The Furrowed Brow
Seriously.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Insomnia again Eddie?
Fair point, Anne P (1). Is that why Eddie's brow is furrowed? I think we should be told...
Nice Strapline Frances O!
Which reminds me Fifi, where the devil are you??
Good morning all. I'd like to start a discussion that I've had here in the office in the past with others. It came up because of the talk about whether married couples should have tax benefits because of their marriage. I guess most of the froggers here know I'm single, which may colour my perceptions here... I'm sorry, but why should a couple who marry have a tax benefit for the fact that they are married? What is it about the fact that they have married that makes this couple deserve paying less in tax than I do? The majority of my friends are married. A lot of them have deliberately decided not to have children. Consequently, they already have a much better financial status than I could hope to achieve, simply because they have two salaries but one house. This means they will pay 100% council tax. I, as a single person, have only one salary, but I have to pay 75% council tax. This means that I have a per capita higher tax burden than the couple living next door. Some people may say that it's my decision to live on my own. Nothing could be further from the truth! I would dearly like to find an SO, but my search so far has not been succesful. Why should I be penalised further by allowing couples to have tax relief when they're already in a better financial state than I could hope to be, given that they have a much higher joint income? Every time budgets come round, or policy is being debated, a lot is made about how we need to support the family, or we need to give incentives for couples to stay together. Why shouldn't tax benefits be made availabe to ALL?
So here's a question. Some people are smelling antisemitism in the scapegoating of Lord Levy, but how many people actually knew he was Jewish in the first place?
Anne P - More like an excess of caffeine, I wouldn't wonder.
How many espressos yesterday, Eddie?
Owen (4) - the clue might be in the name?
Fearless (4) when I got married 40 years ago (Good grief, is it really that long, it can't be...) women were still mostly expected to give up work to be at home, knitting slippers and baking cakes while 'hubby' went out to work. In that context some recognition by the tax system of the penalty incurred by getting married was helpful, though it also helped to perpetuate the roles.
Now I consider it entirely inappropriate to create a tax advantage for marriage as some kind of 'reward for good behaviour'. We should each be treated as individuals and taxed accordingly. Also Council Tax should be income related not related to property value or the number of occupants.
The question of providing support for children in the case that a parent gives up all or part of their income to care for the children is a separate issue I think.
However the current tax benefit for the married is not entirely one-way. As I have commented previously, in my job I had to maintain a separate flat from my husband as I worked away from home (or more accurately his job moved north and mine stayed put). Had we not been married then the eventual sale of my property would have counted as the sale of my principal residence and not taxed, as it was we had to pay CGT.
Swings and roundabouts perhaps?
Anne (7) I can't always tell from a name whether its owner is Jewish. How many people can, these days? (Am I enlightened or merely ignorant?)
Ffred - I'm with you, but not because of the fairness issue. My problem with tax benefits for married couples is that the intention is to act as an incentive to get married and then to stay together. This is an absolute nonsense. I can't imagine anyone saying they got married in order to get a tax benefit! It never even crossed my mind when we tied the knot all those years ago.
There is nothing the Government can do to make people want to commit to marriage and stay in it. It's not the place of Government to try to do this. It is for society to decide. Personally, I think marriage is fine and I also think it's good for couples who have children to stay together if they possibly can. But tax benefits won't persuade them.
Anne (7), I'm with Owen actually -- it hadn't even occurred to me. Also, names don't necessarily indicate much nowadays -- how many people called "Smith" are still working as Blacksmiths, for instance?
Fearless (4)
Here Here!
I'm in exactly the same boat, if not mine's also leaking. As a single person, my marginal rate of overall taxation is notably higher than a couple having the same income, and I'm supposed to be happy about it. And that's before some "married person's allowance" being introduced.
In addition, the cost of utility bills, car, etc also are notably higher for a single person - you cannot heat "half a kitchen" just because only one person lives in the house.
Now there are no obvious ways around many of these inequalities - whatever the situation, two sharing will be cheaper than one. I believe that single people are a majority of households (whether that also includedes single people with children, I'm not sure), so another scheme to penalise the majority will only increase resentment.
Owen (5) and Api (11) - with you on this. Didn't even occur to me. I'd like to put that down to open mindedness!
Fearless & Deepthought - the solution is obvious. You two need to move in together. Excellent money saving scheme.
On the marriange / tax debate Ann pointed out the original reason for the tax break for the married.
