourage behaviour that serves the common good. Governments of all flavour have been using taxes to curtail cigarettes, alcohol and high petrol consumption for years.

Perhaps Ed Balls' might also reflect on Labour's own record on social engineering. Micro managment of schools by government comes to mind.

You miss the point as usual. Stable marriages and children being brought up by 2 parents is undoubtedly a 'good thing' in general.

This proposed tax brake is however, hopelessly un-focussed. The people who will gain the most will be the wealthiest (see also inheritance tax), unless of course it is means tested or limited by income.

God help us if the best argument that people can come up with is "single parents get benefits, why can't I have my share".
Labour really will be able to claim credit if this extends the welfare state yet further.

Married couples with children already get, universal and means tested benefits like;

1) Child benefit £1k per year per first child.
2) Tax credits if earning less than £60k
3) Tax benefits on childcare if their employer operates a scheme
4) Childcare vouchers worth £1300 per year for kids aged 3-5 (even if their 4 year old is at a private school.

Yet still the special pleading is "please Sir, can I have some more".

If the Tory party had any gumption, they would be looking to roll the state involvement back and let people get on with their lives and not be beholden to the Daily Mail (wait till they realise that this tax credit will also go to migrant workers from Europe whose wife and kids have remained in their home country!).

Instead they seem determined to follow Gordon Browns lead and dole small bags of sweeties to whichever their favourites groups are at the time.

Perhaps we truly get the politicians we deserve.

ukcarper

peterg1965 wrote: »

I agree, how many excellent, productive, accountable Quangos could that money fund? :rolleyes:

who said qaungos you could use it to pay down the dept

peterg1965

ukcarper wrote: »

who said qaungos you could use it to pay down the dept

Irony..... :rolleyes:

macaque_2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

You miss the point as usual. Stable marriages and children being brought up by 2 parents is undoubtedly a 'good thing' in general.

This proposed tax brake is however, hopelessly un-focussed. The people who will gain the most will be the wealthiest (see also inheritance tax), unless of course it is means tested or limited by income.

God help us if the best argument that people can come up with is "single parents get benefits, why can't I have my share".
Labour really will be able to claim credit if this extends the welfare state yet further.

Married couples with children already get, universal and means tested benefits like;

1) Child benefit £1k per year per first child.
2) Tax credits if earning less than £60k
3) Tax benefits on childcare if their employer operates a scheme
4) Childcare vouchers worth £1300 per year for kids aged 3-5 (even if their 4 year old is at a private school.

Yet still the special pleading is "please Sir, can I have some more".

If the Tory party had any gumption, they would be looking to roll the state involvement back and let people get on with their lives and not be beholden to the Daily Mail (wait till they realise that this tax credit will also go to migrant workers from Europe whose wife and kids have remained in their home country!).

Instead they seem determined to follow Gordon Browns lead and dole small bags of sweeties to whichever their favourites groups are at the time.

Perhaps we truly get the politicians we deserve.

We appear to agree on the principle that marriage is a good institution (its good that we can agree on that).


Your point about the tax break being un-focussed is not exactly what other contributers (or Ed Balls) are complaining about. Their concern is that such a measure qualifies as 'social engineering'. My response to that is:

• This would be a modest incentive which carries no hint of compulsion.
• It serves the good interest of children and society.

If people want to find real social engineering, they need look no further than Labour's management of education.

Your comment about wealthy parents is valid. Like any other tax scheme however there is nothing to say that the tax break should be universal.
As it is, my impression is that the problems of single parents is a much bigger issue for the less well off. The current tax/benefits system is dreadful as it actually encourages couples to live apart (or lie about living apart).

treliac

Jonbvn wrote: »

My vote for condescending post of the week. What exactly are these instincts? Failure to keep you d*ck in your pants?

Thanks Jon!

Someone who says they have no interest or wish to have children presumably is not driven by an understanding of the instinctive maternal or paternal need to give birth to new life and to make the love and protection of their children their highest priority in life.

Simple really. Can't see where condescending comes into it.

sjaypink

mitchaa wrote: »

A labour voter then;)

Wouldn't want to confuse you mitch, so I'll smile & nod politely