Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

I agree with mrsjammi. A transferable tax would have been incredibly helpful to us while my husband was disabled with depression leaving me holding the baby, holding down the job, and everything else. And gay couples I hope are showing the way: stable committed relationships should be put on a legal footing, to display to the world the commitment. the 'in sickness and in health' clause certainly concentrated my mind on what my duty was. A marriage is only as good as the people who make up the couple - so it is nothing to do with whether anyone beats anyone else. Why not marry? It seems like a very good idea to me, and emotionally to pass through a celebratory gateway in front of family and friends, en route to creating a family seems like a very good idea. There are no guarantees in this world, but taking a more formal approach to a relationship may mean (and the statistics back this up) taking a more responsible approach to any resulting children. I'm all for it, particularly if children are educated about committed relationships and responsibilities in school from an early age.

Simple solution which totally avoids all of this judgemental crap about who's better than whom - allow parents to claim a small tax allowance for the number of dependents (not just their spouse). Obviously this would need to be capped to prevent people from having 10 kids to avoid tax and it wouldn't be the full tax allowance. Even if they just added £2000 for each spouse/kid up to a maximum of £5000 it would be more fair. And then single parents would benefit just as my family would. And it would represent the cost of feeding and housing those family members.

Well if they can't keep their man, then obviously they deserve not to have a tax break. What is Nick Clegg thinking of, imagining that a lone parent is just like any other mother? The idiot.

I thought Nick Clegg made a good point - why should the parent whose spouse leaves, or who loses their spouse to cancer or a car accident, or to the war in Afghanistan be denied this tax break?

HerBeatitude, I agree that there are far more things that will help children progress than a slip of paper signed by a registrar.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, is this really about children or is it about the Tories imposing their morals on the country? If it was about children then why isn't the tax break limited to couples with children?

blackduck... (you are a tad patronising),

to whom blackduck, it was a mere statement of fact.

but i agree you are right we are talking about this tax ... point taken.

I think that a SAHP should be able to transfer their personal tax allowance to the working partner.

I don't agree that a couple should be able to do this unless they have children, if you don't have a child to look after then there is nothing to stop you going out to work.

quite, darcymum

Agree with tisfedup (to a point). Those couples who want the 'advantages' of marriage, well they can just get married. If they don't want the commitment of marriage then what are they doing having a child together. If they don't 'agree' with marriage then don't agitate for the benefits (and costs) of being married.

it

Ivykaty - I am somewhat amused by the idea that the tax system is such a burden for those single parents earning under 16k, of course the fact they are getting a great wodge back in benefits is irrelevant.

I agree with it rewarding married couples. The current system penalises us, for example the rules on principal residence and tax, and it costs the state more to support couples that split up than those that stay together. Cohabiting couples are statistically more likely to break up than married couples.

There's data that is relatively objective and scientific out there if you search on google scholar, but you will have to go and read the primary literature yourself.

"Blackduck.. the bottom line is....

there are very many things that taxpayers of all persuasion disagrees with, and would rather not contribute to."

Yes, Tired I am aware of that (you are a tad patronising), but we are talking about THIS tax break, not any other...and my point is why should we all pay for a tax break for people who get married (and don't bring children into this - this break would go to ALL married couples, regardless of whether they have children or not and THAT is what I object to...)

theres the difference...Herb... Ivy....

i really dont think the tax burden of a single parent of 3 children (dependant on earnings) would be higher than that of a couple with no children, without that single parent recieving consessions, benefits and tax credits, please show proof of this....Herb...as i said earlier......

and Ivy i think we are going round in circles
so lets try this.. as i do believe i am of open mind, please provide evidence that proves that marriage in the majority does not provide family stability and does not benefit social cohesion.

thankyou for the tip re links i will try and practice this,;o)

but as for providing links on this subject, i think i would be accused of posting biased site links suited to 'my agenda' best you look using search words suggested and brows varied sites.

thankyou both this has been my first interaction on this site, i have enjoyed our debate, but concede to a we agree to disagree
look forward to chatting with you on other topics.

I will gladly read what ever evidence you choose to give me - you can copy a web address and type it in the page and I will be happy read the page.

Sorry but your arguments are simply incoherent.

You're basically saying that there's a worldwide consensus that marriage is better.

You don't address the point I made yesterday, which is that marriage tends to be better for children because there is more money in a home with 2 parents than 1. The solution to that would not be to force everyone to be married, but to have more money in the homes with 1 parent. Then you level the playing field.

You still haven't explained why the tax burden of a single parent with 3 children, should be higher than that of a married couple with no children.

Ivy... i dont know how to link. so i suggested some google search

Ivy... 'I have' read research, looked at (dare i say) statistics, listened to experts etc and together with the fact that marriage is overall the the prefered method for raising families, etc etc. i also read the report you linked.. .

please do the same.

so where are we now .. I/we agree that alternative family set ups can be just as good and in some cases better than marriage, but i also believe the majority of marrieds consistenly provide more stability within families and in turn benefits social cohesion.

And the Tories like every other party has to provide policies that appeal to people whatever class.

Ivy... 'I have' read research, looked at (dare i say) statistics, listened to experts etc and the fact that marriage is overall the the prefered method for raising families in, etc etc.

please do the same.

so where are we now .. I agree that alternative family set ups can be just as good and in some cases better than marriage, but i also believe the majority of marrieds consistenly provide more stability within families and in turn benefits social cohesion.

And the Tories like every other party has to provide policies that appeal to people whatever class.

Blackduck.. the bottom line is....

there are very many things that taxpayers of all persuasion disagrees with, and would rather not contribute to.

Herb...

'Your experience shows you that marriage is the only scenario that can provide stability for you. Other people have other set ups which provide stability for them. Many marriages are horribly unstable and unhappy, why should taxpayers finance them?'

does this answer your ? Herb..

No Herb.. I believe, research, global consensus, overall statistics 'Shows' this.

and with regards to
'Many marriages are horribly unstable and unhappy, why should taxpayers finance them?'
Divorce. as i said previously, there is plenty of help out there for this situ.

but the vast majority of marriages around the world seem to work to the benefit of family life and social cohesion.

my experience Herb.. as you put it, involves very little close experience of marrieds, most of which have failed, my experience is of single parents, and co habs (often not declared for financial reasons.

the marrieds I know are mainly from ethnic groups, very traditional, seems to work well for majority them.

you still don't come up with the goods ....

cammelia: That's a bit arbitary and not a reason for a tax break per se, though. Having a joint mortgage or rent agreement, and joint parental responsibility for a child is a legally established relationship including contracts, too.

the heathen...says it all really..

Ivy... I am far from middle class so dont even try to pratronise me, your gingerbread report does not contain historic fact, I do not disagree with the content, but its agenda is to prove that single parents are just as able as marrieds, that is fact, I know to be true. no disagreement there then.
Same as Co Habs.

as for 'proof that children do better...'

try googling,

'do children do better in marriage'

'marriage family society'

world concensous?....

"Herb...you are obviously skilled in misinterpretation, assumption and changing facts to suit"

Ooooh..kay. Which bit of my post does that?

(A fact that it's tory policy, obviously, not a fact in the wider sense. As both statements are clearly bollocks)