Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

"please show me where Tories say 'the torys are saying that co habiting is showing a lesser commitment and therefore you will not get the tax allowence'. I think this is your personal interpretation influenced perhaps by your political persuasion which you are perfectly entitled to, but writing it as fact is a bit disingenuous."

OK. Let's put this simply.

If you are married, you get the proposed tax break. Because your marriage is contributing to society.

If you are co-habiting, you do not. Because your lack of marriage is contributing to 'Broken Britain'.

Please let me know if either of those statements is a personal interpretation rather than a fact.

Bottom line, why should every other tax payer (single, co-habiting, whatever) pay for a tax break for couples who choose to marry? That is my problem with it (and always was...) Like Otters point about ddo you pay it back if you divorce

Ivy...It is this attitude of everyone is entitled to everything that has got us into this mess

Where exactly did I say everyone is entitled to everything? perhpas you would like to mis read things yourself? Then skirt around the real questios you have been asked - like where is the proof that children do so better in a married home? Still not answered that one have you.....

camreone is trying to flirt the middle voters and it is obviously working. Tory stands tax the poor and keep the rich happy. Middle voters are not going to really profit it is tit bits to keep them happy and get their vote.

Herb...Ivy...I dont think we will be able to agree, our mindsets are completely at odds.

Herb...you are obviously skilled in misinterpretation, assumption and changing facts to suit, which by chance is the 'one' thing our present government is also skilled in,

Ivy...It is this attitude of everyone is entitled to everything that has got us into this mess,

please show me where Tories say 'the torys are saying that co habiting is showing a lesser commitment and therefore you will not get the tax allowence'. I think this is your personal interpretation influenced perhaps by your political persuasion which you are perfectly entitled to, but writing it as fact is a bit disingenuous.

co-habitors choice (or not), have a further burden of proof, there is no legal documentation to attach any incentive, this does not say they are less committed or less able.

perhaps in the future with thought out practicalities this could be rectified,

but as things are the Tories marriage incentive is a start.....

and just for the record I have never been married, never wanted to get married, done a perfectley good job raising my children on my own, but I am not so closed minded to reconise actual facts, and it is a fact that marriage on the whole is a good thing both for family and 'society'.

I am being to think I really am glad I am not an expense to anyone but myself

Tax credit looks at family income regardless of whether you are two people married, two people unmarried or one adult with a family. Tax credits only looks at family income and that is under 66k

The tax system is already grossley unfari for anyone earning under 16k. But it will mane that if you are unmarried and earn under 16k you will be penalsied even further for being single

But of course Cameron isn't looking for their vote, he wants middle England.

"but I also know from experience, it is not the only scenario that can provide this, whether through choice or not."

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?

I'm not against a transferable tax allowance for couples where one wants to stay at home to look after the children; what I am against, is the tax burden of a single parent being higher than that of a married, childless couple.

Taxes and benefits should support children, not give childless adults extra money for another holiday just because they happen to be married.

No! it's not a reward for married couples but a recognition that my DH supports me and therefore has more expenses than a single person. The Conservatives are saying that they would like to support us in that. Personally I'd like to see it as a transferable allowance that could go to any partner including common law. Or at least this could be applied to any family with children under 16.

Because I stay home we're tight for cash so my DH works extra weekends to make ends meet. He also ends up working offshore which terrifies me. Brown calls me a lady of leisure and that pisses me off. Cameron seems to be the only one who appreciates that having some families where one parent stays home is a good option for society. (And having some working mothers is important too - what would we do without many of our teachers, GPs, nurses etc).

And I love monkeyfeathers post - if we are going to look at family income when calculating working tax benefit then how come we can't look at family income when taxing my husband? (I'm a SAHM partially due to the cost of childcare).

Yes the torys are saying that co habiting is showing a lesser commitment and therefore you will not get the tax allowence - if you marry though you will get the tax cut. You need to comply with society and do as you should

is the government saying 20 years of co habiting shows a lesser commitment?

will divorcees be made to pay back?

As i am soon to be a SAHM this is great.
I am fed up with the gov pushing everyone to go back to work - fine if you want to / have to then do - but... what about a bit of a break for those who want to look after their own children? to me it seems a positive and would be hugely beneficial for us if it's brought in quickly.
i dont' care about the marriage / non-marriage thing really - make it available to any cohabiting couple would be fairer.
it's really the only thing i like about the tories poilicies TBH - don't think i would actually vote tory though because as we're in the earning less than £30k bracket they will probably take all our money in other ways to cancel it out!
(and give it to those earning 100k plus of course )

doulasarah..

hear hear..you have articulated what i was trying to say to Herb... and Ivy,
thankyou

"it just seems wrong to put a financial and moral (as after all the root of the tax is surely a moral one) premium on marriage"

I think it's absolutely fine to give tax breaks to married people. I quite like the idea. I think it is a good idea to give couples a variety of possible legal and economic contracts to choose between, too.

Ivy... the report. gingerbread. ty

'hmm what where you saying then?'

I am saying..

that marriage is a proven commitment that provides family stability, so much so the majority in this country and throughout the world find it the prefered union when starting a family.

but I also know from experience, it is not the only scenario that can provide this, whether through choice or not.

