Men with more than one wife will get extra benefits under new rules

a reply to: awareness10

I'm calling BS on this. Polygamy is already illegal. This sounds suspiciously like the (right wing) Sunday Times trying to stoke up ever more anti immigration sentiment so the sheep stop looking at the real problems:

TAX FRICKING EVASION ON A GRAND SCALE (GOOGLE, VODAPHONE, AMAZON ETC) DEFENDED BY OSBORNE A PAL OF THE RIGHT WING PRESS[b]

More than one? Well, the whole suicide thing makes far more sense...

What Bugs me is what sane man would want to deal with more then one wife?

Everybody has had ONE, and ONE is enough for anybody.
-Willy Wonka

Sure there is the Tax thing, but then if the women in the relationship are working then they also get counted in the tax roll and the adjusted income of the house is higher so it would off set the dependent claim. I would say the Tax leveraging only applies to the first wife, not the handmaidens. But then were talking UK tax structure for now so I know heck in beans about what I am talking.

But I do not begrudge the consenting polygamist lifestyle as long as it can be applied equally, Let me be Husband #3 and let me have my time in my own man cave when I am not performing my husbandry duties...

CoBaZ

a reply to: eletheia

Sorry, is your global awareness not broad enough to realise I'm an Englishman and there are many sects of Christianity (such as Mormonism, not a wholly U.S. religion, for example), Hinduism, Judaism and not to mention the old Celtic traditions, that fully recognise polyamory and polygamy?

Fair play though I did sound like an American there.

a reply to: awareness10

Just for full disclosure I am one, but I apologise for that to both you and elethia.

a reply to: awareness10

Yet you didn't read the full article did you ?

I'll put it simply for you, the new measures which come into play WILL NOT RECOGNISE polygamous marriages, which is why they are getting more, do you understand that simple concept now ?

You clearly don't want polygamy recognised, the benefits will be reflecting your wishes

And it's not a concern to many people, if it was there would be a great number of complaints about it

I'm not the one spewing out xenophobic propaganda, complaining about having to go to work to pay for those evil evil Muslims....

Just for an FYI it's not just Sharia that supports polygamy but your xenophobic hatred won't let you see past that now will it

And you still haven't answered my question about tax payers having to more to families with more than 1 child but I guess you'll avoid answering that as it's ok to have children in your world view I bet

Redundant. Already addressed.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Discotech

Here's an idea, don't stick your nose into other peoples business and tell them how they should live their lives whilst claiming their lifestyle is being forced on you when it really isn't

But shouldn't a man, if it is legal, only marry as many wives as he can support? Should taxpayers have to support his lifestyle?

Of course the individual countries must decides these quirks. Not sure it would fly here in the U.S. I doubt if the polygamist families in Utah depend on the government to support them. (But not sure.)

What a curious situation. Mindboggling really.

So I rich guy gets married and has a few mistresses, in nice apartments, and all are happy, he loves his wife and loves his mistresses, no ones complaining its happening now.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: eletheia

So did you just choose to ignore the whole part about US not identifying as a christian country, and that we had it forced upon us as invaders,

I think that depends on who you ask. Have you looked at a U.S. coin lately?

a reply to: anonentity

So I rich guy gets married and has a few mistresses, in nice apartments, and all are happy, he loves his wife and loves his mistresses, no ones complaining its happening now.

Sure. As long as he doesn't ask taxpayers to support his lifestyle, which by the way, is deviant from the norm in the U.S.

a reply to: angeldoll

Sorry angeldoll, US as in us, the English. Misleadingly worded, my bad!

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: awareness10

If the women are happy to be wife number 1, 2, 3 or whatever then how is it abuse ? If they're not then it's not the polygamy that's the problem here

Here's an idea, don't stick your nose into other peoples business and tell them how they should live their lives whilst claiming their lifestyle is being forced on you when it really isn't

Sure, but only go outside with one wife at a time.

Stuff like polygamy should be kept in the home and mosque.

Damn, if you cant support one wife no f'ing way you should get welfare for 2. It's called "living beyond means"

originally posted by: vonclod
Damn, if you cant support one wife no f'ing way you should get welfare for 2. It's called "living beyond means"

To be honest, I think you just said what everybody else is thinking. But it's mainly addressing those who already have multiple wives when they enter the country. But yeah, if you have five wives, and 20 children, wow! It's asking a lot.

