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

[ReallyTired]

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.

YANBU. It's a shit idea.

Yep I too think David Cameron is a smug twat, I think ed Milliband is a soft twat who's quite happy to stab his own family in the back, I also think the liberal democratic leader is a forgettable twat because I can't remember his name! All their policies are crap and they are all so far removed from reality that they just keep coming up with idiotic sound bites just to show that they are still breathing!

I'm guessing as a SAHM with a higher rate tax paying DH I will see precisely £0.00 difference.

As I'm several £1000 out of pocket on CB and as of DD2s last birthday don't get NI contributions either I'm quite happy to state...

Cameron is a twat!

Will I get it as a married, higher rate tax payer?

Or will I not get it because DH is a basic rate (assuming he ever gets a job)

Or do we not qualify as I pay higher rate?

TBH I will annoyed if I do get this, given I don't get CB any more.

Yanbu

23 years unmarried here.We could teach the vast majority of married couples a thing or two about relationships and commitment.

Why should we be penalised again? No CB,no school dinners.....

Many couples shouldn't stay married and often finding a lifelong partner is simply down to luck as much as commitment from both parties. As somebody said on the other thread anybody can flounce down the aisle in a fairy dress.

Utterly sick of the Tories telling us what to do- basically the Tories hate us for not wanting to be married,being part if the squeezed middle and to have a sahp so we get shat on again.

Naff off Dave.

And as for Clegg going along with something he doesn't believe in in order to buy a policy he wants- we're seriously supposed to respect that.

Catgirl - if you're a higher rate taxpayer you won't get it because of that.

Even if you were a basic rate taxpayer you wouldn't get it if your husband is also a basic taxpayer. This tax break is an ability to transfer up to £1,000 of unused personal allowance from the not working (or low earning) spouse. If both of you pay tax that means you are both fully utilising your personal allowances and therefore there's nothing to transfer.

It's a consistent policy with the Conservative viewpoint. Vote Tory and you get this kind of stuff. I'd be gibbering if I'd voted Lib Dem thinking their viewpoint would be in full government, but who thought that?

I'd rather they messed around with this kind of stuff than bombed Syria, but it's insulting nonetheless. If I were the fairly-recently-hitched partner of the Leader of the Opposition, I'd be going for a principled divorce to prove my disapproval of this policy.

Ah I see

DH isn't working, but I pay higher rate so we won't get it. Fair enough.

Does seem so out of touch to think people will get or stay married (or that they should) for £200 a year

So - without getting too conspiracy theory and definitely not wearing a tinfoil hat - what the hell are they up to whilst they distract us with this load of old nonsense?

Unless as a PP said, this is a first step towards obliterating the principle of independent taxation. Start small eh?

It makes a married woman, chattel basically. A stay at home married woman is a tax break to a man. I have been with DP a long time. We have 3 dc. Whether we get married at some point is nobodys business but ours.

I get it sorry. Married couples have shown a commitment to one another, their finances are already intertwined. They act as one unit. Why should they not also share tax allowance?

Now should people be able to apply for other types of partnerships to share the same benefits? I don't know. I expect there would have to be some kind of commitment established otherwise the Tax Office could never catch up.

YABU, DH and I often said that it would be great if he could use some of my tax allowance because I wasn't using it all. It won't actually apply to us now but I still think it's a good idea. Not sure why you think people will get married/stay in a crap marriage to benefit from it. I haven't divorced my husband just because I want to receive benefits that single mother is entitled to.

But why shouldn't we as an unmarried coupe get it?

We're a family enough to take our CB and make dp do a self assessment form on something that was never for him but he/we can't claim this as a family.

That goes completely against previous policy,is utter madness and totally unfair.

Retopear Agree the law is not completely consistent.....

I actually think married partnership could be made easier. Why you have to say vows in front of witnesses instead of sign a declaration with witnesses countersigning I don't know. Tradition I expect....

So the overwhelming viewpoint on here (which I totally agree with, you clever ladies) is that this policy is shit.
It seems very out-of-date and, well, old school tory to me. A waste of money which we keep being told we haven't got. Redirect it Dave to something worthwhile.

DwightFry the first sentence of the BBC article linked in the OP refers to transferable allowance.

Perhaps because it would be quite easy for people to 'fake' a partnership to benefit from it?

I totally agree! Smug bastard. It's pot luck to be happily married. Does he want people to get married for money?

The reason there are fewer marriages is because men don't 'have to' get married like in the old days, the halcyon days to DC and his ilk. They can have children in relationships where women have more to lose than they have to lose (given that men still earn more on average, and given that women's jobs are interrupted more by pregnancy etc) so I would like to see legislation that made paternity leave more socially the norm, so that employers no longer have a reason to discriminate against women. He's no interest in doing anything that strengthens women's position. He wants to make women reliant on the family unit no matter how dysfunctional the family unit might be, so what

weird policy, can't see how it helps anyone who needs it really. There must be better things to spend our money on, surely?

Even if we did benefit from it, I still disagree with this. If you leave an unhappy relationship you have to start again in a separate household. Why should you at that point be penalized for this?

£200 a year

Honestly, it'll surely cost more to administer this.

Where are the raging MN tories to come and explain themselves??