Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
The Interpreting Handbook.doc
18.7 Mб

Should the government help incentivise marriage?

The government should help incentivise marriage through state financial support. In a speech, Mr Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions Secretary) has outlined why he thinks married couples should get tax breaks and why it's the government's job to encourage people to get married. The Liberal Democrats oppose the Conservative plans, with leader Nick Clegg calling tax breaks for married couples "patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age".

Do you aspire to marry? What is stopping you from getting married? Is it time to make marriage a priority again? Or is marriage a thing of the past?


1.Bob wrote:

By all means give married couples state financial support. After the legislation is passed I will then sue the British Government for equal rights!

2. Dai the Tie wrote:

Should the government help incentivise marriage? 'Incentivise'? Is that a British word? It would be simpler for the Government to 'bribe' people to get married.

3. Richard Smart wrote:

"What is stopping you from getting married?" No one wants to marry me. :-(

4. Dr Prod wrote:

A great move. Whatever the marriage haters say, research has consistently demonstrated that the best platform for children is a family consisting of a married man and woman. There can be no argument that this is a fact. It is not perfect and marriages do break down but at least these people have given it a go and shown real committment to one another by sharing all they have and enshrining their love for one another in law. Anything that promotes this structure should be welcomed. In a world where we see more and more feral youth, dumbed down education and more poverty, the institution of marriage should be encouraged and if this means that married couples receive tax breaks then so be it.

5. Potty Harry wrote:

Marriage, or any similar arrangement which provides a stable and nurturing environment in which children can grow to maturity, is already incentivised by evolution. The government should be looking at ways to disincentivise those feckless lifestyles, often dependent on the state, which result in poorer outcomes for children. However, if they want to give me some additional concessions I am not going to complain.

6. richie79 wrote:

To be honest I wish the government would stop overstepping its remit, take its nose out of our private lives and business and instead of wasting vast amounts of OUR money on behavioural engineering projects start using it for the basic civic functions for which it was intended. but which seem to have become buried in a landfill of deeply illiberal initiatives driven by pressure groups and lobbying organisations. However desirable or undesirable the powers-that-be may consider something, it's my choice whether or not I marry, just as it's up to me whether I lose weight, smoke, drink, donate my organs, drive to work or catch the bus, follow a religion, have children or a million other adult decisions which should be driven by individual conscience and preference rather than 'incentivised' and influenced under the new behavioural politics with its nudges, financial penalties, bullying campaigns and legislation.

7. Withnail Xtreme wrote:

Marriage is a personal sanctity of love and commitment towards another person, and as such, is of no business of these meddling idiots. But of course, like everything else, they'll MAKE it their business.

8. ravenmorpheus2k wrote:

Every administration over the past 20 years has been helping families by way of state funding. How about helping out the average single joe who often has it harder financially due to bills having to be paid in full, rather than half as it would be if they were married/co-habiting. The government shouldn't be discriminating against single people. Living together already has financial benefits, and single people need the money more so they can afford to go out and meet someone!

9. Slave to the System - I am not a number wrote:

Normally I would say as it promotes a stable family, however with divorce settlements favoring the partner my view has changed. Marriage is financial suicide for any man/woman who has achieved anything before that marriage. Forget love, the divorce lawyers would just love to get their hands on your money as marriage followed by divorce is statistically, highly likely and the solicitors will bleed you dry. Even cohabiting isnt safe, put your money in trust, this will keep the vultures at bay and then get married.

10. Keith B wrote :

I think the government would be getting itself into some really dodgy ground if it introduced benefit changes which effectively paid people to get married. People would consider marriage on financial terms, not on relationship terms. "We only got married because it was the only way we could get enough money to buy a house." If the government wants to reinforce family values, it should clamp down hard on single females who think that producing babies is a good way to get "bargaining chips" to use against local authorities, and forcing those authorities to give them a house. This widespread practice is the worst abuse of humanity in Britain today, and should be stamped out. The mothers who do this should have both their babies and their benefits removed.

11. Total Mass Retain wrote:

To those that argue "I don't need a piece of paper to show I love someone" are missing the point. This is about financially looking after #1 and you do need a piece of paper to ensure your partner can leave their estate to you (and can transfer assets without tax concerns between you during their lifetime) and that in the event of relationship breakdown the financial interests of both parties are at least well understood if not totally protected. A partner arguing they don't need such a piece of paper deserved to be questioned somewhat on their commitment to the relationship.

And you see, the best bit is that you actually don't need tell anyone (apart from the Registar and the taxman and possibly employer). It costs you about £100 and you can pop down to the registry office one lunchtime, get two strangers off the street to be witnesses and you have that "piece of paper". Put it away until you need it and don't need to tell your friends or relatives if you don't want to. Conversely if you want to make a fuss and invite your mates and relatives, that's upto you. Since all this should be common knowledge, I don't see why the government need “incentivise” it.

Section 5. Picture


Section 1. Практикум Линн Виссон

Тут вы можете оставить комментарий к выбранному абзацу или сообщить об ошибке.

Оставленные комментарии видны всем.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]