Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

I don't think tax/benefits primary focus should be used to reward desired behaviours -it should be used to target need. The proposal doesn't do this.

People who are married aren't in more need (because they are married) than other people- low incomes, children, other resposibilities etc create need.
I'm in the position where i earn enough that my spouse can afford not to work- this would just benefit us unnecessarily.
If the Tories want to give away money they should look at means tested benefits and tax credits

"The tax and benefit system should reward desired behaviours."

What that means is that because under the Labour government families in Britain get tax breaks in the form of child credits. And parents need the money, there is no denying that. Single parents get even more tax breaks because they have fewer funds than couples would.

Critics state that this system is actually discouraging people to be in a relationship because they get more money as a single parent. As bonkers as it sounds, if you are a single mother it makes more financial sense for you to not get married, even if you have found mister right.

So by rewarding marriage, the Tories would be encouraging rather than discouraging marriage in order to create stable family homes where future generations are being reared.

leilalacrosse.livejournal.com/#asset-leilalacrosse-2810

Minipie, you're completely right about the 1950s model. This is a regressive tax policy because society has changed. I earn a similar wage to DH and both of us work flexibly and/or part-time - but we wouldn't benefit despite being married. Yet we're both basic rate taxpayers so we are only getting 20% tax relief on our pensions compared to a higher rate taxpayer getting 40% back (earnings from about £40K to £150K). There are plenty of ways to innovate tax policy but this is not one of them (how about raising the threshold generally so that fewer people have to claim it back and save on administration?)

The reason that older pensioners still have this tax break is precisely because it was appropriate in that bygone age of stable manufacturing jobs, final salary pensions but also fewer rights and opportunities for women.

Minipie - I agree with you completely.

As you say, it encourages the 1950s model which probably left a lot of people miserable; men economically forced into staying in jobs they hated and women stuck at home.

As a family, we enjoy being able to share the work and family commitments. We both stay mentally challenged but both are able to spend lots of time with the children.

If a mum has been out of work for 7 years whilst bringing up young ones, then they are going to find it harder to start working again if they can a) only get a part-time job and b) make their dh pay more tax by reclaiming their tax allowance back off him.

Since a tax allowance of roughly 4000pounds is equivalent to 1600 pounds a year if that person pays higher rate tax, then it's not worth the SAHM taking any job paying less than 1600. And I know loads of mums who want to keep in with their career, even if they are earning as little as that per annum.

Let's leave aside the married and non married couples debate for a minute. This policy does not just discriminate in favour of marrieds against unmarrieds.

It also discriminates in favour of couples where one half earns very little (eg SAHMs) and the other earns a lot, against couples where both work and earns less.

In other words it benefits the 1950s model of parenting where mum stays at home with the kids and dad earns full time.

Whilst this may be some people's ideal, it isn't everybody's. Many couples would rather they both worked part time, both earned (albeit less than working full time), and BOTH got to spend time with the kids. Dare I say I think many kids might prefer this too.

However, if this new policy comes in, such couples may well feel forced back into the 1950s model simply because otherwise they will pay way more tax.

There are already enough factors that push couples into the 1950s model (for example, the cost of childcare; the fact that full time jobs offer disproportionately better pay and greater career prospects than part time). Do we really need another?

If Mumnetters are going to swing the election, it looks like the tories may need to re-think this policy! No-one seems to agree with it.

If it does come in, it has to be restricted to a first marriage, otherwise serial marry-ers will benefit wherease committed co-habitees won't.

You are right, it isn't hard to prove when a couple have children.

I still think there needs to be some kind of declaration that they intend to bring the child up together, though, who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

"a married couple nearly always at least INTEND to be in it for life, whereas cohabiting couples may be living together for a wide variety of reasons and that committment is not always the intention of cohabiting"

I still say 'so what'. Two people don't need more money because they get together than they did before. Until they have children. That is when the tax break might be needed. It's not hard to prove when a couple have children is it?

OrmRenewed Perhaps so, but they'd have to prove it in some way.

I can see why the tories want to restrict it to the married only BUT my opinion is that, EVERYTHING ELSE being equal, there is no difference between an unmarried couple and a married one bar the marriage certificate.

But, I also think it is fair to say that a married couple nearly always at least INTEND to be in it for life, whereas cohabiting couples may be living together for a wide variety of reasons and that committment is not always the intention of cohabiting.

"What is the point of a marriage tax break when marriage is so easily disposed of? "

What is the point of a marriage tax break full stop. When and if children appear or one parent needs to take time out of work for caring duties, then there should be a tax break. Marriage in itself is irrelevant.

Sorry, that should be "CAN'T read people's minds".

jux I fully accept that some married people do not look at the long-term possibiliites.

My point is this: the state can only assume that they INTENDED to be in it for life- you, me or nobody else can read people's minds.

