Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Women Waste Money



An interesting perspective on the proposed easing of the tax burden on married couples in Guardian comments is free

“Provided tax breaks for married couples are extended to people in civil partnerships, the Conservatives are right to propose them. The more interesting question is whether a financial incentive of just £20 per week will encourage people to tie the knot.
I doubt it. On this meagre incentive a couple would take 15 years to save the approximately £16,000 cost of the average British wedding”


Two points here . Why should two gay men have a tax break? What are their special responsibilities exactly eh ? I lived with my brother in a flat on the Essex Road for about five years ...yes we had a great sex life but no , not with each other. What is the difference ?They like to fornicate , we liked to play squash occasionally . Is one hobby better than the other. I `d love to know why this conspicuously well funded section of society is getting a free ride.

Secondly the ridiculous cost of wedding s is entirely the fault of women. What man really wants to spend a fortune on his “Big Day” and nowadays you can forget her lot paying.
Isn`t it time that women got over their Princess fixation and gave men a break.
So there you are ;good news for the married man ,but if you think hard enough you can still find a reason to moan about gay men and women.

Ithenku

24 comments:

Ed said...

Or why should childless married couples benefit when gay couples with children don't?

istanbultory said...

Too bloody right. They are all high maintenance. Mrs IT is fully engaged in a step-by-step conspiracy to reduce me to an old age spent on income support.
Perhaps, I live in hope that Sister Bridget (regular visitor to Mutley's and decidely low maintenance in her tastes) will accept my indecent proposal.....

Newmania said...

Its not maths Ed its tradition . It has a value that uis hard to explain but is there noenthless

Newmania said...

( PS I don`t really mind gay men getting a bit more cash . I `m sure many of them wish they could have children)

Philipa said...

All I'd want on my wedding day is to marry the man I love, in a Church, and then to consummate.

I'd quite like a nice dress and to get laid somewhere pretty and private, other than that you can keep it. In fact the last time I was making wedding arrangements it got so stupid with respective mothers adding to the list of guests it had to be the cathedral not the church and helicopters not cars and arghh, I pulled out I'm afraid. You see to me all that matters is what the bride and groom are doing - making that commitment, to each other, in church is the big thing. The rest is dressing.

I'm afraid I've never agreed with the civil partnership thing.

Ed said...

One might say that marriage is simply a contract entered into by two willing parties, in which case why does the state get involved at all? But as it does then why prevent certain types of willing parties from entering into such a contract?

N, you are saying that married couples need help to make bringing up children "work" - which is fine but it needn't apply to couples without kids because as you say they are just indulging in a hobby. In which case the simple thing would be to extend the benefits that single parents get to two-parent households.

Except that two-parent households don't need as much help because at least one of them will normally be working whereas a single mother either has to not work full time or has to farm her kids out to "carers".

You are right that the system will at the margins encourage some mothers to choose to bring up their children on their own to get the financial incentives, but how do you avoid people doing it? It's very difficult and certainly not as simple as just giving married couples a small tax break. And how do you know that an incentive system would not discourage mothers from throwing out violent husbands for example?

I'm with Philipa on grandiose weddings.

istanbultory said...

'can't say that the civil partnership thing rings my bell either.

Ed said...

What harm does civil partnership do?

Newmania said...

Ed
What good does it do ? What is the point of it ? Why not just let any two people improve their financial status

Ed said...

There is nothing to stop people who aren't shagging from becoming civil partners, any more than there is anything to stop a marriage of convenience.

The question should not be "why allow same-sex partnerships" but "why give childless couples tax breaks"?

Newmania said...

You are right that the system will at the margins encourage some mothers to choose to bring up their children on their own to get the financial incentives,

This is not a marginal effect.It is the default option. The cost to society of allowing Marriage to decay has been provably enormous. The value of it cohering families and communities at a sub state level isn`t something you can easily reduce to numbers but it is the belief of many that the ned of the family as the prinmary unit is reposnisble for a raft of social evils not to say unhappiness.Perfection is not possible and prevents good .
the position of marruage wasa good thing overall whuch we have lost.

