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.

I agree that the it is not going to encourage people to marry, I just understand the thinking behind it.
However if this government really cared about families they would allow a sahm or sahd to transfer their tax free allowance to their partner. Then people could have a choice if they want to stay at home to raise their children. A two parent working family would be about choice rather than a necessity. I think this should apply to all couples with children married or not.

As a SAHM married to a higher rate taxpayer, I do actually like the concept of rewarding commitment through marriage. I don't really understand why you would have several children with someone before making that commitment or why as the female party in a long-standing relationship you wouldn't want the legal protection marriage brings.
It's funny how being 'ultra feminist' and independent can put women in a worse position especially if property is not in joint names and wills are not made.

However what Scameron is proposing is pathetic and not worth the bureaucratic nightmare of administration.
The Married Man's tax allowance (which is effectively the same thing if male is the working party) was abolished by the Tories in 1980s I think when they brought in independent taxation. It was certainly much higher than a measly £200 and was paid to all married couples.

So YANBU that Cameron is wasting his time with the detail here. YABU in thinking no women would like their commitment to SAH for a while being recognised by the tax system.

Yes it's wonderful and will do a lot to make up for the £3000 we have lost in Child Benefit, yet the couple next door can earn 100K a year and still keep theirs.

I think putting this emphasis on marriage is utterly outdated as well.

Totally stupid policy

It's a policy borne of ideology, not economics. They are quite upfront about that.

I'm still completely unclear as to how it's supposed to work though.

Absolutely no one is going to get married because of a so-small-as-to-be-insignificant tax break, so it' not going to encourage marriage. And the sorts of people who think it is a good idea will be those who set store by "traditional values" anyway, so it's not as though their minds are going to be changed.

Sweetkitty from what I read it won't help people who have lost their child benefit. As it doesn't apply if one person is a higher tax payer.

Married parents are much more likely to stay together than cohabiting parents. I think marriage is very important, and I love coming from a secure,happy married family unit and our children will get the same.

Money doesnt make a difference though, its the values the child has grown up with that will influence them to aim for a stable marriage

Don't confuse staying married with being happily and stably married.

Money does make a difference. It has more effect on the future life chances of a child than their parents marital status.

It is a tax break for marriage. Having children doesn't come into it. It is not meant to replace child benefit.
To dave c being married = being good.
I have a secure 17 year relationship, two children and in my opinion this tax break is a total load of bollocks. I thoroughly object to the government taking such a morals based view on taxation. Especially when they are screwing over so many people who do need help.

No of course not but my gps were stable, happy life long marriages, so were my parents, and so are we so far. It offers security, confidence, no trust/paranoid issues etc and is by far the best. I want it for my children, and am showing them the model on a daily basis.

Jasmine sorry but it is naive to think that marriage automatically brings 'security, confidence, no trust/paranoid issues etc'.
You only have to read almost daily threads on here about broken marriages to know that view is pretty absurd.
I'm not against marriage, not for it either.

So were my grandparents and parents.

Dp and I however had 2 grandmothers trapped in not very nice marriages but hey they stayed together.

Dp and I both have parents in stable,long term,happy relationships- so do my dc.Both our parents chose to have a wedding day but we didn't.

My sister has had several partners during my 23 years unmarried to dp,she has now been married for a paltry 5 years.She deserves this no more than I do.

I just said it doesnt, but having lots of lifelong happy models surrounding you helps it become normal to the children. Cohabitation has much more issues overall than marriage.

The whole thing is bollocks. The Daily Mail are orgasming over it.
A typical pre-conference right wing crowd pleaser that Dave and his brainless Tory cronies would come up with.
Vapid and out of touch.
No surprise there then.

I just think we should scrap all of these silly allowances and reduce the tax burden on everyone who pays it...at the same time less HMRC red tape will mean less HMRC employees and ergo even more reduction in the tax burden on everyone who pays it.

So you can get divorced and remarried however many times you like and show no commitment and you will still get a miserable small tax break of £3.85 per week.

Nah I will stay divorced and go without this paltry insulting tax break

He's doing it in an attempt to placate backbenchers who are opposed to gay marriage. Another example of lurching about bringing in 'firefighting' policies.

Which we're paying for.

The main purpose (IMO) of getting married is to bring children up in a committed unit with both parents living together and sharing parenthood.

I applaud anything being done to encourage that tbh. There are too many fractured families and it is the unpalatable truth that it is the DC that suffer the most and that quite often sets the scene for the next generation.

Perhaps people could also chose their partners more wisely from the start and work together to sort out problems when they arise rather than decide that THEIR happiness trumps their DCs happiness, just a thought.

It probably wouldn't and shouldn't keep a toxic marriage together but every little helps.

It seems pointless, even on its own terms. Even if you think marriage is a wonderful thing, the sum is so small as to not actually incentivise people to get married.

Jasminerose - bully for you. Turn your smugometer down a bit.

Money would be better spent on teaching people that need support with communication skills, or how to deal with disagreements. This is especially important when there have been limited models of stable marriages in the family. I agree 3 pound a week is pointless

getting married is to bring children up in a committed unit with both parents living together and sharing parenthood.
I applaud anything being done to encourage that tbh

it isn't doing anything to encourage that though is it - otherwise it would only apply to first marriages....and not subsequent marriages and fractured families