Whereas with cohabitees, you can't judge the status of their relationship and how "stable" it is UNLESS they express it in some way via a document (why is this concept so controversial)- perhaps something cohabitees can sign to show they're in it for the long-term?

The government can't assume that a relationship is serious purely because a couple live together under the same roof- nor should they.

As this facility already exists for pensioners (married couples/civil partnership allowance), then I don't see why it is a problem to roll it out or something like it, downwards. It is probably cheaper than raising the personal allowances, which isn't happening in 2010/11; they are pegged at the same rate as 2009/10.

I can see why some people choose not to marry; however, it is worth investigating property ownership rules on death, IHT and ensuring that you each have up to date water tight wills in place.

I am at the number of people who agree with this.

And marantha, I can't tell you how many (men, admittedly) who basically got married because they thought it would be fun and didn't look at the long-term possibilities. Most of them buggered off after the birth of the 2nd child. (Sorry, but it was the men in the cases I know of; I don't however, assume that all men are like that because I know they're not.)

I am married, but would have done that anyway (and there was still married person's allowance when we got married) with or without the tax break - which was abolished soon after anyway.

OR recognise stable relationships in tax affairs!

Personally, I am sick of the state intrusion into the private life of the individual.

Why the hell should a person be denied/rewarded money on the basis of who their spouse/partner is?

When people go out to do their jobs, they are doing it ALONE not with their bl*y partner/spouse- and they get taxed as individuals, too.
It is wrong to tax people as individuals yet class them as married or married in the benefits system.
Simple as that.

Treat people as individuals in their own right.

Also, the one thing you can say about marriage is that the couples at least expressed a desire to be in a long-term relationship.

And, before there is any lynching by the "you hate cohabitees" crowd, I fully realise that there most definitely are cohabitees who are in long-term, committed relationships.

Trouble is, not ALL of them are- some are in it for the short-term or a bit of fun.

It is an icky policy.

I agree the break should also be given to those in long-term partnerships, however, those in committed long-term partnerships have to PROVE that they are in them because, otherwise, there is no way of knowing who they are- you can't assume people are in long-term committed partnerships PURELY because they are living together under the same roof.

The tax break if any won't be sizeable enough to encourage people to get married - it seems to be more an acknowledgement that a stable family unit is the best way to bring up kids, and I include civil partnerships/cohabiting in that. I happen to be married, but some choose not to.

If legislation changes and the SAH parent is allowed to transfer their tax allowance to their significant other (ie make use of it), then fine. Some will already be doing this by having savings and investments in the name of the partner who doesn't work, so as to use the allowance. Those people won't be any better off. For others it would reduce the tax bill and increase the take home pay.

Has Cameron actually mentioned civil partnerships? It's all very vague.

I don't understand this policy. It sounds like it will reward marrieds without children, divorced/remarried dads who abandon their first family. Married couples with or without children who both have to work (with no pension, astronomical mortgage, etc.) don't gain anything. How many children would benefit from this? There aren't any details at all.

There are other advantages to marriage and civil partnership - intestacy laws and inheritance tax.

I do not need a 'husband'. I need a partner. I refuse to bow to the notion that having a 'husband' is somehow morally superior to having a partner.

Why do you deserve a tax break for turning up at a registry office and signing your name to a piece of paper? What on earth is being rewarded? The fact that you can write your name?

What is the point of a marriage tax break when marriage is so easily disposed of? it's no harder to split up with a husband that it is a partner, and people are no less likely to leave the father of their child if they are married to them if the reason they are leaving is that he's an unbearable twunt.

WHY is marriage better?

to cold tits:

Though I accept that for a while marriage was not an equal partnership and disproportionally rubbish from women's point of view, it does not mean it is still the same institution. Marriage is what one makes of it and many will argue that (when done well) it is now a more or less equal partnership.

It's like refusing to send one's kids to school just because many years ago schools were horrid Dickinsonian institutions with capital punishment for children.

To gomez: agree, my understanding of single parent benefits may be wrong. But it's an argument for introducing them, rather than for critisising tax breaks for married couples.

I am an individual who happens to be married. I either work, pay tax and use my personal allowance or eh, I don't. Why should my DH get to use it and hence pay less tax then his unmarried but cohabiting friend. We all have an individual tax allowance. Not a family tax allowance. A family doesn't earn any income, a person does.

Marriage is essentially an indivdual choice - I object to the Government supporting or encouraging such a choice over all the other equally valid options are that available for people.

Msupa please don't assume all single parents are in receipt of single parent benefits (whatever they may be.) They are not.

To me, marriage is a religious invention designed to control a woman's fertility.

Just because it is now supposed to be an expression of commitment does not mean that it's original meaning was not "I promise to only let one man shag me" and "I promise to pay for the children produced by me shagging this property of mine"

It smacks too hard of institutionalised slavery to me, and I'll have no part in it. I can be an excellent committed parent without 'God' saying so.