Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

mitchaa

LibbyR26 wrote: »

As a single girl, working full time, living on my own with no children. and has never claimed beneifts I would love to know how I could be better off financially being single than as part of a couple.

I presently subsidise couples through my Council Tax. I pay 75% of the full cost even though I use alot less of the facilities that 2 adults or those with children.

The cost to heat my home is the same whether one person or two people live in it. Even at the supermarket the bogoff offers on perishable goods are aimed at couples. Although I am capable at DIY I find myself paying out more to tradesmen than married friends, simply because there are certain jobs that a petite 5ft girl can't physically do.

Sorry to moan, but I just get a bit sick of the presumption that single life is cheaper. As for the Tory plan, I find it really insulting and it shows, as usual, how out of touch they are.

Maybe they have match.com signed up as a sponsor.

Your single life is cheaper though, you only have to pay 75% of your council tax bill where as a couple have to pay 100%. Your bin costs exactly the same amount of money to empty as a couples bin so why should you get a 25% discount?

Then we can go onto those on benefits who get their bins emptied for nothing.

But as original, surely couples are subsidising you, as you only pay council tax at a rate of 3/4 to what they pay even though costs are fixed for the same services.

No??

Spartacus_Mills

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:

My opinion is that anyone who thinks a policy of supporting marriage is virtually racism is a complete idiot and should not be allowed to vote.

Marriage used to be supported through the tax system. It was phased out.

Why should the tax system give money to people for simply popping a kid or two out for instance, or for not having a job for example.

I don't have kids. Why should I be at a disadvantage because of someone else choosing to have them. It is monstrously unfair however I do not get bent out of shape about it.

Spartacus_Mills

mitchaa wrote: »

Your single life is cheaper though, you only have to pay 75% of your council tax bill where as a couple have to pay 100%. Your bin costs exactly the same amount of money to empty as a couples bin so why should you get a 25% discount?

Then we can go onto those on benefits who get their bins emptied for nothing.

But as original, surely couples are subsidising you, as you only pay council tax at a rate of 3/4 to what they pay even though costs are fixed for the same services.

No??

Because as a single person you would consume less and therefore throwaway less. Therefore landfill and disposal costs are less. You assume all costs are fixed. They are not.

Single life is hardly cheaper and you have only one income coming in whereas many couples have two incomes to live off.

Single people should get a 50% discount on council tax.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

mitchaa wrote: »

Your single life is cheaper though, you only have to pay 75% of your council tax bill where as a couple have to pay 100%. Your bin costs exactly the same amount of money to empty as a couples bin so why should you get a 25% discount?

Then we can go onto those on benefits who get their bins emptied for nothing.

But as original, surely couples are subsidising you, as you only pay council tax at a rate of 3/4 to what they pay even though costs are fixed for the same services.

No??

A couple pay full Council Tax, split between them, ie 50% per person. As a single occupant I pay 75%. I create one bag of rubbish and one bag of recycling per week, costing my council considerably less to dispose of than the waste generated by two people (possibly plus kids). So what exactly am I getting for the 25% more I pay than a person who shares?

As a single taxpayer, I am also subsidising the lifestyle of those who choose to breed, although I am assured that this is creating future taxpayers who will be providing my generous state pension in my old age. They are also apparently the future of this country, although if the yowling, feral schoolkids I pass on my way to work are representative of this then I am not filled with confidence.

bo_drinker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMb8Csll9Ws

kennyboy66_2

mitchaa wrote: »

Your single life is cheaper though, you only have to pay 75% of your council tax bill where as a couple have to pay 100%. Your bin costs exactly the same amount of money to empty as a couples bin so why should you get a 25% discount?

Then we can go onto those on benefits who get their bins emptied for nothing.

But as original, surely couples are subsidising you, as you only pay council tax at a rate of 3/4 to what they pay even though costs are fixed for the same services.

No??

No.

Have a look at what council tax is actually spent on.

Waste collection is typically less than 1% of spend.

The majority of money is spent on Education, social services and housing.

Single people without kids are the group that has had more taxes imposed and less benefits (child tax credit / Working family tax credit) than most other group over the last 12 years.

It seems peverse to discriminate against them yet further.

The unspeakable truth might be that policies should be targeted towards discouraging the !!!!less, uneducated poor from having yet more kids who fail at school and then commit more crime.

mitchaa

Single council tax payers do get a 25% discount though,

Why not a 50% discount, I do not know, but 25% is better than a kick in the testicles in my books. You want a cheaper council tax bill as a singleton? Move out of your 3 bed band D and into a 1 bed band A.

macaque_2

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.

The_White_Horse

mitchaa wrote: »

Only the underclasses vote for labour.

that isn't true, there are plenty of retards that vote for them as well.

esuhl

macaque wrote: »

A tax incentive will be a small and welcome signal that marriage is a good thing.

It is simply NOT the government's business to regulate our private lives. And neither is it their duty to send out "signs" or "signals" about what they think is a virtuous life.

Otherwise, people should be legally obliged to get up at 7am and go to bed no later than 10pm, and alcohol ought to be illegal. Have you seen what happens to binge-drinking parents who stay up all night? This would be a welcome sign that that sort of behaviour is bad for the children.

Education is also important, so anyone without a degree should be chemically sterilised. This would "send out a signal" that education is important and makes for better parents. This will ensure a better life for future generations.

Orwell really could see the future...