If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   British tax system encourages couple to split up rather than remain married as they'd earn more money divorced   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 66
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

6985 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2008 at 2:25 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-03-03 12:04:43 AM
i227.photobucket.com
I hope they're not thinking about taxing "Thingee".
 
2008-03-03 02:27:34 AM
I know I'd have more money to spend if there were less people to spend it on.

/ American
 
2008-03-03 02:29:04 AM
If you care about money more then your wife you have bigger problems then a nanny state.
 
2008-03-03 02:30:22 AM
It's nice to see this arbitrary benefit on the other foot.
 
2008-03-03 02:32:05 AM
Just like in US media, look out for clue terms, like labeling something a "Labour" catastrophe.
 
2008-03-03 02:32:56 AM
cohabitation ftw!

/does it and likes it
//a lot.
 
2008-03-03 02:33:00 AM
Must.. focus.. on other countries...
 
2008-03-03 02:33:31 AM
makes as much sense as giving married couples tax breaks.
 
2008-03-03 02:40:00 AM
FTA: A typical couple on a low or middle income would be £69 a week better off if they lived apart.

Hmmmm. I wonder how the Queen lives? That's right, she's of the blue blood and proper English, and thus exempt.
 
2008-03-03 02:43:47 AM
Of course. The family is a DISEASE.
 
2008-03-03 02:46:06 AM
Why is Fark so obsessed with the UK today?
 
2008-03-03 02:47:56 AM
This just in: Divorce causes your teeth to rot and deform!
 
2008-03-03 02:48:07 AM
Why the asinine tag? Does subby think the government should be encouraging people to marry? Given that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce maybe it would a good thing if fewer people decided to take the plunge.
 
2008-03-03 02:48:54 AM
I've just been reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, so I am really getting a kick out TFA.


/Well, not a big kick.
//More like a small, amusing coincidence.
///Orgy porgy, everybody belongs to everybody else, etc.
 
2008-03-03 03:03:42 AM
wombat18: Why is Fark so obsessed with the UK today?

It's like a watching a nun get hit by a bus. You just can't look away and you then show everyone else the video.

The UK is like reality TV here in the US, we just wait for the next dumb thing that the UK government does over there and then laugh at it.

Though to be fair, the US government is trying to catch up to the UK.
 
2008-03-03 03:04:58 AM
Crosshair: wombat18: Why is Fark so obsessed with the UK today?

It's like a watching a nun get hit by a bus. You just can't look away and you then show everyone else the video.

The UK is like reality TV here in the US, we just wait for the next dumb thing that the UK government does over there and then laugh at it.

Though to be fair, the US government is trying to catch up to the UK.


That's too bad, since we tried so damn hard to get away from that system of doing things.
 
2008-03-03 03:10:41 AM
Crosshair:
It's like a watching a nun get hit by a bus. You just can't look away and you then show everyone else the video.

The UK US is like reality TV here in the US UK, we just wait for the next dumb thing that the UK US government does over there and then laugh at it.

Though to be fair, the US UK government is trying to catch up to the UK US.


FTFY
 
2008-03-03 03:14:23 AM
Arthur Jumbles: Why the asinine tag? Does subby think the government should be encouraging people to marry? Given that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce maybe it would a good thing if fewer people decided to take the plunge.

A good thing for what? Divorce rates?
 
2008-03-03 03:20:07 AM
From TFA: "even after taking account of the added costs of running two homes."

The same where I live in Europe. Basically everyone waits to get married and have a single child until they are 35-40 because the taxes increase by some 15-25% if you are married. The woman's income is taxed at some 25-35% whereas the guys is a low 12-15% (although you can switch this, but by default it is the wifey.) So couples here are also strongly encouraged by the government to avoid marriage at all costs. Yay nanny state!
 
2008-03-03 03:25:24 AM
cotb: Arthur Jumbles: Why the asinine tag? Does subby think the government should be encouraging people to marry? Given that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce maybe it would a good thing if fewer people decided to take the plunge.

A good thing for what? Divorce rates?


OF note, ALL marriages end in Divorce: Death. You can pull whatever numbers you want during the "together time".
 
2008-03-03 03:25:47 AM
Daily Mail. Daily Fail. Don't expect logic from a Newspaper that promoted Hitler past 1939, and regularly froths up about Immigrants, Homosexuals, or the E.U.
If you're going to link stories about the U.K, at least find a reputable source, like the Sun, or the Star.
 
