Government supporting marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/13/nmarriage113.xml

At the moment from just reading the link above it has made me pretty mad; I really dont see why parents who are married should be rewarded and those who are not married suffer.

It was wrote in the link above that children know when their parents are not married. Something I really dont believe.

I would have thought this would push more people into getting married just for the tax incentives? Not really a wise move when you look at the figures for divorce.

franklyI would be pleased if it came in. (And there used to be a tax break for married couples which was in place even when i got married, which is 15 years ago now)

There are all kinds of tax breaks for parents etc, and absolutely nothing for people in my circumstances (DINKS) so I for one will welcome a bit of tax relief for a change.

I think kids do notice if their parents are not married, hard not to know once they are of a certain age.

What difference does it make if they know?

And I would say the worst off in terms of tax breaks etc are single people. It seems every other demographic gets at least sommit, even if it is just sharing the council tax bill. I only get 25% off for that.....

And what are the benefits that marriage gives to society?

drewboy wrote:

And what are the benefits that marriage gives to society?

Provide the next generation that will look after this one ??

Marriage isn't needed for that.

You could argue marriage provides stability and security for the young of today (or thats what it should be doing). A happy family unit has a positive effect on children.

A lot of people get married too quickly before finding out truly about their partners. My best mate for instance is getting married to a girl he met in June.

Yeah I think there should be a happy family unit, but I dont think that means you have to be married to provide that. And in the case of having children then being a lone parent would be better then having two married parents who dont get on...but thats going off topic.

Helen, yes I can see your point about the tax breaks for married people, my main point though was how the report seemed to me to be against parents who were not married. But yes there should be benefits for married couples with or without children, and unmarried couples with kids and even single people.

I am quite happy with the 'hand outs' we get, a lot more then I thought we would get seeing as though we both have good wages and work full time, works out at about £152 a month.

spoilt_little_brat wrote:

I am quite happy with the 'hand outs' we get, a lot more then I thought we would get seeing as though we both have good wages and work full time, works out at about £152 a month.

I'm sorry, this isn't a personal attack on you two, but I cannot see why people who consider THEMSELVES to have a decent income should be getting that level of benefit.

Thats nearly half of the tax I pay each month.

Babies dont come cheap unfortunately !!

Then save up.

I believe the Government is right to support young families and promote marriage.


But seen as your very unlikely ever to rear children, I can see which way your seeing things.

Never say never.

However, on the one hand (in this weeks press) I am told I shouldn't be allowed to bring up kids. While on the other, I am told I have to pay for other people's.

So yes, it is rather unsurprising I have that view.......

In our case we were very sensible and did save up before we had our son and bought everything from wipes to nappies etc and are still using them now, but you would be suprised how quickly that money goes after milk and clothes etc, but it was our choice to have a baby and I would of had to of bought these things regardless of any hand outs from the government.

I was shocked how much we could get because of our wage, as I have said, and we get the lowest amount you can get and if we didnt have jobs or more children we would get far more.

We also (sorry Im not trying to rub this in because I really do understand where you are coming from) got £250 when he was born and get another £250 when he is either 16 or 18- oh and the government are bringing it in that they will get another £250 when they are about 11.

Quote :

Your entitlement to tax credits will also depend on your annual taxable income. Although tax credits are income-based you should not assume that you have too much money to qualify. You are guaranteed some Child Tax Credit so long as your income is less than £58,000 (£66,000 if you have a baby under one year of age). In some circumstances (for example, if you have more than one child on DLA and have substantial eligible childcare costs) you may get some tax credits even if your income is above these figures. If you are a member of a couple then your partner's income is counted. A dependant child's income is always fully disregarded.

Taken from here:

http://www.cafamily.org.uk/taxcredits.html

£58,000

For different reasons of my own to Drew, I also am not in favour of the amount of money handed out under these schemes £58,000 is a pretty good income no matter where you live.

So, anyone earning up to £3300 per month (after tx, NI etc), gets something.

Anyone who choses not to have kids (or can't) pays to top up the income of some pretty wealthy people.

It's crazy.

I am all for support that is appropriate and where it is needed, to those that are most vulnerable in society and provided that support does not drive the wrong behaviours in individuals and families - but I know I don't have too many friends on £50,000 and above (and indeed on lower salaries!) who need any further income from the government. (and I realise it's a sliding scale)

That said, it's there and any sensible family unit should claim it, but there's something fundamentally wrong with benefits at this level (apart from the millions it costs to dole out, which they have been known to screw up also)

I guess it gets the unemployment figures down however.

helencbradshaw wrote:

I guess it gets the unemployment figures down however.

How so?

drewboy wrote:

helencbradshaw wrote:

I guess it gets the unemployment figures down however.

How so?

Well I think I meant it gets more people in work - rather than brings the unemployed numbers down.

You're right, technically it shouldn't bring the unemployment figures down at all, as you have to be actively seeking work and parents who choose not to go back to work should therefore not be counted in that category in any case.

....which would mean that those jobs would be available for others who are out of work and looking to take?

To me, its a blatant get middle england voters tactic. Nowt else.

Well yes, but assuming that there are more unfilled jobs than there are unemployed..(which I think is the case - in theory anyway)

drewboy wrote:

To me, its a blatant get middle england voters tactic. Nowt else.

I think you might be right..

It ain't getting mine though!

Quick question almost guaranteed to offend but not intended to.

Wormy, Brat - why did you choose to have a kid and not get married? It's your choice, I respect that but surely there's no commitment stronger than having a kid together (shouldn't be anyway) so why stay unmarried?

(or does wormy have a mad ex-wife in the attic?)

Like wormy's pal who's marrying a girl he met a few months ago, I got married 5 months and one day after I met my husband despite living at different ends of the country for the next 9 months. I knew he was 'the one'. I realise that's not normal but I just don't get WHY people don't get married but DO have kids.

To me there's always that little element of people 'keeping their options open' which surely isn't the right way to bring up kids (i.e with one eye on the door).

OK, you can all shout at me now.

WormThatTurned wrote:

drewboy wrote:

And what are the benefits that marriage gives to society?

Provide the next generation that will look after this one ??

Well frankly, looking around at half the dead heads having kids these days, I'd rather the funds were invested in sterilisation or compulsory lobotomy. That would at least provide a more grounded generation to look after this one.