gominokouhai: (pajh)gominokouhai ([personal profile] gominokouhai) wrote,
@ 2007-10-13 05:59 pm UTC
Entry tags:incredibly obscure reference, news, opinion, personal life, politics, random, rant, religion

Taxes 'should recognise marriage'

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Andy Burnham [...] said there was a "moral case" for using tax to promote the traditional family unit.

I don't get it. Why is there a moral case at all, and even if there is, what the fuck has tax got to do with it?

I appreciate that we need to be taxed so that our esteemed leaders can go on fact-finding tours to Tahiti and bomb the shit out of TPLACs. What I don't get is why they have to raise tax by charging money for completely unrelated things. The dark days of Window Tax and Wig Tax and Beard Tax may have gone, but now, as well as the privilege of being charged money when our relatives die, we get to pay a premium for living in a manner which is considered to be less moral than some other manner, according to some arbitrary standard.

Another thing I don't get is how, exactly, you get tax breaks if you're married. Do shopkeepers knock the VAT off if you're wearing a ring? Is there a button on the till marked looks like a respectable citizen?

(Actually, now I'm warming to it, this sounds like a great idea. We could have a complete sliding scale of tax based on moral standards. Twenty pence for every dropped aitch. Ankle tax, knee tax, and Wears Hat Indoors tax. Pink Shirt Tax (because seriously, those bloody things are never appropriate). Drunken Moron Tax: a tenner per decibel. Asks Stupid Questions Tax, levied by customer service staff at the till. I'm in favour of a Fails To Grasp The Concept Of The Weights And Measures Act tax, but that would just be discriminating against Americans, so perhaps not.)

Returning to mawwiage, which was the topic under notional discussion, where do these bastards get off, deciding what is moral and what isn't, and then enforcing it by means of basic unavoidable living expenses?

Why does the question of who I'm sleeping with have any impact on the value of my contribution towards the upkeep of society?

And where does Gordon get off, quoting a two-thousand-year-old work of fiction as justification for the policy he intends to apply to the entire multicultural nation for which he's allegedly responsible?

In summary: taxes don't make a lot of sense. Hmm. Not one of my more insightful posts, then.

~

Family wants plastic pen tops ban

The parents of a County Durham schoolboy, who choked to death on a plastic pen top, are stepping up their campaign to get them banned.

Dear Nathalie and David Hodgson: sorry your son died. Everyone else in the country knows not to eat the pen lids. We also prefer to have a mechanism for keeping the ink inside the pen until we need it. Shut up now, kthx.

Personally I find more uses for the spike on the biro cap than I do for the biro. They're brilliant if you have an itch inside your ear. I realize that by saying that I've just prevented anyone from ever borrowing a pen off me again, so: added bonus.

~

And the postal strikes are off. Personally I haven't noticed any change in the level of service whether they've been allegedly at work or not. A slight but insignificant drop in the number of we couldn't be arsed to deliver your stuff despite the fact that someone has already paid us to do so cards dropped through the letterbox, perhaps.

~

Back to mawwiage. All of my friends seem to be getting married, and I don't understand why. What, exactly, does one gain by blowing ten grand on a massive party and exchanging tiny hoops of metal? What can you do now that you couldn't do before? Why do you need an excuse for a party?

All of the girls I used to fancy at school have got married as well, so Friends Reunited tells me—or, as I like to call it, Teenage Dreams Shattered Dot Com.

I mentioned this to [livejournal.com profile] salchichaastuta, who's younger than me, so I thought she'd understand. Turns out all of her friends are getting married too. Now I really do feel old.

Perhaps it's just me, trying to keep 'avin' it laaarge with the student lifestyle, and the late nights and the drinking, while all my peers are settling down and checking their mortgage repayments. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong. I already have the ponytail and the spreading waistline to match it. When my denial stretches to hanging around with nineteen-year-olds who call me the creepy guy who buys us drinks behind my back, I promise to do something about it.

I just don't see what you gain from voluntarily becoming boring.



(38 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)


[identity profile] martling.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 06:13 pm UTC (link)
All of my friends seem to be getting married, and I don't understand why.