2008-03-03 03:27:08 AM
Many retired people in the US divorce.
It affords larger benefits from the government under the rules.
The people can't change the rules so they try to change their circumstances so the rules work for them better.
 
2008-03-03 03:27:53 AM
There's no reason why there should be a tax benefit for getting married anyway.
 
2008-03-03 03:33:25 AM
Arthur Jumbles: Why the asinine tag? Does subby think the government should be encouraging people to marry? Given that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce maybe it would a good thing if fewer people decided to take the plunge.

I'm with ya. If it doesn't work out, the guy in the situation stands a good chance of loosing half his paycheck until she finds another guy to mooch off of.

/bitter
 
2008-03-03 03:34:54 AM
TheCid: There's no reason why there should be a tax benefit for getting married anyway.

Exactly. Marriage is for guys that have no game and women that are crazy insecure biatches. Why should the government give benefits for these losers?
 
2008-03-03 03:40:05 AM
Well, no.

Marriage can be a wonderful, enriching, beautiful adventure.

A lover, a partner, a friend for life.. a rock to stand on and a blanket to warm yourself with.

BUT IF YOU MARRY SOME JIVE HOSEBAG, YOU'RE GONNA SEE YOUR KIDS ONCE A YEAR AND LOSE YOUR HOUSE AND CAR AND LIVE IN A KELVINATOR CARTON!.

Other than that... it's very beneficial. :)
 
2008-03-03 03:41:10 AM
"like the Sun, or the Star."

lol :)
 
2008-03-03 03:42:44 AM
TheCid: There's no reason why there should be a tax benefit for getting married anyway.

I'm married. There really isn't that benefit you want to hate on. You just have to do everything....together.
 
2008-03-03 03:47:17 AM
I would rather see a tax on children. Couples start breeding and creating a drain on the tax base while single people (in the US) continue to foot the bill for someone else's rugrats to go to school because mommy and daddy got themselves a tax break.

If you can't afford the entire cost of the kids, wrap up your willie.
 
2008-03-03 03:49:51 AM
Article doesn't indicate whether study accounted for any transfer of wealth within the split-up couples. Ex. -- if a difference is because of increased eligibility for public benefits for a low-paid individual with sole custody, I would expect support from the separated spouse to reduce that eligibility. There might also be gift taxes, depending on how UK tax law is.
 
2008-03-03 03:54:17 AM
Failing_Junk: If you care about money more then your wife you have bigger problems then a nanny state.

This.

I think we have an early frontrunner for post of the day.
 
2008-03-03 03:54:49 AM
Blind_Io: I would rather see a tax on children. Couples start breeding and creating a drain on the tax base while single people (in the US) continue to foot the bill for someone else's rugrats to go to school because mommy and daddy got themselves a tax break.

If you can't afford the entire cost of the kids, wrap up your willie.

---------------
So in other words you owe big time for the money wasted on you and you want to give nothing back. It sounds a bit superficial to me.
 
2008-03-03 03:56:11 AM
fanbladesaresharp: I'm married. There really isn't that benefit you want to hate on. You just have to do everything....together.

That's not entirely true; it all depends on the individual situation. For example, if one partner makes a shiat ton of money and the other makes nothing, by filing together they may have a lower maximum rate than if the wealthy partner had filed alone. That would be one tax benefit of marriage.

Of course, on the other hand, if they both make about the same amount, then filing jointly may bump them into a higher bracket than they would have had individually (the so-called marriage penalty).

Of course, that is all based on US tax law; I know nothing of Britain.
 
2008-03-03 04:00:58 AM
MrPerfectSU: fanbladesaresharp: I'm married. There really isn't that benefit you want to hate on. You just have to do everything....together.

That's not entirely true; it all depends on the individual situation. For example, if one partner makes a shiat ton of money and the other makes nothing, by filing together they may have a lower maximum rate than if the wealthy partner had filed alone. That would be one tax benefit of marriage.

Of course, on the other hand, if they both make about the same amount, then filing jointly may bump them into a higher bracket than they would have had individually (the so-called marriage penalty).

Of course, that is all based on US tax law; I know nothing of Britain.


