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.

Rowlers is correct. It'fs a huge mistake to have such a naïve view that marriage = security. Any first year sociology student would study the benfits fo the family. To society as a whole, and to the individual members of the family. The disadvantages of being from a dysfunctional family are catastrophic and for smug DC to basically just insult unmarried mothers/parents (again) shows his disdain for people who aren't Like-Him.

My children are secure and happy now that I have left their father. But as another pp points out, tax break for a re-marriage!? even an ill-judged hasty one that wouldn't benefit the children???

They say a slap with a wet fish is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and financially this is a slap with a wet fish to married couples. And for unmarried mothers, single mothers and co-habiting parents, it's just an insult from an ivory tower.

I know HRTs don't get it again it's the squeezed middle, the rich don't need it but the people in the middle are being squeezed but are told not to complain about it as they earn too much.

Not to mention the message it's sending single parents, we only value hard working married couples.

No YANBU.

This is another sop to the blue-rinse brigade but it's actually not a big enough sop because it will only benefit a minority of SAHMs.

Marriage per se is not a particularly better way to bring up children than any other domestic set-up. The overwhelming majority of data show that where income is the same (or even where the mother is poorer than average but has a degree) the outcomes for children are the same whether their parents are married or not. The reason that the children of married parents have consistently better outcomes in terms of health, academic achievement, involvement with the criminal justice system, employment, relationships etc., than the children of single parents, is because on average, they are richer. If you take income out of the variables when you run the data, you'll find that the outcomes are exactly the same. It's something the media are reluctant to talk about and politicians refuse to acknowledge.

The logical thing to do to try and improve outcomes for all children, is not to promote marriage, but to promote prosperity. The best way to ensure children have good outcomes, is to ensure their parents, whether they have one, two or ten, earn a decent wage and are able to access the normal things families need to function in society. That means the alleviation of poverty and more equality, not privileging one domestic arrangement over another.

No-one is ever unreasonable to think that DC is a smug twat.

I wouldn't worry about the single parents - this is nothing compared to the daily crap we hear from the papers, so called statistics, peers, neighbours, family etc.

But erm 'love is love' and erm... knobheads are knobheads...Isn't that right, David?

sweetkitty They don't value hardworking married couples. They value married couples who are stupid/venal enough to possibly vote for them. It's got nothing to do with hard work (after all, many people who work hard (possibly since their school days) find themselves paying HRT as a direct consequence). They have done their research, determined the demographic (in terms of earnings) that fits and gone after it all guns blazing. If they thought professional people might be stupid or venal enough to vote for them, then they'd have aimed the tax cut at higher rate payers and allowed them to keep CB. It's pure politics. And if I was one of the people being targeted by this policy I'd be hugely insulted that Cameron thought my vote could be bought for a grand a year.

Yes Basil, all the research shows that issues blamed on single parents are in fact issues to do with poverty. If the children of families do better then part of that is certainly that a family is a more successful unit economically. Whether or not it's functional or dysfunctional emotionally, it's stronger financially as there are always either two adults earning, or one earner and one 'minder'. It's a team. DC doesn't want to look after the vulnerable. he wants The Family to look after its own. Everything he says makes it clear. His 'big society' was the same. "why should the govt look after the vulnerable?'. Look after yourselves whether you're miserable, abused, frustrated, deressed, put down, put second, lonely...

Soooo agree with the money being better off going to Relate,bet their waiting lists are horrendous at the moment.

basil it feels like bloody forever that you and i and some others have been repeating this simple fact about the stats (re: if mothers income is high enough or she is educated to degree level or higher the outcomes for children are exactly the same whether she is married or single) FOREVER! people just don't want to hear it and prefer to keep spouting 'marriage is the best for children' against the basic facts.

my son could not be more stable. it's been him and me from day one - there's never been a break up, a bereavement or violence or anything bad to get us here it's just the way it is and he's never witnessed arguments or marital problems in his home. i am educated to post grad level and used to be a teacher and am a qualified counsellor. why would he be better off with two thick as two short planks abusive arseholes purely because they decided to have a big party and get married? be they poor arseholes or deludedly thinking they're middle class because they've got a car and read the daily mail arseholes?

but again we're getting sucked into talking about this as if there was logic, albeit misinformed logic. there isn't. it's a club handshake - it's a tribal flag being flown. that is all.

at this point i'd rather the money was spent on a hitman.

hitman would be useless - there are other arse holes lining up for his job

Kot some of us aren't getting either.

Really don't get why some kids are more worthy than others.Basically children from families far richer than us are getting CB,this and free school dinners. Due to my kids being the wrong age and having unmarried parents they get nowt.

Yes really helping families.

Considering a huge percentage of families aren't married,have older kids and some will have lost CB which is a whole lot more I think Dave's pat on his own back is a tad mis guided.

where do free school dinners come into this? who is getting them? i'm a low income single parent and i'm not entitled because i receive wtc (regardless of the fact that actually overall i'm worse off than when i was on benefits). have a missed something that's gone on with school dinners?

sorry for hijack just feel i'm missing part of the puzzle.

As a married parent and basic rate taxpayer I would far rather this money was spent on people who really need it. If I am entitled to it - which I may not be because DH is American and only pays US taxes because he works for the military - I will donate it all to a suitable charity which will help really disadvantaged people. I don't want to be a member of the 'I'm all right Jack' brigade.

Fucking Tories.

ivykaty44 agreed re a hitman being pointless. I'd rather have DC than Michael Gove and I am sure he's going for the top job.

Totally agree Russian - they only value a certain voting demographic.

One of my friends is PhD educated, she has 3 DC and was working PT when her husband died :( she has had to go back to work FT, she's just lost her CB as she's a HRT (just) but she has to pay a lot in child care.

But hey she's a feckless single parent

wtf has under 7 got to do with it??? either you think free school meals are a good thing or not - why a good thing till 7 then not? utterly bizarre.

Completely ridiculous and prejudiced. YANBU.

The sooner this country gets rid of the bloody Tories and Lib Dems the better.

we only value hard working married couples

Because anyone who is single is really not hard working, stable, or contributing to our society?

Its a load of rubbish

Tories only value a certain demograhgic because they rely on their votes to get them back in for another term. They know no-one else will vote for them so expect more of these 'policies' designed purely to appeal to the typical tory voter.

I mean 'we should expect'