Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

peterg1965

ukcarper wrote: »

When was the old marriage tax allowance scraped

It was eroded by successive Tory Chancellors if my memory serves. Finally done away with by good ol' Gordo.

mitchaa

peterg1965 wrote: »

It is in the interests of the State to support marriage. I think you will find that statistical evidence supports the fact that children bought up in a stable environment, with Mother and Father in the home are more likely to succeed in life.

Got it in 1.

Lube

Get plastic surgery and or go to Thailand and get a Thai bride

WhiteThierry wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8463907.stm


any policy of tax incentives for marriage in my opinion are bordering on racism and definately decriminatory because if you are not married for whatever reason it clearly puts you at a disadvantage.


im too ugly to find a wife, and now the government is discriminating against me for it, cheers for kicking a man when he's down! :mad:

zedyy

Marriage is an institution that the government should be investing in.

mitchaa

Only the underclasses vote for labour.

Mr.Brown_4

What worries me is whether this will affect lesbian couples. My local Blockbuster is running a series of films on this subject and I would very much like to see all of them.

bo_drinker

zedyy wrote: »

Marriage is an institution that the government should be investing in.

But who wants to live in an institution ??? An oldie and still not very good.:o

sjaypink

peterg1965 wrote: »

It is in the interests of the State to support marriage. I think you will find that statistical evidence supports the fact that children bought up in a stable environment, with Mother and Father in the home are more likely to succeed in life.

Yes, with my point being- how does this necessarily equate to marriage? Would it not be more beneficial to incentivise couples who stay together, rather than automatically suppose the most 'successful' parents will be those who have married?

Always useful to remember also- particularly whilst discussing human behaviour- that there are lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say.

Mr.Knightley wrote: »

At present people are often financially better off claiming to be single, than married or with partner. This is a financial incentive for people to stay single, while punishing people that don't. We would be better with an equal playing field where people are no better off single.

The church do a lot of good work, best not 'start' on them sjay.

And again, I don't disagree, but the point you are making here is referring to couples - v- singles, which is not the proposal, it is the distinction between married and co-hab that I dislike.

As for the church, agree also. I help out at my local churches events regularly, although I am atheist. It is the 'community' and compassion that is important, not the motivation behind those values, that is what I meant

....Just like I believe it is the love and quality of the parenting which will shape the future generations, not whether it has been delivered by people of the statistically approved age/ status/ class / wealth etc

sjaypink

mitchaa wrote: »

Only the underclasses vote for labour.

What a valuable contribution to the debate mitchaa.
:rolleyes:

peterg1965

sjaypink wrote: »

What a valuable contribution to the debate mitchaa.
:rolleyes:

Maybe not valuable, but the truth always hurts!