|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 7:09:32 GMT
From today's Independent, commenting on the Tory proposals to reward marriage and civil partnerships with a £3 a week tax break. It is a marriage tax break that would benefit only a third of those who walked down an aisle – and stayed with their partners. It hopes to encourage marriage, but two in five of all those who would benefit are pensioners. And it would seek to "reward" married couples by giving them a weekly sum that would barely cover the price of a milky coffee. Add to that the fact that, at a time when the national deficit is £167bn, David Cameron would take £550m from a levy on banks and use it to fund this handout, and it is difficult to work out why the Conservatives have risked their economic credibility on such a controversial idea.
Worse, this is not an ill-judged, impulsive response to the pressure of the campaign. The demand to "back marriage in the tax system" has been a reassuringly traditionalist refrain since Mr Cameron took over with a pledge to modernise the Conservative Party four years ago. But it has never been only question of money. The marriage tax break was originally raised in former leader Iain Duncan Smith's plans to tackle the social problems of "broken Britain".
In the debate on the Queen's Speech in November 2007, Mr Cameron said: "In this age of unease, we need to strengthen families and make our society more responsible. That means ending the couple penalty in the benefits system; backing marriage in the tax system."
I'm all for encouraging stable partnerships, but will this really help one jot?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 11, 2010 8:21:59 GMT
nope
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 11, 2010 13:28:08 GMT
I'm always a bit confused about these tax breaks for married people debates because I don't know the ins and outs, so I'm sorry for what might be a stupid question but....
Will it close the gap between the tax breaks or whateveritis for single people and married people? Will there be ''no difference'' in finances or will this £150 be a financial benefit to being married?
I have to add that even I can see that this isn't about money but about the upright type of society conservative voters believe will mend various social ills.
There's no point just saying you're a party that believes marriage is the backbone to society - you have to have some policy that indicates that. This is all that is but as such, isn't that okay?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 11, 2010 14:56:08 GMT
Well, I'm in favour of anything that encourages marriage but £3 a week isn't going to influence anyone.
If they really wanted to encourage marriage they need to take far more radical steps than this - which of course they WON'T because it would cost them votes!
A typical piece of dishonest spin from Cameron.
I'd rather buy a second hand car from Mandelson than from THAT yellow twicer!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 11, 2010 16:08:30 GMT
If they really wanted to encourage marriage they need to take far more radical steps than this - which of course they WON'T because it would cost them votes! If they wanted to encourage marriage they could try and encourage a stable society first. When the Tories were destroying mining villages, was that encourging marriage?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 11, 2010 17:09:56 GMT
If they really wanted to encourage marriage they need to take far more radical steps than this - which of course they WON'T because it would cost them votes! If they wanted to encourage marriage they could try and encourage a stable society first. When the Tories were destroying mining villages, was that encourging marriage? Is this an admission that Labour have created a destabilised society? I'm not sure that setting out to smash the unions has much to do with marriage, but I'm sure you can square that one for us. Funny that it was the Tories who did away with the allowance in the first place, though.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 11, 2010 17:19:18 GMT
What business is it of the state in any case to encourage or discourage our private lives?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 11, 2010 18:34:30 GMT
I'm not sure that setting out to smash the unions has much to do with marriage, but I'm sure you can square that one for us. They smashed the local communities and therefore destroyed the societies that they propped up. After that, the marriages crashed. Show me an area with high unemployment, low wages and lower life chances for males and I will show you a place where few get married and those that do tend to fail. That is what needs to be adressed, create stable societies and stable families will follow.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 11, 2010 21:47:10 GMT
I'm not sure that setting out to smash the unions has much to do with marriage, but I'm sure you can square that one for us. They smashed the local communities and therefore destroyed the societies that they propped up. After that, the marriages crashed. Show me an area with high unemployment, low wages and lower life chances for males and I will show you a place where few get married and those that do tend to fail. That is what needs to be adressed, create stable societies and stable families will follow. You've been watching Brass haven't you Ee-up, lad.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2010 6:50:58 GMT
What business is it of the state in any case to encourage or discourage our private lives? I don't know. The arguments seem to be that a) Labour currently encourages state dependency combined with single parent households by offering financial rewards and b) that is vair bad for children who should be in married households but no one bothers to get married any more because of the lack of £150.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 12, 2010 7:15:06 GMT
What business is it of the state in any case to encourage or discourage our private lives? a stable population is what the governments of most societies aim for marriage it would seem produces a more stable society..better behaved and achieving children .. probably prettier gardens and more contented pets too
|
|
|
Post by jade on Apr 12, 2010 8:23:48 GMT
Perhaps a national policy of finger pointing and cries of "shame" at divorced women would work
o god that was the fifties, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 12, 2010 11:32:39 GMT
marriage it would seem produces a more stable society..better behaved and achieving children .. Does it though? Surely it is the other way round? Surely the more stable the couple the more likely they are to get married? When you look at the figures you find that loss of jobs puts families at risk from divorce. The divorce rates shoot up during times of high, long term unemployment.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 12, 2010 15:01:24 GMT
I think you've got a good point there, RV. The more people are struggling economically the more likely their relationships are to break up!
