Thursday, February 22, 2007

Taxing divorce


It looks like we are going to have a change in divorce laws thanks to the European Union. Oh joy.

I think the EU should keep their noses out of divorce laws. I do believe that we should discourage divorce and I have a way to do this and unlike other things I think this can be partially solved by tax and if it can’t it will give us a nice little earner.

First of all I would stop assets from being split between both partners unless it can be proven that both partners equally contributed to the financial situation that they had or one partner had an ongoing affair with other women. Sadly that probably wouldn’t stop the richer partner from seeking divorce.

Second of all I would tax divorce, yes you heard that right. I bet Gordon Brown would love that as he loves to tax just about anything. I would make it so that 20% of the assets of the people getting divorced would be given to the government. That would probably mean billions would be given and an unexpected see effect would mean that sham marriages which allow illegals to become resident here would probably end as the citizen would have to pay a whole lot more as we aren’t just talking about liquid assets but homes and other fixed assets.

Hat tip: Ellee Seymour.

2 comments:

Tom Papworth said...

You say you "would stop assets from being split between both partners unless it can be proven that both partners equally contributed to the financial situation that they had or one partner had an ongoing affair with other women."

This totally undermines the "No blame" principle whereby the law does not seek to judge who is to blame for the divorce. What if one party had an affair because of the other's neglect? What if she had "an ongoing affair with other" men, rather than "women"?

As for the financial contribution, what if one gave up their career to bring up the children?

And what if would-be divorcees transfer assets before filing (say, to their other partner)?

Finally, it would do little to discourage divorce amongst unemployed council tenants, among whom there is a higher than average incidence of broken homes.

It's a novel idea, but I don't think it works.

youdontknowme said...

This totally undermines the "No blame" principle whereby the law does not seek to judge who is to blame for the divorce

There should be a blame principle if money is involved.


What if one party had an affair because of the other's neglect?

They have a chance to sort it out.


What if she had "an ongoing affair with other" men, rather than "women"?

Whoever has the affair is to blame.


As for the financial contribution, what if one gave up their career to bring up the children?

It is their choice.


And what if would-be divorcees transfer assets before filing (say, to their other partner)?

Their married partner is taxed too.


Finally, it would do little to discourage divorce amongst unemployed council tenants, among whom there is a higher than average incidence of broken homes.

I think it would. Look at your home. How much have you got the contents insured for? We have the contents insured for about 15 grand (we pay in weekly installments) and we are council tenants. Take 20% of that and you have £3000.

You never know it could be an alternative to council tax.