I think I’ve detected a programming bug in the fabric of reality – it’s actually nothing like Facebook.
Having had a day or two to consider Dave’s plan to hand my child benefit (since when was having children a benefit?) to married couples, I’m becoming increasingly miffed. Why take money from one bunch of non-deserving people and arbitrarily hand it straight to another bunch of non-deserving people? It’s sheer lunacy – after all, I’m just as non-deserving as a married person. It’s discriminatory in the extreme as well.
We have calculated that when the Caravans pass on and Hay inherits their house, if I register as sole occupier of our house and Hay registers as sole occupier of the inherited house, we would stand to recoup vastly more in terms of Council Tax reductions than we’d gain from a marriage tax break in the instance of us getting hitched. It’s entirely legal too.
Why do married couples need a tax break? Everyone knows it’s cheaper to live as a couple than individually, thus by the strict rules of logic the buggers should be taxed more! Co-habiting couples too – but that’s harder for the taxman to detect.
With all this talk about cuts, I wonder if Dave is going to abolish the entirely useless role of Deputy Prime Minister? Constitutionally the DPM doesn’t assume the powers of the Prime Minister in the latter's absence or illness, nor does the DPM automatically succeed the Prime Minister should the latter be incapacitated or resign from the leadership of his or her political party. It’s a QuANGO of one.
Clegg, as the incumbent DPM, has stated he will share Chevening House with William Haig as his grace and favour country residence. I wonder if these perks will disappear in the cuts?
A modest 115 room semi on an estate, used by Clegg and Haig.
2 comments:
I think us married ladies desreve some sort of award as well as tax benefits.
Next thing we'll have are tax breaks for people just because they believe in magic... oh, hang on..
Post a Comment