OK, it's not an exact relationship but it's certainly a better than chance average.
I'm all for keeping stability in society on every level - marriage, work, infrastructure, healthcare, all that sort of thing.
(God, you can see why I'm a floating voter!)
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 12, 2010 15:14:01 GMT
OK, it's not an exact relationship but it's certainly a better than chance average. It doesn't need to be though, Lin. People get married and divorced for lots of reasons. No Government can legislate to make people fall in love, stay in love or stop them falling out of love either. There is simply no way for a government to micro manage the population. I suspect that Cameron knows that and cannot really justify this bribe in any meaningful way. This isn’t about ‘encouraging’ marriage, it is about rewarding those in better off families for voting Tory and asking single people (often on the lowest wages) to pay a handout to some of the richest in the Country. Imagine a woman comming home and she finds here husband packing up to live with his mistress, leaving her to look up two kids. They divorce and he re-marries. The new marriage gets a tax cut, but the wrong women gets nothing? ? REALLY!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 12, 2010 17:01:26 GMT
I think you've got a good point there, RV. The more people are struggling economically the more likely their relationships are to break up! OK, it's not an exact relationship but it's certainly a better than chance average. I'm all for keeping stability in society on every level - marriage, work, infrastructure, healthcare, all that sort of thing. (God, you can see why I'm a floating voter!) One tactic - when couples get into debt - is to 'split up' for a time live on added benefits until such time as they can 're-unite'. So on the face of it, it appears that marriages might be wrecked, but it ain't always so.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 12, 2010 18:03:58 GMT
One tactic - when couples get into debt - is to 'split up' for a time live on added benefits until such time as they can 're-unite'. So on the face of it, it appears that marriages might be wrecked, but it ain't always so. To be fair though, Fretty, it isn't quite as simple as that. The couple penalty is not, in fact, as big as mentioned because there are extra costs involved with running two homes. So even if, on paper the couple are 'better off' they are in fact attempting to run two houses. But you are correct, the benefit systems do penalise couples in a few ways. Not through recent changes, but rather long term policies.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 12, 2010 18:08:38 GMT
Doh, you don't get it. The clue is in the word 'benefits' Housing..... Income support.... etc etc You don't think they pay for it all themselves do you
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 12, 2010 18:26:02 GMT
Doh, you don't get it. The clue is in the word 'benefits' Housing..... Income support.... etc etc You don't think they pay for it all themselves do you Lets see if I can help you here. Take a couple who live in a council house and get their rent paid for them, say £55 pw. Now if they split up and one moves into another house @ say £45 pw. You could argue that they are now getting 100 quid a week in housing benefit, they don't get a penny increase exactly of course. That benefit goes directly to the landlord and not the pockets of the claiments. Ditto Council tax. Their council tax is also paid for them as well, but whereas under the same roof the total benefit was 'a'. Now it is 75% of 'a' times two, but again, the claiment never sees a penny of that money either, it goes to the council. Income support. Within income support there are elements for heating. It goes without saying (for most of us), that it costs roughly the same to heat a house no matter how many people live in it. So if you take £3 a day for heating for a house if you have two houses then the 'couple' both need to heat their houses at the same £3. In theory they get double the money, but they double heating bills at the same time. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 12, 2010 18:30:14 GMT
Doh, you don't get it. The clue is in the word 'benefits' Housing..... Income support.... etc etc You don't think they pay for it all themselves do you Lets see if I can help you here. Take a couple who live in a council house and get their rent paid for them, say £55 pw. Now if they split up and one moves into another house @ say £45 pw. You could argue that they are now getting 100 quid a week in housing benefit, they don't get a penny increase exactly of course. That benefit goes directly to the landlord and not the pockets of the claiments. Ditto Council tax. Their council tax is also paid for them as well, but whereas under the same roof the total benefit was 'a'. Now it is 75% of 'a' times two, but again, the claiment never sees a penny of that money either, it goes to the council. Income support. Within income support there are elements for heating. It goes without saying (for most of us), that it costs roughly the same to heat a house no matter how many people live in it. So if you take £3 a day for heating for a house if you have two houses then the 'couple' both need to heat their houses at the same £3. In theory they get double the money, but they double heating bills at the same time. Hope that helps. I have met people who have done this. Hope that helps.
|
|