The fact that the Tories seek to reconise marriage as such and wish to encourage marriage with a tax incentive, when current incentives encourage couples to to 'part', I am saying I agree with this incentive, this marriage incentive does not affect single parents, so the Icky felt by thread poster just seems to me political snobbery rather than thinking of ways how best to support families and communities and encourage social cohesion.
I hope that is clearer.

I'm in my early fifties and what I remember most painfully from my "just looking after the children" years is the sense of no longer existing economically. From being a career woman and home owner suddenly I had turned into a nobody - yet i knew with head and heart that I was doing an extremely important job. A job I had to pay other people by the hour to do plus tax if I did not want to do it myself. I know women still go through this feeling.
I think some kind of transferable tax allowance is a good idea, even though it might be quite modest, because it is the only way in which society can finally acknowledge the contribution which non working parents make. Confining it to married people with children may seem excluding but it does avoid fraud. Also marriage is "just" a conventional arrangement, in the same way oxygen is "just" a colourless odourless gas. Marriage - whether you like it or not personally - is the glue of society and I believe a responsible Government has to show some respect to societal structures.

Oh can we please stop repeating this myth that the children of married couples do better than those of single parents because of marriage per se.

what planet are you on 'myth' honestly no wonder we are in a state with your supposed myth's, facts are facts, no matter how un PC they maybe

Did I say, 'the the outcome from one parent families is so dreadful'

hmm what where you saying then?

I don't think you read my post properly tisfedup.

I did not say tht buying children things is the most important parenting attribute. I said that when you look at the figures behind the headlines, they all flatten out when you take out income as a variable.

Marriage is a legal relationship - because of that the tax system should reflect its unique nature

Herb....

Did I say, 'the the outcome from one parent families is so dreadful'?

I think not, as I would be critising myself,
please do not try and twist what I say.. thankyou.

Yes happy to oblige, (pararaphs) although I think you are rather assuming, (didnt do to well at school) ;o)

I think you will find that your post did imply that money was the main factor.

I have no doubts what so ever that single parents, co hab's, same sex couples, make wonderful parent's,
being one myself 'harrrp harrrp blow own trumpet'lol, that is not a issue?

I think we may actually agree but the disagreement comes from being a Tory, idea.

I've recently discovered that I feel very strongly about the issue of couples and tax allowances. I think it's actually about fairness and consistency rather than class, and I think it's a separate issue to marriage (although I will concede that marriage seems to be the most sensible measure/declaration of legal couple status for tax and benefits purposes).

I'd really like for DP and I to be able to pool our tax allowances (even though we're not married). We would definitely get married if we were able to do so. Right now we don't really want to spend money on getting married (no matter how cheap it can be) when there's no advantage to it. Indeed, we find ourselves at a disadvantage because we comply with the rules and don't pretend to be single.

I work full time (although I'm currently on maternity leave). DP recently finished a phd and has been looking for an academic post, but there aren't many out there so it'll probably be a while. DP hasn't paid enough NI contributions (although he's paid some in every year of his phd) to qualify for contributions-based jobseekers allowance. Because of my income (and the threshold for this to happen is very low actually) he doesn't qualify for income-based JA. So, essentially, he's entirely dependent financially on me through no choice of his own. And, as he's no longer a student, I lose my single person council tax discount, even though I'm still the only one with any income.

Since the government insist on assessing my income as the family income for all these purposes, it seems only fair that the collective tax allowances of us as a couple are taken into consideration when assessing how we are taxed. It won't matter once he gets a job, but the unfairness of the system annoys me.

one parent is ok

oh my goodness children in single parent families do well, this article really blows away the old myths about single parents, oh and there is the peice about money making things better

tisfedup if you look on the gingerbread site there's plenty of research evidence there. I'm not going to spend hours trawling it.

You provide the research that shows the outcomes of children from one parent families is so dreadful and I'll pick the data to pieces, how's that? I know of only one survey which found that marriage alone was important in outcomes, versus loads which show that the main factor in bad outcomes such as those I've listed, is money.

And er, no, no-one thinks parenting is just about money I have not stated or implied that.

i dont need a reason to not be married
i have no extenuating circumstances that put me in this predicament
i have been unmarried but with the father of my 6 children since my early 20's - twenty years ago
BOLLOCKS to the tories if that is not good enough and UP YOURS Cameron if he thinks it MATTERS

tisfedup have you actually read and understood my post?

Which facts are you referring to?

(Polite request, could you use paragraphs? Otherwise your posts are very difficult to read)

herbeatitude,
'The single biggest variable in how children do in life, is not whether their parents are married, but how much money their parents have got. And since lone parents are on average much poorer than married parents, their children do worse than the average, NOT because of lack of marriage, but because of lack of money. Where lone parents have the same amount of money as married or cohabiting parents, the outcomes for their children are exactly the same as for their married counterparts.'

please provide research material for this claim.
money my dear is not the be all and end all of family life, or have you hit on something here, do parents now think parenting is about what you buy your children?.

Oh god, things are no worse than they were 100 years ago, except 100 years ago the rich would hide/ignore their feckless behaviours (drug taking, adultery...), and they probably never had to come in to contact with the poor and feckless.

I disagree that Britain is Broken, but I fear that statement is going to become a self fulfilling prophesy.