If you find out, do let me know. All mine are at it too.

(Reply to this


Marriage isn't boring...


[identity profile] zornhau.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 06:54 pm UTC (link)
It's one of those primal rites of passage things - possibly the only purely social one left in our society.

Put it another way. If marriage didn't exist, we'd... find more elegant ways of saying "my permanent partner"... find it convenient to have a pre-written legal framework for joint property etc and rights of attorney (who makes medical decisions for you if you're in a coma?)... and celebrate when people signed the same... voila! We'd have just created marriage by another name.

There's also a wider benefit - it provides a decision point. Otherwise, it seems to me, people drift into semi-satisfactory ongoing temporary arrangements.

Myself, I used to be a late-night carouser until very recently (child put the kybosh on that). I still carouse from time to time. I have a reasonable skill with a sword, a sword scar, and rather battered plate armour, all acquired since getting married.

Sooner or later, you have to decide what to do with your life and do it.

(And as for mortgages - that's what's given me a good venue for holding parties over the years, not to mention somewhere were I can put up sword hooks and bookshelves.)

(Reply to this)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)

Re: Marriage isn't boring...


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 08:21 pm UTC (link)
Well, personally I've drifted into a semi-satisfactory ongoing temporary arrangement, and I'm entirely semi-satisfied with it. We might feel differently if property was a consideration, but other than that the only problem I've encountered is that people sometimes think I'm being snotty when I use the word partner.

It seems to me to be a bit of a too-easy one-stop solution to a range of different problems. What if I want to entrust my medical decisions to someone I don't want to sleep with, or share property with? Or (*shudder) joint accounts. I think any tax relief that might be gained from marriage would probably be rapidly outweighed by the extra eighteen hours it would take to file a joint return with [livejournal.com profile] stormsearch. I suspect if we ever tried to file a joint tax return, we wouldn't be married for very long afterwards.

Additionally, it gives religion an excuse to stick its nose into legal proceedings, which I don't consider to be a good thing.

> I still carouse from time to time

Curious: how many of the people with whom you carouse are also married?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Marriage isn't boring...


[identity profile] zornhau.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 08:37 pm UTC (link)
Regarding religion - you'd be surprised. We had a lovely humanist wedding in a burnt out medieval abbey. I wrote most of it myself. There was even a reading from Alex Comfort...:)


Curious: how many of the people with whom you carouse are also married?

A good and potentially awkward question. Married or partnered... some. Many of my duelling group are married or at least settled down.

However, this may well also be a function of age - educated people tend to marry late. People over 30 often become stay at homes.

Also of parenthood.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)

Re: Marriage isn't boring...


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 08:52 pm UTC (link)
The fact that humanist weddings exist isn't going to stop the fundies from declaring that their sort of marriage is the only one that counts. Nor will it stop them expecting special privileges for their sort of marriage only.

Isn't it much more difficult to schedule carousal amongst married people?

I think a large part of the reason I'm bitter is that all of my in-group are flocking away to a different in-group, as if my in-group wasn't good enough for them.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Marriage isn't boring...


[identity profile] zornhau.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:36 pm UTC (link)
"Isn't it much more difficult to schedule carousal amongst married people?" or anybody else with live-in sig others.

Not a lot of what you are ranting against is related directly to marriage.

Much of it is to do with priorities, energy levels and common ground. Some of it is to do with "growing up" - many carousers are seeking something, and when they find it they don't need to carouse as much. And some of it is to do with some godawful reversion to type/parental scripting thing, which believe me I see happening to single friends as well.

re fundies - they're obsessed with non-married sex too. The day they determine what I do is the day I'm drugged and bound in some Wako basement.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


Re: Marriage isn't boring...


[identity profile] fire-sermon.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 11:05 pm UTC (link)
Personally, my work (and commute), rather than my relationship makes it hard to schedule carousing. I get up at 6.15am and come home around 6.30pm. That doesn't leave a lot of pub time, once you factor in other regular things I do and week nights are just out.

And I generally find it's hard to get anyone organised to do anything these days - married or not.

