And now they're introducing a tax break for married couples!

[LadyBiscuit]

So not only do higher earning lone parents not get CB when the couple next door will still be eligible, they will also get a tax reward for being married.

BBC story

They really don't like single parents do they?

wow! very cross

Is this some kind of installation?

Are you going to burn a million euros or wrap MN towers in brown paper next?

Watching the news earlier, Nick Robinson was asking Dave if he understands how it feels for a family who are wondering how they're going to find the £1K or £2K or whatever they'll lose in CB, and Dave was going "Oh yes, of course I understand absolutely how hard it is.."

And I was just thinking "No, you fucking don't". It's not his fault, you can't choose the circumstances in which you were born, but don't pretend you have a clue what life is like for the average person. He has absolutely no concept of household budgeting, because he would never have had to do it. So yes, this is all abstract ideology to Dave and Gideon - they have no sense of what it actually means to people.

It costs around £120 to get married. I know, I did it about a month ago.

And I think the annual saving for the 'married' couples is £150

That's fine - I will do what the state tells me for that

Newsnight: even the Tories think this is a PR disaster.

good notanotter, you have now made the right choice and you shall thus be rewarded.

By Hassled

Watching the news earlier, Nick Robinson was asking Dave if he understands how it feels for a family who are wondering how they're going to find the £1K or £2K or whatever they'll lose in CB, and Dave was going "Oh yes, of course I understand absolutely how hard it is.."

Dave - you went to Eton - you really don't

Well if I had paid for Dave Camerons expensive education (eton & oxbridge) I would be seeking a refund as neither he or Georgie Porgie seem to understand the meaning of the word "FAIR"

I just wish they would stop using words they don't understand!

There are already loads of marriage incentives for Daily Mail readers, if this is social policy. That is why gay people campaigned for civil partnerships.

On the plus side, I am really happy that this would clearly benefit gay parents (and non-parents) in civil partnerships as well as married parents. Not sure this will go down will with the DM readership though...

legostuckinmyhoover I agree with cohabitees NOT having same legal rights as married in event of a split- sorry, but I want to live with another person in a relationship WITHOUT having to worry about being legally tied to them-if cohabitees want same rights as married, they can marry.
BUT, having said that, I think that as a cohabitee you should be treated as an individual in your own right when it comes to taxes and benefits.
It is grossly unfair that this shi* govt treats people 'as married' when it suits them and not (as in this tax break for married only thing) when it suits.
Don't blame people who are cohabiting parents to be mightily peed off about this.

My solution would be to treat ONLY married people as married-after all, they have of their own free will declared to the state that they wish to be a joint couple and those who are cohabiting as individuals in own right.

I feel this would be TRULY fair.

merrymouse does it say that anywhere? I couldn't see it. Yes, not sure that the DM would be happy. But as a general rule, if they're unhappy, I'm happy :)

Yes, cohabitees would miss out on things that married people get and vice versa, but I feel it would still be fairer.

I can't see any incentives to getting married at the moment. Sorry, i can't. Yes, there are certain legal benefits to being married that cohabiting doesn't have-but it is a bit ridiculous to complain about that, I mean if cohabitees DO want these rights they can always marry.

I don't think we know enough about the anticipated married tax break to get our knickers in a wad.

One story I read predicted £150 per year. If this is true, it's £12.50 per month. And all I can really think of to say to that on one big fat sarcastic "WHOOPEE..."
It's not exactly going to make me feel much better about the loss of CB. And it is certainly not enough to annoy me if I were in the camp of people not getting it.

Strix maybe it isn't that much money to some, however, I don't think it's the point here: there are cohabiting couples here with children who are being told that the govt will treat them as married when suits and NOT when it doesn't.

I don't blame them for being v. v. peed off.

Strix, you right. Also, everything I've read about it indicates that it is a transfer of allowance, which means that it will only benefit couples were one partner doesn't work or earns below the tax threshold.

But, nothing has actually being announced. So it seems the backlash is a bit premature.

I suspect we wont see any detail for a while as the Lib Dems are unlikely to support any tax break for marriage particularly if also made available to higher rate tax payers.

in the menatime this political bandaid for the DM readers and married SAHMs is just a further slap in the face to co habiting SAHMs and single parents (who dont even have the upside of someone to look after the kids while they work - childcare costs £875pm!)

have the courage to scrap CB altogether and start again or leave it and means test it on household income - both of which would see more lose it but be fairer.

@ marantha I know this is more relevant to the Camerons and Osbornes of the world, but if you die leaving property worth over the £325,000 nil band (so quite likely if you die having paid off your mortgage and live in the South East), you don't pay Inheritance Tax on anything you leave to your spouse.

Also, if your spouse dies and they haven't used their nil band, you get to use it, so have a nil band of £350,000.

Marriage benefits relating to income tax may have disappeared, but they are alive and well in the rest of the tax system - including no capital gains tax on transfers between husband and wife.

Re: rights of cohabiting couples, this article is a bit old, but I don't think much has changed since it was written.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3746599.stm

Living with somebody and fathering/bearing their children doesn't give you much status in law. Spending 15 minutes in a registry office does.

Assuming, you want to have a long relationship with your co-parent, I think there are tons of incentives to get married.

drivingmisscrazy, if they include married couples without children but don't include civil partnerships, I think the government's position would become untenable - it would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Cameron can only push these things through with the support of the Libdems, and this would certainly NOT be what their supporters voted for, Conservative manifesto or no Conservative manifesto.

Oh yes, had forgotten about the Lib Dems!

But then again why should living with somebody and having their children without marrying give anyone status in law?

Do people not realise that -if wanting rights as regards being associated with another adult- they have the option of getting wed?
The primary reason for marriage is to tie oneself formally to another adult. So that it is clear to the authorities and the rest of the world that they wish to be seen as a couple. Can't people see this?
Who gets involved when a couple divorce? LAWYERS-doesn't this prove to people that marriage is fundamentally a legal arrangement?

I'm sorry, but if marital rights are required people can get married.

Giving cohabitees rights is wrong in principle as it would give the state carte blanche to stick its nose into people's private affairs when they may not wish it.

It is also impractical for the state to know who is in a 'serious' relationship and who isn't.

Yes, I agree that cohabiting couples do not benefit from inheritance tax 'break' but -if the cash is so important- 15 minutes in a register office will sort it out for them.
It costs £103.50.

Nothing unfair about lack of cohabitee rights.

Is David Cameron trying to prove he is a great father and family man? By parading his new daughter before conference is he trying to justify the CB cuts. It doesnt fool me and to use a new baby is just pathetic

Not arguing against marriage. Just arguing that there are plenty of incentives already to do it.

I agree that without some kind of piece of paper (like a marriage licence or a civil partnership) it is pretty difficult to know who is formally connected to who.

Once you take out all the wedding stuff, it isn't really any more complicated to organise than a birth certificate or a death certifcate.