Reader comments · Cameron promises the Conservatives will introduce a tax breaks for civil partners · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

General Election 2010

Cameron promises the Conservatives will introduce a tax breaks for civil partners

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He has to y law, where is the exploit?!

  2. Patrick James 10 Apr 2010, 1:27pm

    If the LGBT couple decide to spend their tax break by staying a night at a B & B they might have a problem…

  3. “But the policy will only benefit gay couples where one partner earns less than £6,600 per year.”

    Another Tory announcement that when you think about whats proposed will benefit very few people.

    Just like the announcement yesterday on benefits cheats convicted three times getting banned from receiving benefits for 3 years. The department for work and pensions have never convicted anybody of cheating the system three times in its history.

    Typical PR stunts from a PR man not a Prime minister

  4. For years the public perception has been that gay people just want to sleep with everything they find. This, of course has a lot to do with the media and the way it reports gay people and ‘how we live.’ Sadly, people do believe what they read and being that the press very rarely prints positive news it usually only is negative coverage that seems to paint a somewhat Very distorted view of life being LGBT.

    Because of this negative press coverage a lot of heterosexual people have long being arguing that gay people couldn’t possibly have serious, commited, loving relationship. This as We know is untrue. Convienently straight people seem to forget that sexual activity amongst the heterosexual community is far from different. We have prove of the highest levels of teenage and underage pregancies in this country and a serious rise in numbers of STD’s.

    Civil Partnerships of course, hopefully has started to dispel this myth and hopefully goes a long way to correcting this rather neanderthal view of us.

    We all know we deserve better than that.

    Surely now that the Tories have stated this tax break proposal for both marriages and civil partnerships has to help push along attitudes to show we are in loving relationships just like anybody else. This has to be positive news and must go some way into helping fight the rights we should be having. If The Tories had said that it was only for a man/woman marriage would you not all be screaming “bigots”? Yeah we all probably would. So this is a right we actually Haven’t had to fight for.

    Don’t Our commited relationships deserve to be recognised just as others. Yes they do. At last we are showing how we play our party in society. It’s a mighty big part and one we should be proud with.

  5. Tom in E14 10 Apr 2010, 2:35pm

    Squidgy, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I cant help feeling that there are more important ways that they could demonstrate a commitment to LGBT rights than a tax break worth £3.00 a week.

    They cant be seen to exclude civil partnerships without being accused of bigotry. What they should be doing is giving civil partners absolute parity in tax, benefits, pensions and inheritance status.

    This would normalise the status of civil partnerships to the point that even the Daily Mail would have to leave the issue alone.

  6. So will you be giving up your full time job and earn just £6,600 per year (£127 per week) Just so your partner can get hold of £750 of your personal tax allowance then Squidgy?

    Do the maths on this Squidgy forget about your party elegances for once!

  7. mmmm Abi1975:-

    We seem to be complaining we don’t get equal rights so shall we tell them to stuff this then? Shall we pick and choose what equal rights we want from a list?

    Wouldn’t that take us back not forward?

    Ok this isn’t a lot but it Is something. There are people out there with spouses who don’t work, maybe because they are ill, who knows. Personally I don’t think it shouldn’t be sniffed at. There are plenty of people who fall under this bracket. May I remind you that under Labour even the very wealthy get benefits. I actually support that being stopped esp if it goes some way in helping the poorest.

    Will I be giving up my job… No. My partner and I won’t get this but I’m not going to dismiss it bitterly because I get more. Another thing Labour has done. Pay more to the people that don’t need it whilst the worst off… well just get worse.

    I for one just cannot be a selfish me, me, me person who only thinks about what in it for me. Never have and Never will. There are other less fortunate people that finally deserve this help. I for one can only hope there is more to come.

  8. Tom in E14:-

    Hi :)

    I see what your saying and yes you do have a point but surely anything like this no matter how small is a start, plus something we haven’t had to fight for. I would encourage anything that is to help the less well off and am only pleased that without our voice the Tories have gone some way to show, a very small gesture, that as gay people we should be included and that we matter.

    Yes they do have pleny more to do and show.