But I'm happy so I don't give two hoots :-)

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



[identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 06:58 pm UTC (link)
Another thing I don't get is how, exactly, you get tax breaks if you're married.

Income tax allowances are the usual way, but I'm sure we could think of plenty of others.

And where does Gordon get off, quoting a two-thousand-year-old work of fiction as justification for the policy he intends to apply to the entire multicultural nation

Gordon hasn't said any such thing.

Remember that earlier this year the whole press went wild over Gordon allegedly being behind the move to exempt parliament from the Freedom of Information Act? And do you also remember that the next day when someone actually asked him what he thought, he said he thought exempting would be a bad idea? It's a mistake to assume that the government is monolithic. We may not find out whether Gordon actually has any opinion on this for a while, if ever.

In any case, not all values of "traditional family unit" include legal marriage as currently practiced - until 50 years ago, Scots marriage included people who lived together and were generally held to be married, whether or not there had been a legal or religious ceremony. That would certainly count as traditional.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 08:27 pm UTC (link)
> Gordon hasn't said any such thing

From the article: Prime Minister Gordon Brown quoted the Bible.

> not all values of "traditional family unit" include legal marriage as currently practiced

No, but I'm willing to bet that the tax breaks will only include legal marriage as currently practiced. Which will demonstrate that it's nothing to do with upholding spurious moral standards and all about appealing to a voting demographic who believe in the same set of spurious moral standards.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 08:57 pm UTC (link)
Prime Minister Gordon Brown quoted the Bible.

Not "as justification for the policy he intends to apply". He has not justified that as an intended policy, ergo he has said no such thing.

No, but I'm willing to bet that the tax breaks will only include legal marriage as currently practiced.

Well, the government has very recently - this week, I believe - confirmed that it is continuing policy that civil partnership will have equal legal status with marriage, so what you suggest would conflict with stated policy in one way already.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 09:03 pm UTC (link)
Okay, that's fair. I'm still pissed off that he feels the need to quote from a two-thousand-year-old work of fiction at all, but I freely admit that I am oversensitive about such things.

Civil partnership runs into most of the same problems that marriage does. What if I want to sleep with somebody who's crap with money?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:10 pm UTC (link)
I'm still pissed off that he feels the need to quote from a two-thousand-year-old work of fiction at all

Indeed. Sort of. I have to be careful here, though, because I do quote from it myself even though I don't believe. I do think a lot of it as a work of literature, which I can only partly blame on Nick Cave.

Civil partnership runs into most of the same problems that marriage does. What if I want to sleep with somebody who's crap with money?

Indeed. And it would cause a political shitstorm of awesome proportions, too. I think the whole issue's a can of worms that they won't want to open, especially as it's directly against the thrust of recent policy.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 09:16 pm UTC (link)
> it would cause a political shitstorm of awesome proportions, too

Which I think is why it was in the news in the first place. Minister says something ill-considered SENSATIONAL BBC EXCLUSIVE.

Gave me an excuse to vent, though.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:20 pm UTC (link)
Fair enough. That's something I'm definitely badly placed to criticise . . .

The Beeb say that the Treasury reckon he was talking about the inheritance tax changes and expressing a personal opinion. Not too influential a one, I hope, as the current inheritance tax situation (complete exemption for legally sanctioned couples) needs reformed rather than reinforced.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-14 03:57 am UTC (link)
> I have to be careful here, though, because I do quote from it myself

Yes, you're allowed. But he's a politician. He's supposed to know that half of his prospective voters don't believe in that shit and that many of them are violently opposed to the concept. Either he's a shitty politician who is unaware of his demographic, or he's so convinced of his own rightness that he doesn't care, in which case he's still a shitty politician.

