Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There's been a lot of press in the last day or so about a new tax relief that will be available to married couples if the Conxservatives get elected (maybe not enough press as it's still a little bit sketchy).

    Surely this is more of a tax on the single rather than tax relief for the married? There are a lot of people who will choose to stay single, there will be people who have bad experiences of marriage (abuse etc.), there will be people who can't find partners who will pay more tax through no fault of their own.

    Is this fair?

    A lot of people will considre marriage to be a religious institution and surely forcing people down a religious path is illegal?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well, marriage is a civil status, not a religious one [although marriage can be consecrated legally under a religion obviously, otherwise the Daily Fail would have a field day] - however I still don't agree with what is basically forcing relationships to enter into a legal state that may not be right for them. Some couples may just want registered cohabitation - enjoying the flexibility that it brings and not having to spend a huge amount of money on a wedding. Others just plain don't want any formal recognition - love is a strong enough bind for them.

    I certainly don't think it's fair on the millions of singles and single parents to start promoting tax relief for marriage. It amounts to a bribe to partake in marriage, and discrimination against those who do not. If you're convinced to get married and stay that way because of a slight tax relief, there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

    Basically - it's not the state's right to determine how people should best formalise their unions, if at all.
    Offline

    13
    I'm going to be voting tory at the general election, but this particular proposal is bloody stupid. It appeals to the more 'traditional' types of tory who might not like the fact that Cameron backed a commitee that found that ectacy should be downgraded, or who don't appreciate the fact he defied the party whip on the issue of article 48 (by abstaining rather than supporting it.)

    You know, the types who love the 1950's nuclear family. I'm sure that on a student forum there will be a consensus that it's a crap idea though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    But they claim it's all about promoting the family but don't say anything about the need to have children. It appears you can have the tax relief even if you don't have children.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    They're basically taking the benefit money away from single mothers (Labour's policy) and giving it to the men who will marry them (because, see, a traditional family seems more wothwhile and worth the money than single mothers).

    This policy would just descend the institution of marriage to another level of low. To be honest, married couples tend to be richer than singles, because they usually have a double income, so if anything, it's the single people who need the financial help (especially those with children), not the married people.

    This policy could also be some sort of disgusting attempt at manipulating society.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Bribing people to marry isn't the answer.
    It's a desperate way to try and bring back the traditional values from my grandparents generation and before.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.