JK Rowling

[observer]

Inclined to agree with you on this one Baz: but the idea of encouraging marriage and the nuclear family through the tax system needs to descriminate between those who have unfortunately lost their spouse through death, and the feckless slappers who make a career out of having kids. We also need to end this obsession that all women must have a career, being a "Mum" is a valued career and should be recognised as such, rather than encouraging child dumping and causing firms to lose staff for 9 months at a time.

[Bazj]

When I lost my first wife; My company continued to pay me full pay for the couple of months I was off work (for which I am eternally grateful to them) however, once the Inland Revenue learned I was single; they backdated all the tax I should have paid for the two or three months and sent me a letter (which I still have somewhere) telling me that I should have told them "Immediately my circustances changed!!"

 

I must admit, telling the Inland Revenue wasn't the first thing that crossed my mind at the time!

[observer]

Perhaps, a tax free lump sum with the issueing of a marriage certificate, which is forfeited on divorce; and an addition to child allowance for those born within wedlock?

[Dizzy]

Will never work Obs... anyway when couples get divorced the wife usually comes of better so guess the thought of hubby having to pay back the tax free lump sum might be an incentive for 'pay back' of a different sort

[observer]

Ooops forgot; it's a girls world now!

[Dizzy]

Should be Obs... it would certainly resolve a lot of problems

[P J]

Perhaps, a tax free lump sum with the issueing of a marriage certificate, which is forfeited on divorce; and an addition to child allowance for those born within wedlock?

 

Could the registrars cope with all that Burberry Obs?

[Bazj]

Could the registrars cope with all that Burberry Obs?

 

[observer]

Errm, doubt it Diz: try this for "women's" logic - I know of a few cases now, where couples start living together, start buying their house (huge mortgage), may even drop a kid or two (more expense); then SHE decides to "get married". But does SHE decide to pop round to the Register Office for a low cost do? Nah; the full works - wedding dresses, bridesmaids, cake, cars, meal etc - the full monty, costing over ?10,000 - now that's female financial prudence for you - no wonder our finances are shot at!

[Dizzy]

Absolute twadlle Obs.....

 

But not being in a ranting mood tonight all I will say is that everything you mention Takes two you know

 

PS.... I only edited my post cos I had 'quoted' you when I didn't need to as no-one else had replied to your comment

[Bonzodog]

Perhaps, a tax free lump sum with the issueing of a marriage certificate, which is forfeited on divorce; and an addition to child allowance for those born within wedlock?

 

Seriously, one of the best sugestions I have heard from anyone in a long time. My only qualification would be that if the lump sum was not going to be repaid easily, it could be collected via the tax code

[Mary]

She already has credibility and is very well known as a large charity giver. She is president of the charity 'One Parent Families and also helped to raise ?10.8 million for the 'International Fund for Children and Young People in Crisis'. She has donated millions into research in multiple sclerosis and also contributed a substantial sum toward the creation of a new Centre for Regenerative Medicine at Edinburgh University

Unfortunately as most people are aware no matter how much you give to charity it is never enough.

 

Very good post wolfie - the truth is it is her money to give where she likes - she does know what it is like to be very very poor. Her money her decision.

[observer]

Not twaddle at all Diz; actual cases: and as in most housholds nowadays, it's the female that calls the shots - certainly when it comes to the fantasy of wearing white, with your kids as bridesmaids!

[Bazj]

I still haven't checked my Euromillions tickets yet. This time tomorrow I could be looking down on you all from my private jet on the way to Barbados!!

[observer]

Or a private Cruise Liner - sure Asp will drive it for you?!

[Mary]

So we have moved off Rowlings then? Observer if you had all her money - would you want others telling you what to do with it? I mean others as in people who do not know you? I think not.

[Dizzy]

 

I would hope that if I had all her money someone would give me a huge slap and talk some sense into me if I said that I was dontaing any of it to the Government.

 

They take enough from us all as it is and taht gets wasted

[observer]

It's inevitable that others will always tell someone with money, just how to spend it - the trick is just to ignore them - which most of them are extremely successfull in doing!

[Bonzodog]

if you had all her money - would you want others telling you what to do with it?

This is one of the main features of Socialism - that it is for the state to decide how YOUR money should be spent. This is achieved by the "redistribution of wealth" & "fairer taxation" "progressive taxation" aka taking from one person & giving to someone else aka buying votes.

[observer]

"buying votes"? - doesn't seem to have worked very well over the last century! It's fairly simple Bonz; you can either have a world where there is little or no involvement by the State in the distribution of wealth, which leads to an ever widening wealth gap and the monopoly of finance by a few, some of whom will excercise philanphropy and provide buildings etc for the common good, some of whom will buy politicians and buy votes, thus excercising control over society by bribery, and securing a permanent aspect to their position of power. The problem with the free market and the rat race, is that it's structure is by definition a pyramid, with a few at the top and the majority at the bottom, and the sides of that pyramid are extremely slippery, the steeper the gradient. The need for taxation to provide institutions for the common interest, like a Defence Force, a Police Force etc have derived from historic practical experience; and in a modern age of so-called enlightenment, the range of provisions "in the interest of the common good" has expanded; from social provision to ensure the unemployed don't starve, to medical provision to ensure that the majority have access to treatment, and it's now extended to the bailing out of those iconic capitalist institutions - the Banks!

[wolfie]

Seems like the banks are now being bailed out by the same people that they were slapping ?30 overdraft charges on

[Bonzodog]

I agree, by & large it is simple:- capitalism, free market or whatever term you wish to use has driven up the standards of living in the western economies to levels unimaginable even as little as 70 years ago. The non-western economies have also benefited although not to the same degree. You see I believe that having the wealth of the few raised by 3000% (for a figure) whilst that of the poor is raised by only 10% is preferable to having no-one's raised at all. I am not interested in whether the wealth gap grows & grows ad infinitum provided that the standards of living of the vast majority are increased.

[observer]

Total delusion Bonz; I refer you to my previous post!

[Bonzodog]

Total delusion Bonz; I refer you to my previous post!

Which bit? The standards having been driven up or the reasons for it?

[observer]

I think every tin pot dictator in Africa, is probably 3000% ahead of their population - and we know what a state Africa is in! Divisions of wealth don't combat poverty, they are the cause of it - poverty being a relative concept.