Tories' tax breaks for married couples - would it make you change your mind?

wuckfit

marklv wrote: »

A vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote. Just wait until they get in power, you'll see. There isn't much difference between the two anyway.

Apart from Labour's overwhelming determination to remove all civil liberties.

CLAPTON

tomterm8 wrote: »

So they are going to pay for a regular yearly give-away, via a one-off windfall tax... hrmph.

That sounds fiscally responsible, and not at all just a bribe to the electorate to get into office.

I'm not sure I understand you.

The bank tax has be to an ongoing tax as presumably the married couples' tax break will be ongoing.

However, once the tax on banks is established then it take very little political effort to increase it year on year for all sorts of purposes.

Now if another party did that then I'm sure at least 60 top dogs would write the times/telegraph to say it was destroying jobs/industry etc etc

As they say only Repubicans can stop wars

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

However, once the tax on banks is established then it take very little political effort to increase it year on year for all sorts of purposes.

Now if another party did that then I'm sure at least 60 top dogs would write the times/telegraph to say it was destroying jobs/industry etc etc

Do you really think banks will take the tax out of their profits? They will almost certainly pass it on to their consumers, that's why the bank tax is a pointless political stunt at best.

The best way to deal with them would be to break them up into smaller institutions, increasing competition for customers and thus quality, and eliminating 'too big to fail'.

lostinrates

It makes no difference to us practically, directly at least, so doesn't really change any personal motive behind my vote. It impacts on the coiffers, and personally I don't think its the right time to introduce a move I don't think is heinous at all. Its the timing I don't like.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Do you really think banks will take the tax out of their profits? They will almost certainly pass it on to their consumers, that's why the bank tax is a pointless political stunt at best.

The best way to deal with them would be to break them up into smaller institutions, increasing competition for customers and thus quality, and eliminating 'too big to fail'.

There was nothing in my post that make any reference as to whether or not the banks will pass the tax on or indeed my view of the matter.
any more or less than every businesses will try to pass any tax on. of course it's not always possible ... think about it.

The point is that it's not about controlling the banks but simply a tax raising policy that if done my another party would have been said to be vindictive, socialistic, anti business etc etc.

hence only republicans can stop wars

vivatifosi

whathavewedone wrote: »

No one is going to lose out despite Ed Balls' ridiculous emotive rants today about widows from soldiers who die in Afghanistan (like anyone believes Labour really give a toss about them) or battered wives who are left by their husbands.

Even more ridiculous when the government hasn't tried to amend the electoral system to allow adequate time for the votes of those putting their lives on the line to get back to the UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-of-afghanistan-troops-face-missing-election-vote-1940522.html

Regarding the actual question, it would make me marginally better off but wouldn't impact on my decision. I'd just much rather all parties told us what they are going to do to tackle the deficit rather than all this dancing around the perimeter of the issue. I'm somewhat underwhelmed by all of the campaigns thus far.

markharding557

I don't see why there needs to be any tax break when the same thing could be achieved by not paying single parents more than anyone else

ninky_2

this is a ridiculous idea of the conservatives. what point are they trying to make?

it doesn't reward commitment at all. for example, if my spouse deserts me and then remarries their bit on the side, it is the unfaithful spouse who will be rewarded whilst the abandoned one will be penalised.

many people who are married cheat but will still be rewarded by the tories tax deal.

my single friends are some of the most moral people i know.

it is a fairly meaningless sum moneywise but just the usual tory nonsense telling people how they should live their lives.

will the recently widowed also have their married tax break removed? nice.

Pete111

ninky wrote: »

just the usual tory nonsense telling people how they should live their lives.
QUOTE]

Although it's flawed, I'm for this as a statement of intent. I'm hopeful more marriage tax breaks may eventually follow as for me (and this is not a religious thing - I'm an atheist) Marriage is a good thing for individuals and society.

However I do have to chuckle a bit when Ninky gets upset about the prospective Tory government telling people 'how to live their lives'

From a supporter of one of the most social engineering obsessed govenments of modern times it does tickle me more than a little!

ninky_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Although it's flawed, I'm for this as a statement of intent. I'm hopeful more marriage tax breaks may eventually follow as for me (and this is not a religious thing - I'm an atheist) Marriage is a good thing for individuals and society.

However I do have to chuckle a bit when Ninky gets upset about the prospective Tory government telling people 'how to live their lives'

From a supporter of one of the most social engineering obsessed govenments of modern times it does tickle me more than a little!

i think nick clegg had the best response to this actually.

do you think people really get married for tax breaks? or that that is even a good reason to get married?

marriage is not of itself a good thing. good marriages are a good thing. bad marriages are hellish.

for some people being single will be the better choice.

for some people it is not a choice. they are left by their partners or their partners die. personally i don't think it is very admirable to penalise those who find themselves in that situation.

look at katie price. constantly married. yet i don't think a particularly strong role model.