Yes I know. I had a first wife for 12 years. And a second now on 3 years and going smoothly. I've had plenty of time to look at the various laws in various states. The IRS does not consider state divorce decrees come tax time. FYI.
 
2008-03-03 04:05:16 AM
fanbladesaresharp

I'm a Republican (in the anti-monarchy British sense), but the Queen does pay taxes these days pretty much like anyone else. I think she's exempt from inheritance tax, though.
 
2008-03-03 04:15:41 AM
Blind_Io: I would rather see a tax on children. Couples start breeding and creating a drain on the tax base while single people (in the US) continue to foot the bill for someone else's rugrats to go to school because mommy and daddy got themselves a tax break.

If you can't afford the entire cost of the kids, wrap up your willie.


You're expected to help foot the bill for other people's rugrats to go to school because having an educated and capable upcoming generation is good for all of us, parents and childless alike. Someone has to keep the economy going as we go into retirement.

The whole "my tax dollars should only pay for the services that I directly use" argument needs to die. Why not just go the distance and embrace an every-man-for-himself-style anarchy?
 
2008-03-03 04:16:48 AM
BenR: I'm a Republican (in the anti-monarchy British sense), but the Queen does pay taxes these days pretty much like anyone else. I think she's exempt from inheritance tax, though.

I have a question for you British Republicans re: the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth over £7 billion ($14.35 billion) as of 2007.

Civil list spending total
: £8.153m

Question is: If the Republicans achieve their objective and get rid of the monarchy, will they let the ex-Qeen take her property back? I believe the loss of that revenue would result in higher taxes...
 
2008-03-03 04:17:46 AM
EightDeerOcelotClaw: ex-Qeen

That should read "Queen".
 
2008-03-03 04:18:04 AM
Merkwurdigliebe: TheCid: There's no reason why there should be a tax benefit for getting married anyway.

Exactly. Marriage is for guys that have no game and women that are crazy insecure biatches. Why should the government give benefits for these losers?


I'm in agreement with you. I'm married but if, and that's a big 'if' because he's with me until I off his ass...I mean until death do us part...we were to get a divorce, I don't want anything he has. I don't think it's fair to divide things 50/50. You should leave with what you came in with, and if the unemployed housewife came in with nothing but a beat up '89 Skylark and a tank top, that's what she leaves with. Why does the government reward these hoebags for mooching off men? Yes, let's keep teaching women it's ok to be a tramp and not be independent and think for themselves and get a portfolio...please do so. It's only bettering the nation.

/has 401K and portfolio
//husband has no access and signed a prenup
///doesn't believe it will fail, but in case he acts up, I've got my ticket to Los Cabos.
 
2008-03-03 04:21:17 AM
Arthur Jumbles: Why the asinine tag? Does subby think the government should be encouraging people to marry? Given that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce maybe it would a good thing if fewer people decided to take the plunge.

The UK overnment don't want people to marry, they just want people to produce future taxpayers ie: children!
 
2008-03-03 04:41:21 AM
ginger_fretelli: were to get a divorce, I don't want anything he has. I don't think it's fair to divide things 50/50. You should leave with what you came in with, and if the unemployed housewife came in with nothing but a beat up '89 Skylark and a tank top, that's what she leaves with.

Ok, but what do you do with stuff acquired during the marriage? Or suppose both came into the marriage with nothing, and the wife works her ass off to put the husband through college. The husband, armed with his new degree, quickly lands a high-paying job and divorces her. Should the wife now be left out to dry, even though her husband's current earning potential can be attributed to the fruits of her labor?
 
2008-03-03 04:57:05 AM
BenR: fanbladesaresharp

I'm a Republican (in the anti-monarchy British sense), but the Queen does pay taxes these days pretty much like anyone else. I think she's exempt from inheritance tax, though.


This makes sense though.

When the Queen dies, the inheritance tax would be a huge amount. I'd rather not see Windsor Castle or Tower of London sold off to Hilton Hotels to pay the inheritance.
 
2008-03-03 05:02:01 AM
EightDeerOcelotClaw: Question is: If the Republicans achieve their objective and get rid of the monarchy, will they let the ex-Qeen take her property back?

If the UK were to remove the monarchy completely, it would be through peaceful, legal methods (it isn't 1649 any more).

For this reason, it would be very likely that a good deal of the Crown Estate property would remain in their possession.
 