There is however, and I don't think there ever was any provision for people in my position - married with a self employed husband, who is all but unemployed. Since we have no children at home we don't qualify for any of the child related credits, he doesn't qualify for any of the unemployment related ones, and we pay full wack council tax etc.
We get by, but only just and it can be very depressing at times. Sorry to moan but that's how it is.
I agree with you both FF and Deepthought. I do "co-habitate" but quite frankly a tax incentive is hardly going to incent us to rush up the aisle! I am getting very tired of the endless carping on from politicians about the importance of family in society. Don't get me wrong I am not against the notion of the conventional family at all - and its been more a case of we just haven't got round it yet, rather than being against marriage. I just think there are far bigger issues out there and politicians seem quick to blame the lack of mother/father in the family for many of society's ills. My sister is single again through no choice of hers, and has children - surely she is more in need of tax breaks now than if she was still married?
Incidentally did anyone hear last week's Any Questions with Ken Loach. He made a brilliant point which made me cheer out loud in the car! Basically he said it is none of Government's business whether couples choose to marry or not and surely the money we are talking about would be better spent elsewhere. Instead of taking less tax of married couples, take the same but use it to try and replace some of the fabric of our society that is disappearing. For example, bus conductors who make travelling by bus feel a bit safer. Park keepers in the local parks keeping order there etc etc. When did you last see a PC on the beat? That is where we are failing.
Well that's my tuppence worth anyway..
FF @ 4 & DeepT @12
The majority of adult people are married and, so, they have all the advantages of a majority. Politcians will cultivate, by 'bribery', their (the majority of adults) support.
Support = votes.
Votes = election to a 'gravy train'.
The gravy train = a very nice present and financial rewarding future.
The solution; single people must become more militant, for he who shouts the loudest will be heard, but, even then, will probably be outvoted by the self interest of the majority.
The future in in your hands, lads.
It's no wonder that trust in the integrity of television broadcasters has been severely undermined by the scandal swamping the shows in which viewers are invited to cast a vote, express an opinion or compete for a prize using a premium phone number. Both ITV and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (which I note that some people on a previous thread have said they cherish) have been found wanting especially when it comes to the 'phone- in' concept to programmes they broadcast. The world of radio also needs checking out as well. Originally it was a programme named Richard & Judy (whatever that is) that was seriouly implicated, but it proved, it now seems to be the tip of an iceberg which has now sunk the entire money-spinning idea into such turmoil.
When its astonishing potential for generating income became apparent, ITV's accountants may well have thought they had found a cure for their financial headaches. Their share of the audience figures is steadily declining – a direct reflection I think of the poverty of its programming. The income from the advertisers is shrinking accordingly. The phone-in programmes became a lifeline, and no-one, it seems, was over-concerned about ensuring that they were operated with a strict regard for probity.
It is now becoming clear that a culture of casualness was endemic; in the apt words of the, chairman of Icstis which regulates premium rate phone services, it has got the broadcasters into a "pretty grim mess". He said. Digging them out of it will require prompt and persuasive action.
There is much talk of a licensing system or the awarding of a kite mark as a guarantee of high operating standards, which may eventually help to persuade the public that the broadcasters can be trusted, but while it is certain that sooner or later the phone-in shows will return, their necessity must be regretted. I think if programmes on offer were better, audiences would not be shrinking, advertising revenues would not be slumping, and such gimmicks would not be necessary. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Boringly I agree with the majority posting here concerning increased married persons tax allowances.
The remedy here is obvious for FF, Deepthought, and indeed myself.
We'll have to set up a PM dating agency ;-) Requires GSOH of course !
As it happens, there are financial advantages in remaining single and cohabiting. I still cannot understand why married couples have to pay capital gains tax on the sale of a second property, whilst cohabiting couples don't. That's a tax on being married. As to 'tax breaks', as far as I'm aware there are none if you are childless. Well, certainly none of which SO and I can take advantage.
Frankly, I'm all for level playing fields. And, Fearless, you ARE right about the costs of being single - I should know, I only married five years ago and lived alone before that.
Appy (11) and Owen (9) - I hadn't thought about it either until it came up on Today this morning that Lord Levy's rabbi had said he was being made a scapegoat. I guess I was sensitised to the name since a branch of my husband's family were called Lawes and are assumed to have converted/been forcibly converted to Christianity in the Middle Ages, having been called Levi before.
I guess my earlier comment may have come across as a bit flippant, which was not my intention. You can tell a lot about people's origins from their surnames though that origin may go a long way back. No value judgments intended or implied.
