YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL

You're really pushing the boat out now. Polo dick and my choice of chips. I can guarantee it wouldn't be worth it.

Well I'm off to watch UC. Bye, ducky.

ignitableduck wrote:

You're really pushing the boat out now. Polo dick and my choice of chips.

Even I lolled

What are the financial incentives to marry, Fu?

financial?

the pure beauty of my wife is enough fucky.

And the £10,000 down payment she gave him.

If only hippo... in fact I might ask for retrospective payment.

I know. I know. Fair enough. If you're happy marrying, that's great. But are there any financial benefits?

me n relatchip

so its all the mean/harsh people who are the single ones?

figures

I'm not at all mean or harsh.

Aren't you single, red?

Red's got 'em lining up.

I think there were tax breaks and financial benefits of getting married, but I don't think they do it anymore. Theres always the financial benefit of sharing the cost of stamps though....

I'm not mean and harsh either!

My parents got married 'cos of tax breaks and stuff I think. but I don't know what they were.

I'm trying to think of why the government would want to give married people tax breaks and encourage marriage. Encourage people to go out and buy houses together maybe...

Several reasons, I'd imagine. One would be the evidence that suggests children are best brought up in a married couple ahead of any other form of parenting. Of course that particular logic is argued nigh-on daily by the likes of unmarried couples, queers looking to adopt and the like, but that's regardless.

Two is the industry that exists for marriage - by encouraging marriage via taxbreaks, it keeps the registrars in business, and looks to fund the leasing of council property and the like for celebrations. Plus raised income tax on goods that are solely bought/hired for a service and or celebration. Not to mention the substantial cost in changing over Govt. paperwork such as passports and driving licenses etc - they charge far more than the actual cost of change. I'm guessing overall that even with the breaks marriage is probably a money spinner for the Govt.

@ Winslow: So they don't have to support single mums?

Tom Westside wrote:

@ Winslow: So they don't have to support single mums?

Yeah I guess it would reduce the risk of the fathers, or indeed the mothers deserting their child. Plus having children out of wedlock was frowned upon, so yeah that was probably it

Because it is frowned upon? Oh, sweet naive Winslow. It's all done for either economic or political reasons. There is no moral dimension.

Well it being frowned upon would come under political reasons. I think theres alot of moral dimension in politics

Who frowns upon it these days apart from a few clergical spinsters?

Nobody, hence why the married couple allowance doesn't exist anymore...although I think it does for people born before 1935

I do.

But only because of the financials regarding it.