2008-03-03 05:02:29 AM
Jesus farking Christ... System like this is designed to help single people with kids, not some greedy idiots who divorce just to get the tax benefits....
 
2008-03-03 05:03:44 AM
MrPerfectSU: ginger_fretelli: were to get a divorce, I don't want anything he has. I don't think it's fair to divide things 50/50. You should leave with what you came in with, and if the unemployed housewife came in with nothing but a beat up '89 Skylark and a tank top, that's what she leaves with.

Ok, but what do you do with stuff acquired during the marriage? Or suppose both came into the marriage with nothing, and the wife works her ass off to put the husband through college. The husband, armed with his new degree, quickly lands a high-paying job and divorces her. Should the wife now be left out to dry, even though her husband's current earning potential can be attributed to the fruits of her labor?


The wife should have been smarter to save for herself. She should have a nestegg of her own. Period. Women are careless and really believe that the man they are with would never do anything to hurt them, and then you see the divorce rate so high, with financial reasons being the number one reason for divorce, and it's not that big of a suprise. Why doesn't the wife protect herself? If she is going to spend money in college and he owes her, get it in writing. Otherwise, she has to look at it as a gift and cut her losses. It's funny what we'll do for love, but that doesn't mean you have to be ignorant about the situation.
Do I believe my marriage will make it? IF I put in the work, and he does too, then yes. If not, then we won't. But I have my assets protected in case of that. It's just smart.
 
2008-03-03 05:37:47 AM
ginger_fretelli: The wife should have been smarter to save for herself. She should have a nestegg of her own. Period. Women are careless and really believe that the man they are with would never do anything to hurt them, and then you see the divorce rate so high, with financial reasons being the number one reason for divorce, and it's not that big of a suprise. Why doesn't the wife protect herself? If she is going to spend money in college and he owes her, get it in writing. Otherwise, she has to look at it as a gift and cut her losses. It's funny what we'll do for love, but that doesn't mean you have to be ignorant about the situation.
Do I believe my marriage will make it? IF I put in the work, and he does too, then yes. If not, then we won't. But I have my assets protected in case of that. It's just smart.


What if I reversed my hypothetical to where the husband supported the wife? Would you feel differently?

I guess my objection to your line of thinking is that it requires everyone to assume that their marriages may fail and therefore they need to always be looking out for number one. I think that sort of mentality defeats one of the great benefits of marriage.

In my mind, one of the greatest benefits of marriage is that it allows two individuals to work together as an economic team. Both partners contribute to the team in order to accomplish things that neither would ever be able to accomplish on their own. For example, I can't afford to buy a house on my own. However, if I were to marry, our combined income would be enough to make the mortgage payments. Together we are homeowners; separately we are lowly renters.

It is the same with my hypothetical. Together my hypothetical couple were able to simultaneously pay the living expenses and also pay for one of them to earn a degree; had they not collaborated, neither would have ever been able to earn such a degree. Therefore, why should the individual whose name appears on the diploma reap all of the rewards when both worked equally hard to reach such a result?

/full disclosure: I'm kinda drunk
 
2008-03-03 05:58:30 AM
The British should be focusing on a much bigger problem... FREE Dental care for all!
 
2008-03-03 06:09:11 AM
MrPerfectSU:


No, I wouldn't feel differently if the roles were reversed. If you've noticed, I am promoting fairness for the man, as they usually get screwed in divorce anyways. How is that fair? He works for his keep, and she gets to walk away with half or more?

I am not saying assume that your marriage will fail, but you should be smart about it. I'm sure that the over 50% didn't believe that they would fail either, and look where it got them. I work with my husband on bills and such, but we don't have a joint account, nor do I ever plan on it. Too many issues with that one. Marriage is a wonderful thing, but I didn't get married for money. I married for the companionship. I don't think it's right that people go into a marriage and get more than what they deserve,especially when it is at the expense of the other person.
 
2008-03-03 06:09:17 AM
Did every single story in the Daily Wail get submitted today?
 
2008-03-03 06:44:54 AM
FTA:
Three out of four ordinary families would be better off living apart than sharing a home under Labour's benefits system.

Headline:
British tax system encourages couple to split up rather than remain married as they'd earn more money divorced


Benefits != earned money.
-1 subby
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report