Actually, Jacques, the figures from the office of national statistics (click to see them) show that it's near enough a 50/50 split between married and not marrieds. Even if co-habiting is included, it's still only a 60/40 split....
I know my rant makes me come off as a bit of a whingy singleton. It's just that every time a benefit is introduced, it's always portrayed as being of a benefit to the country as a whole to give more rights and benefits to parents. Already at work, I have to make sure I am available to cover for my colleagues who have children. I have to fit my holidays into times when they are sure to be here (so generally not during the summer holidays, etc.). For once, I'd like to see a benefit/tax break for everyone rather than just one segment of the country...
If criticising Lord Levy is anti-semitism, would it be racism to criticise Gordon Brown?
Fearless (22), I agree. And, actually, I have often felt that I'm being discriminated against because I don't have children. In a previous existence as a manager of 18 people, some of my team who were parents clearly expected to be given priority over other team members when it came to getting their desired holidays too. Not all of them, of course. And, speaking as one who has been very happily -- if briefly -- married I can honestly say it was so lovely that no financial incentive was required. I'm not sure where I'm, going with any of this but just felt like sharing!
Anne (21), I didn't mean to imply that you were being flippant at all -- just that I tend to agree with Owen: I don't expect many people would've realised the guy was Jewish until they heard so recently radio, which makes the claims of anti-semitism a bit suspect. But then, maybe that's naive of me? Anyway, no criticism intended, honest! ;-)
FF @22
All the more reason for me to repeat my last sentence.
'The future in in your hands, lads' (and Lasses)!
Become millitant! Make your MPs take notice. I wish you luck.
PS I am 'single' myself, now.
Jacques, what on Earth are you on about???
FFred, Deepthought, Aperitif I agree entirely. Individuals should be taxed according to their own earnings and single people should pay HALF the council tax! Hurrah Ffred - lead the way to Downing Street!!
I have been in the situation where people with children took priority for taking holidays in the school hols and as we were unable to overlap, I always got 2nd pick.
I have also experienced the 'person with children being allowed to always go home early' situation where myself and others were often late home trying to finish all the work one person short!
Fearless (22), Aperitif (24), Jacques, and A (19),
Annasee (14), how come I'm not surprised at that suggestion coming from you ;-P
FF, you saved me the job of getting the statistics; and I'm sure you four and I would all like to find an[other] SO at some point. Ap and FF in particular, I too have that holiday problem, to the point that some years I end up not having a holiday at all - for the only times that are available are also the times I have (as boss) to be present. Another drawback of being (unintentionally) single and childless.
The Sec (15), I know your situation, too; as boss, I'm last in line to get paid, (and don't have wife/SO & children, as others will remind me if I propose they get a delay on their wages), so often - this month being one case - I have to wait until customers pay up before I can draw my pittance.
Oh dear, another whinger...
PS I didn't mean to get at people with children in my last comment! I'm aware it's not always the case:-)
Val P, RJD, Big Sister (and others who may be wondering):
Fifi is not in the huff.
She's in Scotland, weathering the weather and looking after poorly cold-ridden parents.
Back on Wednesday, assuming M&D are well enough to make their own hot drinks by Tuesday.
They're on dial-up connection, hence silence on the froggie front. But I'm available for the occasional abusive email, if anyone's interested!
Fifi xxx
All,
As the discussion seems to some degree to turn on 'family values' perhaps I can offer another angle.
I consider the loss of cultural continuity in the modern world a major problem. The age of individualism is well and truly with us as illustrated by our atomised society. The number of people living alone, the decrease in the average size of households, the transitory nature of intimate relationships and the sequestering of the elderly in care institutions all bear witness to this.
I have no axe to grind against single people, childless folk (rather the reverse in our overpopulated world), or folk cohabiting without institutional sanction.
"Family values", are nonetheless a hallmark of successful cultures, as exemplified by Asian corner shopkeepers, Jews and Scots worldwide, to mention but three.
A major channel of cultural continuity in the past has been the relation of grandparents to grandchildren, often while the middle generation was occupied in earning the household's upkeep. The elders taught the young folk and recited family (and cultural) history and connections and the young folk looked after the elders. This is now reduced to occasional visits either by the grandparents between world cruises of from distant residence (either the elders or the young having migrated) or Sunday visits to the nursing home.
For children growing up it is a wonderful thing to have intimate contact with folk of many ages, genders and characters, as so often was the case with extended family and neighbours living in close proximity, but not so commonly now.
