£20 a week tax break for married couples

[southeastastra]

so say the tories fgs

What's wrong with Laura Ashley?

Laura Ashley = not remotely sexy

Absolutely agree that we should debate it edam, but some of the comments on this thread have been very generalistic about people not liking the Tories, rather than simply focusing on whether it's a good policy or not. I wonder if the reaction would have been different if it had Labour announcing the same proposal?

Hathor - 'Allowing parents to "front load" child benefit, getting up to £2,800 a year up to the age of three and less when the child is older.'

Shelly, weirdly statistically it DOES matter whether a child's parents are married. In throey I agree with you that it shouldn't matter, but studies have shown it to matter time and time again.

CantSleepWontSleep - The front loading idea is fine, but what would happen if you "front loaded" your CHB in the early years but then lost your child (heaven forbid, but it does happen). What would happen then ? Would you have to pay some of it back ? If not, is that fair to those who decided not to 'front load' and suffered similar tragic events ?

Anna8888, I shocked. My flowery dresses make me even more mysterious ;)

cantsleep, I like the front-loading thing muchly.

cantsleep. Firstly I think the policy stinks whoever is proposing it.

The frontloading - why? Child benefit is odd anyway, being un-means-tested. Peanuts to some people, and essential to others. Not so fair.

Nomedeplume, I agree with you and me and my DP are planning on getting married because we want to do the right thing by DD.

But at the moment we are not married and she is still in a loving home with both parents. But I know single mums out there who are doing a great job.

Absolutely. I was agreeing with you, shelly.

Yes, it does statistically make a difference if parents are married. But surely that's just proves that lots of couples who have solid relationships choose to get married. There is absolutely no evidence that incentivising couples who have shaky relationships to get married (or stay married) will have any positive effect on their kids. (By the way, I'm not suggesting for one minute that you need to be married to have a good relationship, so please don't flame me!!)

can't sleep won't sleep, Can anybody frontload the child benefit?

It's sad if 20 quid a week is an incentive.

We'd all end up paying for it in our tax so you could be single, working and be paying for a married couple's benefits

I know rebelmum its very sad. I was watching the itv news earlier and that is sort of what was comming across to me. Maybe I am wrong, but they were mentioning Kids in gangs on rough estates where single parents were living.

But you also get married couples who live on them estates through no choice of their own who can't afford to buy through increased interest rates.

I personally don?t think that it?s the absence of a parent that causes low aspiration/educational attainment in the children of single parent families, it?s the relative poverty that people find themselves in when they are trying to bring up children on benefits or a single wage. We moved to a much rougher area when my ex buggered off (luckily the school they were at said they could stay) because it?s all we can afford on a single wage. Arguably some married couples are bringing up children on one wage as well, and sacrificing a lot to do that, but that is a choice. I didn?t choose to be a single parent.

If poverty is failing the children of single parent families, then compensate for that ? not giving tax breaks to some people who just may not need them.

There's a breakdown in family and family values but I don't think this is the answer.

Yes shelly - I believe so.

ndp - I would be surprised if parents would be made to pay back front loaded benefits in the event of a tragedy - that would be the last thing that they needed! I don't think whether or not it would be unfair to those who hadn't front loaded would really be questioned in those circumstances would it? Are we not a kinder nation than that? (Maybe don't answer that ).

I can't decide whether front loading is a good thing or not. If it enables people (who want to) to spend the early years with their children, and then to return to work once they are at school, then it certainly seems to be a good thing, but circumstances can change so much over the length of a childhood that it might prove not to be for some people. Will have to ponder that one further.

I agree, rebelmum, and they made a similar point in the paper this morning. If the amount's too small, it won't have any effect and wil be a waste of money. If it's too big, it will have a really negative effect on kids of single mums / unmarried couples who not only have to pay more tax to fund the benefit, but also have to see their kids proportionately worse off because they don't get the benefit themselves.

According to the research rich children from broken homes have similar issues.

If you throw poverty into the mix then you just have even less of a chance though I would have thought.

Also if rich people break up too 20 quid wont incentivise them either

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I don't think they have suggested giving married people £20 as such, just allowing a non working spouse to transfer their tax allowance to a working spouse. How's that unfair? it would just mean that a family in which one parent chooses to stay at home with their children would have as much tax free income as one in which both parents go out to work.

It's unfair because it would only apply to married parents, not unmarried ones!

ps I speak as a married woman who's planning to be a SAHM once my baby's born, so it's not sour grapes!!