Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that a marriage tax break is stupid and David Cameron is a smug twat

150 replies

ReallyTired · 27/09/2013 22:59

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24309634

I disagree with financially rewarding people to get married. Marriage is not a pancera to all of society's ills and some marriages are desperately unhappy. Being happily married is down to luck rather than crap like.

""The values of marriage are give and take, support and sacrifice; values that we need more of in this country.""

A marriage is made up of two people and sadly its sometimes the case that one of them is a total twat. Why should the person who isn't a twat be penalised for getting a much needed divorce? I feel that the government should respect the fact that some people don't want to get married and they and their children are perfectly happy the way they are!

I see no reason why this allowance should be given to a childless person just because they are married. I feel it would be better to plough the money into tax credits.

OP posts:
YouTheCat · 27/09/2013 23:01

""The values of marriage are give and take, support and sacrifice; values that we need more of in this country.""

ffs yes of course in an ideal world but if you're stuck with some twat that just takes and is a self-serving bastard, a tax break is hardly an incentive to stay married.

I totally agree with you, ReallyTired.

mumofboyo · 27/09/2013 23:02

Yanbu, I fully agree.

Theincidental · 27/09/2013 23:03

Yanbu.

It's so old fashioned and naff as well as unreasonable and divisive.

Oh what a twattish thing to reveal in party conference season.

parkingwoes · 27/09/2013 23:06

The tax break would apply if couples are both basic rate tax payers and would also include 15,000 couples in civil partnerships, from April 2015.

The article later states Mr Cameron said stay-at-home mothers and women who worked part-time would be the main winners.

How will it benefit SAHM if they need to be a basic rate tax payer?

mumofboyo · 27/09/2013 23:07

I think it would be a step back in time to where couples felt they had to stay together despite being unhappy, I really don't see how that can be of any benefit to society. I think back to my own parents' marriage and am so glad they didn't stay together out of some sort of duty or because of a financial incentive. Growing up would have been unbelievably miserable.

YouTheCat · 27/09/2013 23:08

That's why it was scrapped I think.

morethanpotatoprints · 27/09/2013 23:09

Yes, at last. Oh I am so happy. Will we get more the longer we've been married?

Original poster
ReallyTired · 27/09/2013 23:11

"ffs yes of course in an ideal world but if you're stuck with some twat that just takes and is a self-serving bastard, a tax break is hardly an incentive to stay married."

I agree that a tax break is hardly an incentive to stay in a dire marriage. However that £200 could help someone who is fleeing domestic violence.
I would rather that extra money is given to someone who has reason to need help rather than because they are "married" and somehow sainty in Dave's eyes.

Incidently I have been married eleven years. My husband and I are normal human beings. We are not better or worse than people who have made different relationship decisions.

OP posts:
YouTheCat · 27/09/2013 23:27

Yes, I'd prefer to see it given to people who need it.

I was lucky escaping my marriage. I had saved to do it for years so had a bit behind me.

SinisterBuggyMonth · 27/09/2013 23:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gordyslovesheep · 27/09/2013 23:31

women who worked part-time would be the main winners not single ones like me - damn my husband and his wandering eye

ArgyMargy · 27/09/2013 23:33

YABU. There's nothing wrong with being married.

Sparkle9 · 27/09/2013 23:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ErrolTheDragon · 27/09/2013 23:42

YANBU - I've been married for 26 years and don't need any incentive to stay married, and I doubt that this amount is sufficient incentive to make anyone marry who wouldn't have done anyway (and that probably wouldn't be such a great idea anyway).

ArgyMargy - of course there's nothing wrong with being married - if its to the right person. And in that case the marriage is its own reward.

""The values of marriage are give and take, support and sacrifice; values that we need more of in this country.""

so why would anyone with those values want a small bribe or reward or whatever the heck it is? Who with those values wouldn't rather the money went to people who desperately need it?

Stupid. (not quite as monumentally stupid as Ed's big idea but that's a whole different story)

Calloh · 27/09/2013 23:48

I think incentivising marriage is ridiculous but I don't have a problem, in principle, of a cohabiting couple sharing their tax-free allowance. Regardless of whether there are children or not.

I suppose it would be difficult to organise but in theory I think that would be fine.

scoobydooagain · 27/09/2013 23:48

Children brought up in a loving 2 couple household have every adavantage so why get rewarded for it? The money should be directed to where it is needed and where it could make a difference.

meditrina · 27/09/2013 23:49

I see this as under-the-counter reversal of the principle of independent taxation. The removal of CB has done this for HRT payers, this does it for a woke swathe of basic rte ones.

For I bet that, no matter how much people say they dislike the principle, they'll take the money.

ErrolTheDragon · 27/09/2013 23:54

For I bet that, no matter how much people say they dislike the principle, they'll take the money.

do we get a choice? I'd be hacked off if I have to fill in a bloody tax return to avoid it.

Does anyone know if there's a petition or campaign against it - the best thing about this government is that they will quite often do U turns when the public tells them they're wrong.

YouTheCat · 27/09/2013 23:55

True that. What if you have a dp earning £50k a year who is financially/emotionally abusive who won't 'allow' you to work - now you haven't even got that small amount of CB any more.

TheABC · 28/09/2013 00:03

I like the idea of supporting families, but a marriage bribe is not the way forward. Affordable, decent childcare - now that would be worth cheering. But then, I have always naively assumed families come in all shapes and sizes - including single parents (whom I now regard as superheroes, now I am looking after my own baby with a good partner).

microserf · 28/09/2013 05:47

In France they tax the family as a unit, ie look at partners' income and then given you a tax break depending on how many kids you have. At first it thought it was bonkers, but it really does work encouraging people to have children.

Thought Dave's announcement today was just pathetic. FFs.

coraltoes · 28/09/2013 06:41

Surely £1k tax break isn't enough to keep people on unhappy marriages or make them decide to marry. I don't get the break... But I also don't get the vitriol.

aliciagardner · 28/09/2013 06:57

Another ridiculous proposal. Firstly, it's a pathetic amount of money. Secondly, if incentivising marriage is the idea, this leaves out many, many people (ignoring the squeezed middle again as usual).

If DC really wants to help families and promote the family unit, it should be provided on a per household basis (ie. genuine couples with kids, married or not) and should go as far as transference of the entire tax-free allowance from non-working to working partner.

Not one of these initiatives announced in the recent few months will be any help whatsoever to middle earners (especially with a sah parent).

janey68 · 28/09/2013 07:46

It's like stepping back in time.

calmingtea · 28/09/2013 07:57

When I was married my DH would have spent that extra money on alcohol or another new ipad for himself, well at least he would have been happier, but our family would not have been better off. He is now an x for many very good reasons. I think in today's society, if you want to improve family values or promote 'marriage' you need to look at "non-traditional" families too (partnerships, single parents) and you need to find another way to do it. This money should go towards children in some way, wrap around childcarem or more free dentists, or make all school trips and extracurricular activities/holiday clubs free, or something that benefits them properly. I don't see why two married people without children need extra money, that is just utterly daft.