I've made no comment on his capability as a leader, which is a different thing: but then, I haven't seen him do any leadership yet.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



[identity profile] scattergather.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 08:47 pm UTC (link)
I notice he said "family unit". I wonder if this means that children would have to be a part of said unit in order to qualify. If so, I think it's an excellent idea, as I want to be sure there's enough of the little blighters around in future to pay my pension. I certainly can't see any inkling of a moral argument in favour of marriage in their absence.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 08:54 pm UTC (link)
In which case the whole thing is just plain-and-simple discrimination against single parents.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


ext_79424: Line drawing of me, by me (me)


[identity profile] spudtater.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:07 pm UTC (link)
Ayup, I think you've hit it on the button there.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



[identity profile] scattergather.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:14 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure I buy that line of argument (or at least the implication that it's necessarily a bad thing in the context we're discussing) given that we're talking about an incentive here. An incentive to marry and have children would be expected to increase rates of marriage which might mean that single parents who have gone through a separation or divorce are better supported through alimony. I certainly think it's better than a drift towards alimony rights for cohabiting couples, which would be rather too much state interference for my taste.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[identity profile] zornhau.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 11:09 pm UTC (link)
Alimony rights incurred without contract... Ooo messy.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[identity profile] cairmen.livejournal.com
2007-10-15 01:10 pm UTC (link)
Yikes. Otherwise known as the "Vasectomy Encouragement Act 2007"

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread



[identity profile] zornhau.livejournal.com
2007-10-15 09:35 pm UTC (link)
If it's alimony rights for cohabiting couples, the snip won't help.

Slightly ditzy gf has nowhere to stay. The swiving is good, so - hey - let her crash at your newly bought flat for a while. A month later she's still there and - frankly - the ping has gone. However, you think of yourselves as mates and there's this spare room and it's quite handy having somebody in during the day to let in the workmen and keep an eye on them. And hey, once in a while you have a drunken shag...

Only, the thing is, all this time she's been holding a torch for you. Two years later she goes into bunny boiler mode. Once you've finally evicted her, a lawyers letter turns up claiming you owe her maintenance, and by the way half the last 2 year's equity in the flat belongs to her.


(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[identity profile] wastedfragility.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:09 pm UTC (link)
wazzup ^ ninjas check it out then point & laugh at scottie XD

(Reply to this)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)

Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 09:12 pm UTC (link)
I do, frequently.

Help you with something?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[identity profile] wastedfragility.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:16 pm UTC (link)
submit any photos or incriminating information to corpus.delicti@hotmail.co.uk then watch the upcoming Scott Macdonald diagnonsense site appear before your eyes.

Take care
(p.s, dave's burd here)

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)

Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-13 09:19 pm UTC (link)
More details might be appreciated. For instance, does Scottie know about this?

> (p.s, dave's burd here)

I know. We've not met. Hello.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[identity profile] wastedfragility.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:29 pm UTC (link)
oh yes Scottie knows all our plans. He knows we love him though. Lmao.
This is all part of the Master Plan. At this current moment in time Scottie resides here at Dave's squealing at an X-box 360 which is always a highly amusing pasttime.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)

Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-14 03:51 am UTC (link)
Perhaps things would become clearer if I knew the details of the Master Plan.

I'm going to have to disappoint you anyway. I have no incriminating evidence, and if I did, I'm not the sort to kiss and tell.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[identity profile] wastedfragility.livejournal.com
2007-10-15 03:50 pm UTC (link)
ah, there isnt really any Master Plan as such, it was mainly a messaround to wind him up.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)

Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-15 03:53 pm UTC (link)
Sounds like a Master Plan to me.

Did it work?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread


Re: Scott MacDonald Syndrome


[identity profile] wastedfragility.livejournal.com
2007-10-16 07:42 am UTC (link)
Most likely not. A good few years throwing insults and practical jokes between each other has never really resulted in the desired effect. Revenge never seems to work on that guy.
Scottie if you are reading this also, *WAVES* hi.
Meh.
Heh.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



[identity profile] annajaneclare.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:11 pm UTC (link)
Back to mawwiage. All of my friends seem to be getting married, and I don't understand why.

Basically? Tax purposes. My financial circumstances be a damn sight easier if I wasn't a filthy, co-habiting harlot. I'd get my NI contributions paid no questions asked.

The reason I don't get married is that because the last time I raised the subject he went a bit of a funny colour and began thinking of all those couples we'd known whose relationships were terrific until they got married and had a lot more reason to argue about money. So I dropped the subject sharpish and haven't brought it up again. We're coming up to our tenth anniversary as a couple next February anyway, so why go fucking it up for tax purposes?