  9. George Osborne told The Times: “a society where more people are married is a stronger society.”

    “a stronger society”? In what ways, I wonder. How would Osborne prove that?

    What he really means is that he has a prejudice and his prejudice is that everyone SHOULD be settled down into a nice little unit, living a conventional and miserably conservative life, with 2.5 children, preferably heterosexual, of course, and preferably worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ.

    That’s all that the conservative (read “unoriginal”) Osborne means by his “stronger society”.

    As for “the Tory tax break for Civil Partners”, as has been pointed out above they are legally bound to give it to us as well as the really married, i.e. the heterosexual married. Imagine the outrage the Tories would have had on their hands this morning if they had indicated that Civil Partners would NOT be included!

  10. George Broadhead, PTT 11 Apr 2010, 9:00am

    I am in a civil partnership arrangement and we would be eligible for the tax break. However, this poses a dilemma since, like Nick Clegg, I am not in favour of special concessions being given to particular groups.

    Why should married couples or gay couples in civil partnerships be considered more deserving than those co-habiting – or living in sin as Christians would have it?

  11. George, all this reveals is the reactionary nature of the campaign for civil partnership and now “gay marriage”. It is all about begging the state to recognise and privilege those individuals who register according to the dictates of the state and disadvantaging others. Remember the Stonewall leaflets with moaning low-lifes saying “oh, if my partner dies I’ll be required to pay 40% tax on anything I pocket over £1/4 million” – like any decent person would give a toss. “Gay marriage” is very New Labour, very New Tory and very reactionary.

  12. Mihangel apYrs 11 Apr 2010, 11:03am

    #10, #11

    Cp offers ssecurity that youi won’t heave to sell your home to pay death duties, and that youi have next of kin rights including intestate ones. It may not seem worthwhile to some right until you need them.

    The married couples pension is less than double a single person’s; should it be increased? If not why not?

  13. If ever I am in a position where I pocket an unearned £1/4 million through the death of a partner I will not whinge about paying 40% tax on the rest of the windfall. Just shows how reactionary gay rights groups have become.

  14. Mihangel apYrs 11 Apr 2010, 12:59pm

    It’s nice to know that YOU can afford to rustle up £100000 to avoid having to sell your home to pay death duties.

    Some of the rest of moved into these homes with our partners decades ago when the were worth much less, and are certainly not in the position to shell out £100k effortlessly.

    My partner and I CPd so we wouldn’thave to worry about fighting relatives, bureaucrats at the very moment when we shouldn’t have to, and to protect what we’d built TOGETHER from destruction by the state.

  15. Mihangela – before civil partnerships were introduced, if your partner dies before you you’d pocket something like £330,000 and then 60% of everything above that so to have a tax bill of £100,000 you’d have to inherit, unearned, just under £600,000. If you inherit just under £600,000 of unearned cash then I think you can pay some tax. You and your partner would not be fighting bureaucrats as one of you would be dead (which I can only imagine would be a relief for the poor dear!). And DON’T use UPPER CASE – it simply reveals you as the right-wing loony tunes character you so clearly are!

  16. Mihangel apYrs 11 Apr 2010, 5:32pm

    My my, how witty “Mihangela”

    little boy, you’re not worth debating with since it’s obvious you have the maturity of a sixteen year old disco queen. People like you are infesting more and more sites, stifling debate and discussion by shouting everyone else down and accusing them of being “rightwing” if they don’t subscribe to your particular brand of “socialism”.

    I will do with you hat I have done with tossers throughout my life. I will ignore you

  17. Poor Mihangela just can’t cope with information, can she? I wonder how old she is to be so hot and bothered about the idea that she might be communicating with a sixteen year old, and “disco queen”, she’s so very 70s! And to think she wants is all to pay taxes so she can inherit her old man’s dosh when he shuffles off tax free, but at LEAST she is NOT SHOUTING this time, bless.

  18. Of the 15 stories appearing on the front page of Pink News, 12 are about the Tory Party.

    Yet Pink News claims not to be biased.

    How stupid do the editors and reporters regard us?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.