Saturday, August 23, 2008

Tories: Tax breaks back families


The statistics are clear: children with married parents perform better in school, are happier and less likely to commit crime. Yet Britain is almost alone in Europe in not recognising marriage in the tax system.
Now, at last, the Conservatives are preparing to break the taboos against boosting marriage and against tax cuts. But there are much bolder moves to be taken in both areas.
I don't think I have ever voted Tory before but ....

11 comments:

Henry said...

People, married, single, straight or gay, should not be taxed for the work they do. People are entitled to the full fruits of their labour. Period. The taxation of labour, goods and services is robbery. It does not provide the revenue needed to pay for decent standards of public service. It rewards idleness and crime and penalises work and thrift. It leads to impoverishment of both individuals and the nation as a whole. The tax system is also a factor in the concentration of 85% of Britain's population into less than a third of its land area. It is also, incidentally, the underlying cause of economic booms and busts, unaffordable housing, unemployment, in fact just about all of Britain's economic ills.

It is not necessary for governments to penalise people in this way in order to raise the revenue they need and they should stop doing it. The running costs alone of the tax system are sufficient to justify scrappping it.

There is a better alternative. Those who know me will be aware what that is, but such is the power of vested interests, that they will never allow it to happen. Their chosen method of opposition is by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Of course if enough people would make the effort to fight, things could change, but it is easier to grumble and let the government tinker.

Cranmer said...

Father Ray,

His Grace welcomes you to the supreme enlightenment of Conservative politics. Since Labour has ridden roughshod over the Christian heritage and moral foundations of this country, Catholics should now vote for the party en masse because only the Conservative Party is offering any redress. It was a pro-life SNP candidate which caused many Catholics to abandon their traditional Labour allegiance in the Glasgow East by-election. If that were to be repeated all over the country, there is every likelihood of a change in the abortion laws.

Michael Petek said...

Read this week's Catholic Herald before you vote for Cameron, let alone the local gay-friendly Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion.

Mr Cameron insists on keeping it legal for disabled babies to be aborted at will up to birth.

Coming from a man who worships Mammon this isn't surprising. Disabled babies never stop costing more money to raise than healthy ones, and they are less likely than healthy babies to grow up to be employable at all, let alone at a profit.

Mr Cameron also voted to keep Section 28 on the statute book. He's since changed his mind under persuasion by his wife.

Now, he's supposed to be the head of his family. If he lets himself be swayed by her the way Adam was by Eve he's bound to be a disaster.

John said...

I can't agree with Henry on this one.
As they say, the only certainty in this life is death and taxes.
All kinds of taxes have been devised and your Gordon Brown has come up with some very devious ones...the taxes which aren't taxes! Why, there was even a tax on windows at one time in England. The latest one which infuriates me is a tax on all flights into and out of Britain because of the latest religion of climate change and the totally unproven claim that mankind is causing the natural phenomenon of climate change and we must be taxed on our carbon emissions when the carbon emissions are post hoc not propter hoc!
As for voting Tory!
Well you have the best of a very bad lot of politicians with no work experience and nothing other than self interest, so how else can you vote with any sense. And I mean with any sense, in having any possibility of changing the situation. There are, I believe, other minor parties, but their chances of doing anything significant are NIL.

JARay

Ponte Sisto said...

I used to vote along party lines, but now, if I'm asked, I say that I vote "Pro Life/Pro Family". We've gone beyond part allegiances, and as you point out, at least the Conservatives seem closest to the Church's teaching. That said, they still have a long way to go!

Laurence said...

I read the article in the Herald too, Michael. He was basically saying, 'I'm a good guy because I didn't have my unborn disabled child killed, but I think people should have the right to kill their unborn disabled child right up to birth.'

Crikey, David, why stop there? I mean it isn't a giant leap from endorsing infanticide in the womb up to birth and endorsing infanticide minutes, days or months after birth.

That is the logic of what he is saying. It's no good being Pro-Family on the one hand, but endorsing eugenics on the other.

Why don't politicians think about what they are actually saying. Sadly, until someone stands for the protection of life from conception to death, a compassionate set of policies for the poor AND the promotion of the family, there really isn't anyone to vote for.

Anonymous said...

There are only two parties which can for a government.

One is led by Cameron who has some pro-family sentiments and was recently led by a Catholic. The other is led by a man who removed any tax incentives for families to stay together and made it more profitable for poor parents to live apart. And has never had a Catholic leader (or two Jewish or one woman leader, unlike the Tories).

One has a woman MP (an ex-nurse) who proposed a reduction in the time limit for 'social abortions' the other has a group of pro-abortion women MPs who ensured that the proposal fell.

It shouldn't be too hard to spot the pro-family, anti-abortion tendencies, I'd say.

Jim
(ex Labour Party member)

Michael Petek said...

John, there are three certainties in life, not two:

Death, taxes and a visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Paul, south Midlands said...

Its worth noting that Cameron has used Iain Duncan Smith to formulate his social policies.

(the same chap who was elected as leader because they thought he was a right wing hard liner and then dumped as leader after they discovered he was a Catholic, not as hard line right wing as they thought and started basing social policy on Catholic teaching.

I (obviously) don't agree with what Cameron has said but at least he is honest enough to talk about his position and defend it himself without getting others to issue anonymous weasel spin, and he did if I recall vote for reduction to lower than 24 weeks. When was the last time a Labour leader did so?

pelerin said...

I've managed to eradicate the third certainty in life (michael petek) - although I have two door bells neither of them work! Benjamin Franklin was obviously never troubled with the third certainty!

Henry said...

John,

The tax system works roughly like this, taken in conjunction with the benefits system. If you stay at home with a supply of lager and spend all day every day watching videos, you will be paid a small stipend for your lack of effort. If you get up off your backside and take a job you will be clobbered. If you have a business which could just about keep you going the government will come along and knock it out of existence - most bankruptcy proceedings are initiated by the tax authorities, did you know that?

If you are well off you can pay accountants and lawyers to fix things up for you so you pay much less than your fair share.

If you own a chunk of Central London you can set the whole thing up as an offshore trust and pay next to no tax at all.

You mention taxes on windows, the result of which was bricked-up windows. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco lead to less smoking and drinking. But our main taxes are on work, and the inevitable and predictable result is idleness. Do you really think that is something desirable and to be encouraged?

As for deciding who to vote for, the choices are dire but they reflect the state of society so why should one expect things like morality to be on anyone's electoral manifesto?