Children of single parents are at greater risk, though I'm not having a go at single parents themselves, more at the atomisation of our culture. An exception is to be seen in 'intentional' communities (communes, kibbutz, etc.), where the parental, educational and other child matters are 'shared' amongst many community members.
At present, the main channel of cultural transmission is 'the media', TV, Radio, and the internet. In such a situation it isn't surprising if the loss of "family values" is bemoaned.
What price our cherished "individual freedom"?
xx
ed
A (19)
single?
Female??
erm..... do you come here often..?
[ahem]
um, that's a really interesting thing you've done with your, er, hair.
um, yes. er... ha.
(oh godddd.........)
Whist you'd better get a move on, remember you only get 3 minutes with speed dating!
Hey Whisht! I'm a single female who's been admiring your loveliness for ages! How come you've never asked me if I come her often?... (Ah, hang on, you probably know the answer... ho hum...)
A, x.
Whisht, sweetie, come round to mine for a cuppa.
The networking tips that I normally share with business people at seminars would stand you in good stead for small-talk on dates.
Bring a bottle of wine, it could be fun!
Fifi ;o)
Push!
Annoying non-appearance here of an inoffensive post from days ago! Grr!
Well, whaddaya know... Grr...
Another shove required.
blimey!
um... Aperitif - I could never compete with the true object of your afections (even if he doesn't treat you well!)
:¬)
and Fifi - thanks!! Its odd, I can't imagine trying to chat with a woman as if she was a colleague or client... however I guess it is important to manage expectations!!
There is a knack to small-talk, Whisht. I used to hate semi-social events but now I know the secret of talking to complete strangers, I'm the life and soul of 'em!
Fearless, I agree totally with you. During one of many 'restructuring exercises' we all had to re-apply for our own jobs. There were going to be fewer of them than previously, so some of us would be out of a job.
Both of the women who happened to be off on maternity leave were guaranteed a job to come back to though. By law.
Fair???
Fifi
By the way the Comments link is working on today's thread.
Fifi
May I just say how pleased I am that TV tele-competitions are off air?
Getting back into our regular routine after a very structured week looking after my poorly parents, SO and I settled down with our bacon butties in front of the telly.
He trawled the listings mag while I channel-hopped. He declared: 'Nothing on,' while I found a vaguely interesting programme about remodelling a house for sale on a mini-budget.
'Is that a tape?' asked SO, puzzled.
Turns out, the prog was rescheduled to replace Brainteaser.
Result!!!
Fifi
Whisht (40), Who is this "true object" of my affections of whom you speak? I love everyone, dontcha know! (Some more than others of course.) That's the thing about unrequited loves -- one doesn't have to be faithful...
You're such a sweetie: You're on my list ;-)
blimey (again)!
well... my furrowed brow is more in surprise and embarrassment than deep thought.
´Ê´¥´¥8¬´Ç
[I wonder of that's ok here, or am i on the wrong thread? (usually I'm on the wrong end of the stick so...)]
you're very kind though...
:¬)
Interesting article on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ at the moment about whether children are being overly mis-diagnosed with ADHD to explain away any form of naughtiness. That is, a perfectly healthy child could be on medication just because they are 'spirited'.
As a non-parent, I find all children generally excrutiating, but what do you lot think? Is ADHD being made the scape-goat for bad parenting, an unsupportive and violent society and social and educational pressures, in some cases?
Belinda (45) An American work colleague of mine, and mother of seven, found herself under great pressure to agree to having one of her twins labelled as ADHD and medicated. Her experience told her there was no such problem in this case, but rather a school teacher who was less capable than the one the children had had the previous year.
Another US colleague who was guardian to her younger brother similarly had to resist pressure to have him put on ritalin. He went through school successfully without.
I would really like to see a good clinical study of the effect of improved diet and the addition of Omega fatty acids (particularly high dose EPA), on a variety of behavioural problems in children. There is so much anecdotal evidence and some studies, but none yet as far as I know on a scale that would be conclusive.
Belinda (45) An American work colleague of mine, and mother of seven, found herself under great pressure to agree to having one of her twins labelled as ADHD and medicated. Her experience told her there was no such problem in this case, but rather a school teacher who was less capable than the one the children had had the previous year.
Another US colleague who was guardian to her younger brother similarly had to resist pressure to have him put on ritalin. He went through school successfully without.
I would really like to see a good clinical study of the effect of improved diet and the addition of Omega fatty acids (particularly high dose EPA), on a variety of behavioural problems in children. There is so much anecdotal evidence and some studies, but none yet as far as I know on a scale that would be conclusive.