£20 a week tax break for married couples

[southeastastra]

so say the tories fgs

I don't think you can fund a babysitter and a nights binge drinking for two on £20.

batters you assume they are fornicating correctly.

fornicating incorrecly involved cardigans

I wouldn't object to someone handing out tenners in my direction. But think it's a bit pointless.

Allowing couples to share personal tax thresholds or whatever you call 'em, so a SAHM or D can transfer their tax allowance to their partner would make more sense. Wouldn't affect me as we both work, but seems unfair that there is some, limited support if you use childcare but you are penalised if you want to look after your own child.

is it still called fornicating if you are married, or does it become something terribly respectable by virtue of a marriage licence?

IDS and David Cameron - what "unreconstructed 19th century patriarchal nobs" to quote chevere. FGS don't vote for them.

They say they want to encourage marriage by rewarding married people with tax breaks. Even rich married people to whom this will be peanuts, and those with no children. Plonkers.

Better to encourage couples to live together by not penalising them via the benefit system. It is financially better for a low-income couple to be apart. Better to give the low-income better tax breaks so they can afford to be together.

edam - good point. I think it is terrible that a government should give support to working parents to buy childcare and not give equivalent support to parents where one parent stays at home (and forfeits income) to care for the family.

I know Anna, makes it feel as if they think we aren't good enough to bring up our own children and should hand them over to the professionals. Ds has been in various types of childcare since 7mos old but that's mine and dh's choice for our family, don't think the government should be putting any pressure on us either way.

Agree with you Hathor but if I stand to benefit I might not shout too loudly about the crapness of the idea...

edam - 'Allowing couples to share personal tax thresholds or whatever you call 'em, so a SAHM or D can transfer their tax allowance to their partner would make more sense'. I think you'll find that this is what they are proposing, and it amounts to around £20 per week (5k per year tax free which would otherwise be taxed at 20%).

So there are 190 policy recommendations, and you Tory-bashers choose to pick on one that you don't like. I think I'd be hard pushed to find a single one of you who agreed with every detail of every policy that Labour have come up with. Also bear in mind that this is simply a recommendation being put to the Conservative party by a panel - it doesn't mean that it has been or will be adopted as policy.

edam. You might benefit from the married couples tax break. But be assured they will snatch far more back with the other hand: evil money-grubbing unreconstructed 19th century nobs!
Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes with their nicey nicey talk.

Oh, so tell us some of the other good ones cantsleep.

cantsleep - that is only for married couples. Not other couples. Fair or not?

no edam - if your married - with a cardigan its all legit - if your not married cardigan = fornicating incorrectly - sans cardigan is plain old fornicating

edam - worse, I think it's discriminatory - why should one group of parents get a state subsidy and not another, based on lifestyle choice?

becuase those who arnt married are fornicators

Tax breaks for all!
Tax breaks for the fornicators!

Hathor - stop it right now - £20 tax break aint worth looking like a boden granny

not a boden cardy

I don't know Hathor - have only read the same article as the rest of you, but with a more open mind .

Re fair or not for married couples only - what wouldn't be fair would be the administrative burden of trying to keep track of the relationships of every unmarried person! Whilst I agree that long term unmarried partners should ideally be included, the practical considerations outweigh the 'unfairness' IMHO. It's not like couples can't get married if they choose to, and whilst marrying just for the tax breaks then brings into question the religious aspects of marriage, it is an option which people can and do take.

ive deliberately not read any of the threads but this is what i think. There are two issues that have made me foam at the mouth here.

Firstly, what the hell does it matter if i marry my DP or not, do i not need the support then if i am not married? I am not sure if single parents need be pissed off about this as one would HOPE they would be in receipt of other types of help, working or otherwise, if they dont, well then they should be. No-one has the right to tell me to get married if i dont want to and it would be hypocritical of me if i were to do so.

Secondly, and i actually think this is the big issue here - it seems that IDS is laying the countries woes at the feet of working mothers (i wonder if xenia is on this thread - maybe not, she doesnt need an extra £20 ). Now i usually come up fighting on the side of SAHM on here but FFS, how dare they think they can legislate against working mothers, patronising twonk. I chose to be a SAHM, it puts a huge financial burden on us, but it is MY choice so i certainly don't expect it to be subsidised.

They have just lost my vote!

Might be alright if you can afford to get married. The cost of an average wedding these days is How Much?

I am in a long term relationship and am a stay at home mum cos frankly I can't afford to go to work with childcare costs.

I did have a childminder after going back to work when DD was 6mths and I was basically working to pay for a childminder.

Now they are saying they want both parents to be working and the mother to be working part-time when the child turns 5 and full time when the child turns 11.

I have been looking for part-time work and its very rare to get the hours to suit eg 10am to 2pm whilst DD would be at school.

is he going to bring out a policy for companies to be more flexible with hours I think not.

lucy - marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman that confers legal rights and responsibilities. Governments pass legislation that changes those rights and responsibilties. It's a package deal that people are free to enter into or not.

The proposal to increase the fiscal advantages of marriage is about encouraging people to get/stay married. You can think what you want about that as policy. But if you choose not to marry, then obviously you don't get the package deal, that's all.

cantsleepwontsleep, i take issue with your comment about the administrative burden of keeping track of the relationships of unmarried couples. That seems to me like an underhanded swipe at unmarried women, implying that they have questionable morals and will be with a different man every week/month/year. If, as IDS implies, this is to be where one partner is not working then that undermines your point. If a household is set up as a family unit with one partner at home the other at work then they will receive the tax benefit. It is no real burden if the relationship breaks down as they will simply apply this to the mother im sure, or who ever has custody of the children. I have been with my partner for 15 years, i have no intention of getting married, he is my DDs father and will (hopefully) be around for good. If that breaks down, i cant see what difference it will make if i was married or not.