BTW Ed there is another side to this the cost of having children to the indigenous popele is such that they are no reproducing. At 1.3 to 1.4 actually . Population growth is enitely due to immigration or the progeny of recent immigrants .

In other words we are in a asociety where ordinary middling people cannot afford to have children .The singly most important thing in their lives.
That is a failure and needs addressing.




Eeek gotta work

Philipa said...

Ed- "There is nothing to stop people who aren't shagging from becoming civil partners" erm actually I thought there were, it's in the wording isn't it?

Newmania (it's sooo hard to leave you) "You are right that the system will at the margins encourage some mothers to choose to bring up their children on their own to get the financial incentives" so what ARE the financial incentives? Can someone pleeeease tell me cause I'm stoney looking-for-pennies borke!

Philipa said...

I meant broke, it's a long time since I've been borked.

Ed said...

But N the logical conclusion is that single mothers should effectively be punished for having their kids outside wedlock. That can't be right.

IDS seems to have hit upon the idea of boosting married couples with children's income without cutting single mothers' income with the cost to come from other welfare reform. Seems sensible but can it be done?

Newmania said...

Ed- Punishing is an emotive way to put it, accepting responsibioity for their own choices would be another.
What we are lookign for is ( as David C said ) a Multi generational sea change in attitudes . The first step ios to encourage the next steop will be to take away the stabilisers bit by bit as the problem diminuishes.
It is not the only thing to do though and DC has promised a wide range of other measures looking at the problem ...

Oh sod it i really have to get some work done

Sorry P I will get right back to you

Ed said...

I thought it was "traditional" marriage that required consummation but I am no expert in the legal niceties...

I don't pretend to know what the answer is but I don't think it's as simple as you say it is N.

I don't think any mother has an easy ride and single mothers probably get the rawest deal what with having to bring their kids up on their own with no back-up from the other parent. I can't see how giving married couples a handout solves anything.

Ed said...

Multi generational sea change in attitudes .

Fine words, but does that mean that benefits will be tapered out depending on your year of birth?

hatfield girl said...

My daughter returned from her year 10 class to report that other girls' plans were 'going to have a babby and get a flat miss.'

Lilith said...

I never married my daughter's father, (although asked to). I figured that if we ever separated, with the weight of his family's wealth behind him, a divorce might be messy and expensive for me. I was scared he would want full custody and fight for it.... How naive I was!

Marriage is always the first step to divorce however...

Divorce used to be stacked against women. Courts rarely awarded a reasonable settlement in the wife's/childrens' favour. All that has changed. These days I would say to any man, unless he is extraordinarily rich, or extraordinarily poor that marriage is unaffordable and a bigger risk than investing in a pension plan.

hatfield girl said...

The enormous cost of bearing and raising a child should be more shared over all of society, but it's been partly extended in an unhappy and inefficient way as women have emerged from having to carry the bulk of it alone - married or not, with supportive partners or not. And when it is 'not' it's sometimes better than 'with'. I don't think we are looking at it in the right perspective. It's something to do with intergenerational balance of access to resources too; and allocated gender roles.

Newmania said...

Interssting comments like HG I have a feeling that something is missing here and I am going to have a think about it .

*( basically I need to get my story straight to bat off that persistent bugger Ed)

Philipa said...

And he's not the only one after your comments N - I'm sharpening my nails...

Nick Drew said...

Mr Mania you utter churl, for pity's sake, it's Her Day, where's your gallantry?

just start saving for when you have a daughter of the relevant age

(mark you, Miss D knows there will only be one wedding paid for by me)

Newmania said...

Nick ...if she comes with cash I `ll take her on. Its about timne fior the decennial trade in anyway !

Blog Archive