Nick Clegg: The state should not "encourage the tax system to favour a particular family form"
Comments
Clegg is an absolute liability, he could not be more wrong. We have seen the damage inflicted on our children and society that the lack of morality has encouraged. We should be doing more to encourage marriage not less. In my opinion it would be worth allowing gay couples to marry rather than haveing civil partnerships, if that is the price we have to pay for supporting heterosexual marriage. Clegg , like so many liberals is living in the past, the 1960’s, a period in which we experimented with often tragic outcomes. Clegg needs to take a good look at the evidence before spouting his unsupportable drivel.
The state should not "encourage the tax system to favour a particular family form"?
Well the state currently encourages those on benefits to claim to be living apart, or even if one is working and the other is on benefits to claim to live apart, the state should short out this favourtism
I think Nick Clegg has this one right. Which doesn't mean that families aren't great or that marriage isn't important - just that it's really not the job of the state to stick their nose into it. They're the servants of the public, not their moral arbiters.
Not sure I agree with Clegg here. If a system of marriage saves the State money and is advantageous should it not be encouraged. Also isn't it the case that the State encouraged and licensed the whole concept of marriage anyway. At the small scale, communities and then society traditionally encouraged it for stability and extended support and at the wider scale the State is only doing the same.
Clegg is all for gay marriage but not for the marriage that most people consider is between a man and a women which is the best situation for a family and children.
Clegg is a liability and anti-Conservative and like some others I disagree with everything he stands for.
He states that the Tax system should not favour one type of family form! Does this mean that he is against the Tax & Benefit system supporting single parents which after all is one type of family form!
Seems some family forms in the view of Le Clegg have more value than others. I am alone in thinking that Old Cleggover is the modern day Richard Crossman, a man of many opinions and all of very short duration!
Aside from Europe the Libdems are the biggest roadblock to recovery that this country faces. Why should we take any notice of any of the garbage that peddle particularly when Clegg and is clique have now been proved as nothing more than lying chancers on a number of occasions.
In my book the Tories should look at the £81 billion cost of income tax breaks.To streamline the tax system many of those tax breaks -especially costly,complex ones that favour the rich should go.The revenue should fund ending the £100,000 claw back threshold for basic personal tax allowance,raising the 40p tax threshold to £70,000 p/a and ending pensioner tax allowance claw back threshold of £24,000 p/a.The aim should be a basic personal tax allowance of £12,500 p/a for all tax payers irrespective of age or income.It should be flat rate.50p & 40p income tax rates should be cut from 45p & 35p respectively and the £150,000 p/a surtax threshold should rise to £300,000 p/a.
The Tories could end many income tax breaks to pay for taking the working poor and pensioners out of tax while taking the middle classes out of the 40p tax bracket. The rich would pay more as there would be fewer tax shelters and lower rates creating an incentive for the rich to pay their share.Rather than tying up their cash in complex tax fiddles the rich would have an incentive to invest in the free-market instead thus creating jobs.If you overtax profits from productive investment then you will not get many more new jobs being created.
I think that a married couples tax concession could be bolted on to this package of reform.The £12,500 p/a tax allowance could be fully transferable for married couples whereby one parent stays home or works part-time to care for at least one child aged 0-11 if the main wage earner has an income below £70,000 p/a.That would cut taxes for the lower paid and middle classes while boosting marriage that is the building block of any healthy society.We need committed parents together for the long-term to provide a stable family life for children to maximise their life-chances.Children need both parents and a stable start in life provided by one of the Seven Sacraments -I.E. marriage and so rewarding folk for doing the right thing is wise.Marriage was sanctified by the fact that Our Lord's Mother and Step Father where wed.Also at Cana we see marriage sanctified by Our Lord working his miracle by turning water into wine in response to Marian intercession.
The left say that it is unfair to children of single parents or cohabiting folk.But surely by definition the right should point out that a tax-benefit system that punishes marriage is unfair to children whose parents are married.Mrs Clegg is a good,loyal daughter of the Church and should be pointing out to her husband just what rubbish he is talking about marriage.Personally I have benefited from a wonderful,stable family life and would love to see others gain from it too.
The goal ought to be a far simpler pro-growth,pro-investment,pro-work tax system that stops penalising married couples with children.
Clegg is an absolute liability, he could not be more wrong. We have seen the damage inflicted on our children and society that the lack of morality has encouraged. We should be doing more to encourage marriage not less. In my opinion it would be worth allowing gay couples to marry rather than haveing civil partnerships, if that is the price we have to pay for supporting heterosexual marriage. Clegg , like so many liberals is living in the past, the 1960’s, a period in which we experimented with often tragic outcomes. Clegg needs to take a good look at the evidence before spouting his unsupportable drivel.