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: awareness10

Men with more than one wife are getting variety on a nightly basis.. They don't deserve ANY other benefits.... lol

HAHAHAHA!!

Good one!

a reply to: angeldoll

Its too much, its greedy, in my view, but sadly that is the way the world works. This whole benefits ruling is to ensure we have to pay less to these unorthodox (couples? triples? groups?) as if we were to pay for one married couple, AND then one or two *single* wives (or for augments sake, husbands) it would be a much larger benefit payout than to pay as a family with multiple partners, which would require less benefit money.

A group of say, one man and 3 wives, claiming benefits for one couple and two singles, would receive far more than say a man, and his wife, plus 2 other wives.

Its confusing but basically its trying to make sure, while the marriages are still not recognised, we aren't paying out more money than we should be.

a reply to: Learningman

I see. I misunderstood that rationale. It does make sense then, monetarily.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: awareness10

If the women are happy to be wife number 1, 2, 3 or whatever then how is it abuse ? If they're not then it's not the polygamy that's the problem here

Here's an idea, don't stick your nose into other peoples business and tell them how they should live their lives whilst claiming their lifestyle is being forced on you when it really isn't

That would be like... Actual conservative ideals, which are despised and considered dangerous leftist ideals by those who falsely claim to be conservatives. Gawd this world has gone so backwards I think my cerebellum is melting.

This makes me smile in a way at the stupidity of it.

On the one hand you have marriage as a sacred sacrament made between one man and one women, recognised by the State and taxed accordingly - modernly dealt with by adjusting up to also include same sex marriages. Fine no problem.

But when it comes to one man having 4 wives or whatever - that constitutes bigomy under the country's laws.

Everyone is focusing on The Man's Rights to have extra wives - what about those wives rights - exactly what rights do they have? Are these rights to separate accommodation for each one being observed?

Does the man have the right to beat his wives to submit to him? something our law defines as rape?

To accommodate this into our legal system we would have to radically change our laws and where do you stop before making your legal system totally ineffective?

For me, if one man wants to support one wife plus a number of wiflets then he damn well supports them not the state on his behalf.

We have to ask ourselves do we want that? We also have to ask ourselves do we want to change our laws so we can all have x number of wives thereby destroying the Christian principles this country is now based around - perhaps we could have a referendum - but not ask the ladies of course.

Franking with a lot of wives and of course an excess of kids and all the overheads society will be having to pick up on these individuals behalves, perhaps we should all be considering chasing these 'characters' out of bed at dawn with a carpet sweeper in hand to beat them to work should they think they don't need to pay for their extended families and they are going to sit on benefits for the rest of their lazy over indulged life as their pay doesn't cover their overheads incurred for their sexual rights over a number of women. If you add on all the older dependants from mothers-in-law etc its a huge package cycling around one man only - lets hope he doesn't work as a delivery boy for a few hours a day.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: SprocketUK

If you actually look into it, you know do a bit of research instead of believing sensationalised claims in order to create hatred then you would see that it's the fault of the new Universal Credit NOT recognising polygamous marriages that enables the families to get more money. It's removal of the exemptions that's causing this...

Currently, a husband and his first wife are paid up to £114.85 a week. Subsequent spouses living under the same roof receive around £40 each. Under the new system of Universal Credit, which is not expected to be fully introduced until 2021, polygamous marriages will not be recognised at all. The standard allowance is about £498.89 a month for couples, but single people can claim about £317.83. That means the husband and his first wife will be able to claim the married couples' allowance and subsequent wives will be able to claim a single person's allowance.

So what do you want ?

I'm sorry to say but people like yourself and the OP are the reason why the welfare state is failing because you're all complaining about things you clearly know nothing about and are too lazy to actually research and get your facts before mouthing off

No, people shouldn't be expecting more than one wife and a bus full of kids if they cant pay for them.


It's not about bigotry or ignorance or anything else.

marriage is for 2 people in this country, that's all that should be supported, and, there's a lot of talk about the state only supporting 2 kids per couple, these greedy shysters need kicking off the dole. Let them go live in Saudi or somewhere if they want to be deviant. I don't want to pay for it AT ALL.