(Reply to this



[identity profile] anjylle.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:48 pm UTC (link)
I've always seen marriage as being one of the efforts of the Government (whatever and wherever and in whichever form it may take) to coerce the Populace into assuming a position of uniformity. Conformist societies are easily predictable and therefore easily controllable. 'Morality' is nothing more than a catch-phrase with the added benefit of guilt implication.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


ext_79424: Line drawing of me, by me (me)


[identity profile] spudtater.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Um. Governments certainly didn't invent marriage.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


ext_79424: Line drawing of me, by me (me)


[identity profile] spudtater.livejournal.com
2007-10-13 09:58 pm UTC (link)
> All of my friends seem to be getting married, and I don't understand why.

I can understand why you don't understand why. You don't give a rat's arse what anybody thinks about your relationship, especially those people who traditionaly turn up at weddings, viz family, extended family, etc. To you, you know how you feel, and that's all that matters. Fair enough. But I'm not you. While I do have my issues with some of them, I still get on with and talk to most of my family. (And, for that matter, [livejournal.com profile] galaxy_girl00's.)

I have always said that marriage is in fact for the families. It is an event to transform the two participants in the eyes of kith and kin; to erase the social role of "child" and bestow that of... well, "adult", I guess, though it really has implications of "parent-to-be". It's all very tribal; it goes back to the very evolution of the human monogamous bond. It certainly isn't an invention of any religion (though they love to claim it).

Where was I? Yes, in the eyes of family and friends the two are changed, and that can't help but have an effect on the relationship itself. It cements it (a metaphor that is becoming cliché, I suppose), almost legitimises it. Is this a bad thing? I used to think it was weak to care what other people thought of you, and to let this influence your own vision of yourself. But I now think that this is just human nature, and in fact both inevitable and neccessary to the formation of personality.

So yes, I want the strengthening of my relationship that comes with en-masse recognition and acceptance of it. And if you have to spend a certain amount of money to get that, so be it.

(The entirety of this comment is, of course, just the intellectual rationalisation of an emotional process. But "Coz we just wanna" doesn't make a good LJ comment.)

P.S. You've got it the wrong way round. Marriage doesn't make you boring. It's vice versa. (Yes, I admit that I have been incredibly boring recently. And yet, so what?)

(Reply to this)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-14 03:03 am UTC (link)
Some very, very good points.

Coz we just wanna is a bloody good justification for getting married, though. Nonetheless I'm grateful that you obliged me and went into more detail.

I would like to discuss this with you further at some stage. I'm academically curious, and it's been a while since we've actually disagreed on something.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent


matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (MatGB)


[personal profile] matgb
2007-10-13 11:18 pm UTC (link)
Regarding the tax question only—I'm in favour of govts using tax to point people away from behaviour society believes to be bad, and towards behaviour they believe to be good. Pigouvian taxation, tax externalities to show full social cost not just market defined cost.

The problem here is that they're making a good/bad judgement based on their percevied right/wrong and making decisions based around faulty data about what society wants.

Fuel tax escalator, congestion charging, 'green taxes' generally are all examples of pigouvian taxes. This is an example of the govt being outmoded However, it plays well to the middle ground middle england voter that they need to stay in power. That's why they're doing it.

Electoral system again—my answer to everything.

(Reply to this)  (Thread


gominokouhai: (pajh)


[personal profile] gominokouhai
2007-10-14 04:09 am UTC (link)
(I had to look up Pigouvian taxation, which Wikipedia spells differently.)

Yes, exactly. I'm in favour of governments raising taxes—it's the one thing I know they can do really, really quite frighteningly well. I'm even in favour of them using taxes to discourage bad shit. As mentioned above: let's have a Stupid Questions tax and a Drunken Moron tax.

But I don't trust the government to know what constitutes bad shit on my behalf.

You and I are outnumbered by all the Home Counties voters who believe in things like the Sanctity Of Marriage and Let's String Up All The Paediatricians (yes, I know that only happened once).

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent



(38 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)