Posted by: Grizy Vizly | December 19, 2011 at 03:51 PM
If a particular family system can be shown to be advantageous to society, then the tax system should most certainly be used to promote it.
Posted by: Juan Sheet | December 19, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Why is it 'hip' to push for gay marriage but be against tax breaks for married couples ?
Posted by: mick mcgough | December 19, 2011 at 03:54 PM
The state should not "encourage the tax system to favour a particular family form"?
Well the state currently encourages those on benefits to claim to be living apart, or even if one is working and the other is on benefits to claim to live apart, the state should short out this favourtism
I am sure Nick will be right onto this aspect
Posted by: Iain Gill | December 19, 2011 at 03:57 PM
So he is in favour of abolishing the couple penalty that pervades our system?
Posted by: It doesn't add up... | December 19, 2011 at 04:20 PM
I think Nick Clegg has this one right. Which doesn't mean that families aren't great or that marriage isn't important - just that it's really not the job of the state to stick their nose into it. They're the servants of the public, not their moral arbiters.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | December 19, 2011 at 04:23 PM
Not sure I agree with Clegg here. If a system of marriage saves the State money and is advantageous should it not be encouraged. Also isn't it the case that the State encouraged and licensed the whole concept of marriage anyway. At the small scale, communities and then society traditionally encouraged it for stability and extended support and at the wider scale the State is only doing the same.
Posted by: MG | December 19, 2011 at 04:37 PM
Before he opens his mouth I just know I'm going to disagree with him.
Posted by: jack pershing | December 19, 2011 at 06:38 PM
Clegg is all for gay marriage but not for the marriage that most people consider is between a man and a women which is the best situation for a family and children.
Clegg is a liability and anti-Conservative and like some others I disagree with everything he stands for.
Posted by: robert | December 19, 2011 at 07:09 PM
He states that the Tax system should not favour one type of family form! Does this mean that he is against the Tax & Benefit system supporting single parents which after all is one type of family form!
Seems some family forms in the view of Le Clegg have more value than others. I am alone in thinking that Old Cleggover is the modern day Richard Crossman, a man of many opinions and all of very short duration!
Posted by: Gary Farrimond | December 19, 2011 at 08:26 PM
Aside from Europe the Libdems are the biggest roadblock to recovery that this country faces. Why should we take any notice of any of the garbage that peddle particularly when Clegg and is clique have now been proved as nothing more than lying chancers on a number of occasions.
Posted by: William Blakes Ghost | December 19, 2011 at 09:57 PM
In my book the Tories should look at the £81 billion cost of income tax breaks.To streamline the tax system many of those tax breaks -especially costly,complex ones that favour the rich should go.The revenue should fund ending the £100,000 claw back threshold for basic personal tax allowance,raising the 40p tax threshold to £70,000 p/a and ending pensioner tax allowance claw back threshold of £24,000 p/a.The aim should be a basic personal tax allowance of £12,500 p/a for all tax payers irrespective of age or income.It should be flat rate.50p & 40p income tax rates should be cut from 45p & 35p respectively and the £150,000 p/a surtax threshold should rise to £300,000 p/a.
The Tories could end many income tax breaks to pay for taking the working poor and pensioners out of tax while taking the middle classes out of the 40p tax bracket. The rich would pay more as there would be fewer tax shelters and lower rates creating an incentive for the rich to pay their share.Rather than tying up their cash in complex tax fiddles the rich would have an incentive to invest in the free-market instead thus creating jobs.If you overtax profits from productive investment then you will not get many more new jobs being created.
I think that a married couples tax concession could be bolted on to this package of reform.The £12,500 p/a tax allowance could be fully transferable for married couples whereby one parent stays home or works part-time to care for at least one child aged 0-11 if the main wage earner has an income below £70,000 p/a.That would cut taxes for the lower paid and middle classes while boosting marriage that is the building block of any healthy society.We need committed parents together for the long-term to provide a stable family life for children to maximise their life-chances.Children need both parents and a stable start in life provided by one of the Seven Sacraments -I.E. marriage and so rewarding folk for doing the right thing is wise.Marriage was sanctified by the fact that Our Lord's Mother and Step Father where wed.Also at Cana we see marriage sanctified by Our Lord working his miracle by turning water into wine in response to Marian intercession.
The left say that it is unfair to children of single parents or cohabiting folk.But surely by definition the right should point out that a tax-benefit system that punishes marriage is unfair to children whose parents are married.Mrs Clegg is a good,loyal daughter of the Church and should be pointing out to her husband just what rubbish he is talking about marriage.Personally I have benefited from a wonderful,stable family life and would love to see others gain from it too.
The goal ought to be a far simpler pro-growth,pro-investment,pro-work tax system that stops penalising married couples with children.
Posted by: Matthew Reynolds | December 19, 2011 at 10:48 PM