Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

 

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

 

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable.

 

That is taking the "press release" stance on this rather than looking at how it would map out 

 

 

 

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

They can't like your posts before you make them.

 

They can if you discuss them before 

 

As Gareth rightly points out it's not even a positive policy in that it should be part of the "norm". Shame that the Tory other policies towards health care are so damaging 

Edited September 29, 2013 by drat01

[Awol]

 

 

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

 

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable.

 

That is taking the "press release" stance on this rather than looking at how it would map out 

So how else is it going to "play" out, Drat?

[peterms]

In the Beeb article:

Other policy announcements are set to include a crackdown on welfare payments

Piss my roflcopter, you can hardly have a Tory conference without some kind of crackdown on 'welfare payments', can you?

 

A good example of the misuse of language to shape perceptions.  "Crackdown" implies that there is something wrong about what is being cracked down on.  You wouldn't speak of a crackdown on cancer care, or a crackdown on pre-school childcare.  The very use of the term is meant to make people think that social security is somehow wrong, and the use of this and similar expressions day in day out, insidiously inches us towards a different climate of opinion, a harsher and more punitive one.  But harsh and punitive towards those at the bottom, while the government strives to protect bankers' bonuses, and avoids prosecuting them for the massive frauds they have perpetrated.

 

It's shameful that the Beeb should collude in this propaganda.

[drat01]

 

 

 

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

 

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable.

 

That is taking the "press release" stance on this rather than looking at how it would map out 

So how else is it going to "play" out, Drat?

 

Obviously you don't consider people such as widows, widowers, single parents, - "the one in fours kids growing up in single parent environments". Even the coalition "partners" (snigger) have stated that idea was target at the wrong priority. I am not surprised though that right wing thinkers like the idea as it certainly fits in with what is a flawed idea of society 

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

In the Beeb article:

Other policy announcements are set to include a crackdown on welfare payments

Piss my roflcopter, you can hardly have a Tory conference without some kind of crackdown on 'welfare payments', can you?

 

A good example of the misuse of language to shape perceptions.  "Crackdown" implies that there is something wrong about what is being cracked down on.  You wouldn't speak of a crackdown on cancer care, or a crackdown on pre-school childcare.  The very use of the term is meant to make people think that social security is somehow wrong, and the use of this and similar expressions day in day out, insidiously inches us towards a different climate of opinion, a harsher and more punitive one.  But harsh and punitive towards those at the bottom, while the government strives to protect bankers' bonuses, and avoids prosecuting them for the massive frauds they have perpetrated.

 

It's shameful that the Beeb should collude in this propaganda.

 

spot on the demonisation of those with the audacity to be born with a disability that seriously disadvantages them, or to contract a serious illness, or suffer permanent physical injury, or just not be fortunate enough to be sitting when the music stops in the game of musical chairs with millions less chairs than participants that is the employment market is disgusting and those that perpetuate it are nothing more than manipulating scum, But don't let facts get in the way of a nice way to divide the people, to give those in a relative position of strength someone weaker to kick, blame and persecute.

[Awol]

 

 

 

 

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

 

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable.

 

That is taking the "press release" stance on this rather than looking at how it would map out 

So how else is it going to "play" out, Drat?

 

Obviously you don't consider people such as widows, widowers, single parents, - "the one in fours kids growing up in single parent environments". Even the coalition "partners" (snigger) have stated that idea was target at the wrong priority. I am not surprised though that right wing thinkers like the idea as it certainly fits in with what is a flawed idea of society 

 

I hadn't expressed an opinion on the issue one way or the other, I was just correcting villajax's misconception that this was somehow going to benefit the better off, when actually it won't do that at all. You then made some odd remark about a press release but didn't show how I was wrong in my comment, before going off on one again about the "right wing" and telling me what I think. I suppose there is comedy value in your posts - if nothing else  

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think that in this situation you are being cynical.

When my kids were born (relatively close together), we took the decision that my wife wouldn't go back to work until both were at school. During that time we managed to pay the mortgage, household bills and feed the kids. We had no holidays and managed to go out for a drink together (not a meal) every other month. Our kids were raised to eat meals at the table, which during that period was cheap plastic garden furniture. The wonderful woman that my wife is, I retained my season ticket, a major 'luxury' All of this was done under the backdrop of the largest and longest overdraft that we have ever had.

That was our choice. Money was very tight, and we were certainly not 'poor'. It was a very happy period of our life adventure together, but any extra help would have been much appreciated.

So if there are any young couples out there like we were, who can definitely benefit from this, then I think that it is a good thing.

 

 

Yes, there should be more help for people with children, be it with better childcare or pushing for more companies to adopt 'flexible hours' for working parents.

 

This 'marriage tax break' is just some socially regressive, middle-England pandering wank.

[blandy]

When my kids were born (relatively close together), we took the decision that my wife wouldn't go back to work until both were at school. During that time we managed to pay the mortgage, household bills and feed the kids. We had no holidays and managed to go out for a drink together (not a meal) every other month. Our kids were raised to eat meals at the table, which during that period was cheap plastic garden furniture. The wonderful woman that my wife is, I retained my season ticket, a major 'luxury' All of this was done under the backdrop of the largest and longest overdraft that we have ever had.

That was our choice. Money was very tight, and we were certainly not 'poor'. It was a very happy period of our life adventure together, but any extra help would have been much appreciated.

So if there are any young couples out there like we were, who can definitely benefit from this, then I think that it is a good thing.

