|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 12, 2010 19:19:56 GMT
I have met people who have done this. Hope that helps. No doubt you have fretty. As I have said earlier there are some penalies in being a couple. If one partner loser their job, the other is expected to look after them. That hurts low paid workers. That needs changed, but the devil is in the detail, fretty. Cameron has vowed to tackle the couple penalty in the benefit system, and good luck to him sorting that out. He will need it
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 12, 2010 19:31:44 GMT
RV
The married couples tax allowance system, if Cameron is proposing to re-introduce it as it was, merely meant one partner (out of work) could transfer their tax allowance to the other; male or female.
As it is you lose it.
An own goal by the Tories, I'm sure you'll agree.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 12, 2010 20:06:32 GMT
An own goal by the Tories, I'm sure you'll agree. I am not sure it is an own goal as such, fretty I think it is just an election gimmick, albeit one that costs (I think) £545 million. Of course the single people/co-habiting couples will be shelling out to pay for it. However, gay couples in 'civil partnership will get it as well. Sooner or later that law will be challenged in the courts and a coach and horses will be driven right through it.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 12, 2010 20:21:16 GMT
An own goal by the Tories, I'm sure you'll agree. I am not sure it is an own goal as such, fretty I think it is just an election gimmick, albeit one that costs (I think) £545 million. Of course the single people/co-habiting couples will be shelling out to pay for it. However, gay couples in 'civil partnership will get it as well. Sooner or later that law will be challenged in the courts and a coach and horses will be driven right through it. and married people who both work! so, those who can afford to have only one partner working win - rich get richer? Cin cin everyone!
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 12, 2010 20:24:48 GMT
and a separated couple would not get income support unless they were disabled or had parental responsibility for a child under 7 years of age. Everyone else goes on Job seekers.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 12, 2010 23:05:47 GMT
This is just one more example of government run amok. Let's get back to building roads and defending the country against villains like Adolph Hitler. Stop wasting the taxpayer's money and cut the crap.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Apr 13, 2010 7:30:30 GMT
I think its absolutely brilliant
DC really gets Kudos for this
In one stroke he positions the party at the heart of the Tory landscape, making all those wavering redfaced tweedy types all nice and secure after scaring them by being in favour of gay people
He also makes the Labour party seem the party of the non-mainstream, and makes them appear "against" marriage
its also a lovely way of being "for" women who stay at home being good wifey. Making Labour "against" stay at home mothers.
Brilliant!
Its a tiny amount of money for each couple although its looks large all at once. Not many people will get it but what a major coup for DC.
Seriously Brilliant!
Politics at its best!
|
|