Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News1 min ago
How Can This Be A Bad Thing?
41 Answers
http://
Well according to this report the Left seem to think it is, so can the Left of Answebank explain please?
Well according to this report the Left seem to think it is, so can the Left of Answebank explain please?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don`t blame them - ridiculous idea. Why should married people be rewarded? They are already rewarded with benefits such as joint inheritance tax etc and bunging people a few quid isn`t going to make them rush off and get married. It`s a shame Cameron can`t spend his time concentrating on more important issues. (and I don`t consider myself left wing)
Gromit
/// Dominic is himself on his second marriage. ///
/// Their father Nigel Lawson has been divorced twice. ///
/// Not really a good pedigree to be promoting the virtues of marriage. ///
The left never fail to oblige, what has the fact that the columnist or his family got to do with it, it is David Cameron who is promoting the virtues of marriage, and quite rightly so.
/// Dominic is himself on his second marriage. ///
/// Their father Nigel Lawson has been divorced twice. ///
/// Not really a good pedigree to be promoting the virtues of marriage. ///
The left never fail to oblige, what has the fact that the columnist or his family got to do with it, it is David Cameron who is promoting the virtues of marriage, and quite rightly so.
The nature of relationships has, one way or another, changed over the last few years. And quite radically, too. I'm not in principle too opposed to a marriage tax break, except for the fact that it seems to hearken back to an era that no longer exists, and so is no longer relevant. Many couples, for whatever reason, choose not to marry these days. I don't see that the tax system should care, one way or another.
jim360
/// Many couples, for whatever reason, choose not to marry these days. I don't see that the tax system should care, one way or another. ///
There are many who don't marry but have numerous partners all bringing money into the household, when the householder is claiming single parent benefits, so why shouldn't those who have made a commitment to each other drag in a little extra cash also.
/// Many couples, for whatever reason, choose not to marry these days. I don't see that the tax system should care, one way or another. ///
There are many who don't marry but have numerous partners all bringing money into the household, when the householder is claiming single parent benefits, so why shouldn't those who have made a commitment to each other drag in a little extra cash also.
It is an appalling thing. It is favouring one group who comply with the governments' wishes with the public money that has been supplied by all taxpayers. It is a blatant attempt at social engineering. Even if the amount is insufficient to make a difference, the principle is abominable, and it's done in the hope of pleasing those who agree everyone should be pushed into keeping old outdated beliefs in morality, going. Left or right do not have a monopoly on outrage at wrongdoing or even the moral high ground, but this sort of thing clearly indicates that the present elite are still unfit to govern for they can not think straight. These dregs should be voted out at the next election, problem is we only have a different set of dregs to replace them with.
Jim, so this is rubbish is it?
//The most up-to-date research in social science has demonstrated conclusively that the 50-year trend away from marriage has been a catastrophe: and a catastrophe especially among the poorest sections of society that Labour claims to care about most.//
zehul, although you avoid answering the question, instead choosing to adopt the usual left manner of berating AOG, I take it you dont agree with it?
//£200 whoopy do// And no doubt if it was £2000 you would have leapt on that?
//are you suggesting married couples should claim benefits they're not entitled to? //
I have tried very hard but I just cannot see where aog said that?
//The most up-to-date research in social science has demonstrated conclusively that the 50-year trend away from marriage has been a catastrophe: and a catastrophe especially among the poorest sections of society that Labour claims to care about most.//
zehul, although you avoid answering the question, instead choosing to adopt the usual left manner of berating AOG, I take it you dont agree with it?
//£200 whoopy do// And no doubt if it was £2000 you would have leapt on that?
//are you suggesting married couples should claim benefits they're not entitled to? //
I have tried very hard but I just cannot see where aog said that?
The problem with the Conservative attitude to marriage is that they assume it reflects their values, and their values alone.
In a manner that harks back to the 1950's, Cameron et al like to refer to marriage like some bygone security blanket, everything was better back then when people got married and stayed together.
But, as advised by jim 360, it's not 1954 any more, even though the Tories wish it was, and like to pretend it can be again be offering an imagined incentive for people to get married.
If I really thought that the end result of this cynical carrot waving was that people got married for the allowance, how deeply flawed a society would we have then? People who married not from love and commtiment, but because the Conservative government gave them some money - talk about buying your voters!
If people choose to get married, they get married - it has nothing to do with wanting the approval of a bunch of anally retentive public school boys who think that society's values can be bought like this.
Similarly, anyone not inclined to marry for their own personal reasons (come on Dave, you know about personal reasons don't you - it's why your MP's fiddle expenses and perjure themselves fairly regularly) is unlikely to be impressed by some wooly-headed notion that if everyone got married, the country would be wonderful over night.
You don't have to beft-wing to find this policy odious in the extreme - just possessed of some moral fibre and a mind of your own.
In a manner that harks back to the 1950's, Cameron et al like to refer to marriage like some bygone security blanket, everything was better back then when people got married and stayed together.
But, as advised by jim 360, it's not 1954 any more, even though the Tories wish it was, and like to pretend it can be again be offering an imagined incentive for people to get married.
If I really thought that the end result of this cynical carrot waving was that people got married for the allowance, how deeply flawed a society would we have then? People who married not from love and commtiment, but because the Conservative government gave them some money - talk about buying your voters!
If people choose to get married, they get married - it has nothing to do with wanting the approval of a bunch of anally retentive public school boys who think that society's values can be bought like this.
Similarly, anyone not inclined to marry for their own personal reasons (come on Dave, you know about personal reasons don't you - it's why your MP's fiddle expenses and perjure themselves fairly regularly) is unlikely to be impressed by some wooly-headed notion that if everyone got married, the country would be wonderful over night.
You don't have to beft-wing to find this policy odious in the extreme - just possessed of some moral fibre and a mind of your own.
-- answer removed --