 

Fair point. What if you had not been married, but all other circs were the same? Should "married you" and "unmarried you" be treated differently? Because it kind of looks less like helping people who need help, and more like helping people who conform to a particular "nuclear family" social model. About "re-inforcing marriage". It's not actually (just) a helping hand. It's a desire to shape society in a way that tories want it to be. If you (anyone) supports that and agrees with that, then fine, I suppose. But to claim it as an act of pure generosity or kindness is to miss the social engineering aim of it.

All parties, or the main ones, aim to help their voters - this isn't a party political point, jsu ta political one.

[thetrees]

When my kids were born (relatively close together), we took the decision that my wife wouldn't go back to work until both were at school. During that time we managed to pay the mortgage, household bills and feed the kids. We had no holidays and managed to go out for a drink together (not a meal) every other month. Our kids were raised to eat meals at the table, which during that period was cheap plastic garden furniture. The wonderful woman that my wife is, I retained my season ticket, a major 'luxury' All of this was done under the backdrop of the largest and longest overdraft that we have ever had.

That was our choice. Money was very tight, and we were certainly not 'poor'. It was a very happy period of our life adventure together, but any extra help would have been much appreciated.

So if there are any young couples out there like we were, who can definitely benefit from this, then I think that it is a good thing.

Fair point. What if you had not been married, but all other circs were the same? Should "married you" and "unmarried you" be treated differently? Because it kind of looks less like helping people who need help, and more like helping people who conform to a particular "nuclear family" social model. About "re-inforcing marriage". It's not actually (just) a helping hand. It's a desire to shape society in a way that tories want it to be. If you (anyone) supports that and agrees with that, then fine, I suppose. But to claim it as an act of pure generosity or kindness is to miss the social engineering aim of it.

All parties, or the main ones, aim to help their voters - this isn't a party political point, jsu ta political one.

In all honesty, I was not seeking to argue the Government's case, just pointing out how it would have benefitted me personally, at a time when I really needed it. In answer to your question, if one of two people, a 'partnership', who were raising kids and one was staying home with the express purpose of caring and developing the kids then yes, they should benefit.

I am one of those strange people who believes that there are good and bad politicians in all parties, and good and bad policies of all parties. I therefore don't follow the 'it's the mob that I detest, so it's wrong' line of some.

[blandy]

Can't argue with that L.

Though I have to say I detest the tories They'm 'orrible.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I am one of those strange people who believes that there are good and bad politicians in all parties, and good and bad policies of all parties. I therefore don't follow the 'it's the mob that I detest, so it's wrong' line of some.

 

I don't consider anyone holding this viewpoint strange, it's just a shame the good ones are in pretty short supply right now, and usually don't get any where near a position of power that would really allow them to make a difference. I vary slightly on your view of policies I think generally over the years it's become a case of there are bad ones, less bad ones and some that whilst not good, aren't particularly bad either.

Edited September 29, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[tonyh29]

Is it only going to be for married couples, surely they would have to at least include anyone in a formal civil partnership.

It does include civil partnerships as far as I'm aware

[tonyh29]

I think that in this situation you are being cynical.

When my kids were born (relatively close together), we took the decision that my wife wouldn't go back to work until both were at school. During that time we managed to pay the mortgage, household bills and feed the kids. We had no holidays and managed to go out for a drink together (not a meal) every other month. Our kids were raised to eat meals at the table, which during that period was cheap plastic garden furniture. The wonderful woman that my wife is, I retained my season ticket, a major 'luxury' All of this was done under the backdrop of the largest and longest overdraft that we have ever had.

That was our choice. Money was very tight, and we were certainly not 'poor'. It was a very happy period of our life adventure together, but any extra help would have been much appreciated.

So if there are any young couples out there like we were, who can definitely benefit from this, then I think that it is a good thing.

Yes, there should be more help for people with children, be it with better childcare or pushing for more companies to adopt 'flexible hours' for working parents.

This 'marriage tax break' is just some socially regressive, middle-England pandering wank.

And price freeze on utility bills and harping on about privileged people is what exactly ?

[Risso]

 

Is it only going to be for married couples, surely they would have to at least include anyone in a formal civil partnership.

It does include civil partnerships as far as I'm aware

 

 

It does.

[bickster]

And price freeze on utility villas and harpinggnonbabout privileged people is what exactly ?

The price freeze is across the board, so not based on income, it should appeal to everyone

The harpingonaboutpri... is about pointing out inequality I spose

Neither however is about trying to socially re-engineer the society that your heroin(e) broke in the first place.

£3-85 a week better of love let's get married... It means diddly squat in real terms these days, its the price of a pint and the way these things usually work out it'll cost the country ten times as much in training, staff costs, software etc just to prove to the dwellers of "Middle England" and the CofE et al that they think marriage is the way forward.

What a load of Northampton Town

[tonyh29]

Wasn't really agreeing with the policy per se

More just pointing out that politics is pretty much about pandering to the masses

( or privileged few if your name is Ed )

Ed did his bit now its Cameron's turn to play headline grabbing Top Trumps

As you say the amount is almost pointless and I'll only get hammered for that £200 in tax somewhere else anyway

[drat01]

Interesting to see that the BBC are not being allowed to report on protests in Manchester according to the many twitter feeds on this.

 

I suspect that "outrage" would have been a plenty if this had happened under previous Gvmts, how things change  

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

50,000 people apparently.

 

[tonyh29]

free prescriptions for all cancer patients was introduced in 2009, blah…

It really wasn't , the 2009 policy was only certain cancer drugs, many were still denied treatment

Cameron's policy extended the drugs involved that NICE hadn't approved

I know you claim to be neutral in politics but your anti Tory sentiment is shining through right about now

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

50,000 people apparently.

 

This picture would have be relevant to me for as long as I've been able to vote and for a fair few years before, and I'm 46

 

Edited September 29, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin