Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

[HohohoBumperlicious]

Am I right to feel a bit - for want of a better word - icky about marriage tax. I am married but it just seems wrong to put a financial and moral (as after all the root of the tax is surely a moral one) premium on marriage.

It's not always the best state and certainly isn't one that should be the default, it is, after all, a purely social construct designed to fit in with perceived views on what is 'moral'. I'm sure people can be perfectly happy and good members of the community without being married.

Am I missing the point somehow?

I'm not sure what the point is execpt to make the unmarried/single parents feel excluded. And tax breaks should be regarding the cost of having children regardless of whether or not the parents are married. Why would childless marrieds need a tax break? Anyway, teh tories won't even say what their policy on this is yet. Another tory policy vacuum.

'certainly isn't one that should be the default'

Disagree. I think if you want to have children you should be married, unless you have very, very good reasons not to be (like my cousin, who can't marry her partner because his parents are Croat lunatics who think that anyone who's not Croatian is bad). Countless surveys show that children in married families do better. The tax and benefit system should reward desired behaviours.

It's even more arbitrary than that (unless I'm thinking of something else).

The idea seems to be to reward couples who can afford for one of them to stay at home, whether that's to look after children or not.

If you can afford for one partner not to work, and are living in the sanctity of marriage you win a tax break.

Those who are both working can go and stand in the sin bin with the rest of the feckless - unmarried couples and single parents.

Shame on us!

But that's comparing marriage to all other relationships in which there are children. You need to compare marriage to all successful committed relationnships where there are children to determine the effect of marriage, surely? A like for like comparison in which marriage is the only differing factor.

Oh I see... So abra1d will make an exception for someone known to (presumably) her but the rest of us are should be married because we have children? Sounds a teeny bit hypocritical to me!

Having come from a marriage where my father was/is an alcoholic and regularly beat the crap out of my mother, I'd say we'd have been better off out of it. It being the 1960s/70s there was nowhere for my mum to go. But, of course, marriage must be best mustn't it?!

This is one of the single most pointless and misogynistic policies ever. Who normally gets left with the children when a relationship breaks down? Who has to work their backsides off to keep their children properly? Oh yes, that would be the woman.

Tory fuckwittage at its best.

I'm with abra!d.

So a married couple without children or a wife-beating alchoholic husband and father would get a tax break, while a very committed stable co-habiting couple with 3 children would not?

I would support a tax break for working parents, but to discriminate between stable committed co-habiting couples and those who are married is a moral decision not a practical social position, or a financially determined one.

It sounds like more of Cameron's woolly, generalised non-policy-making to me.

Icky - yes.

this policy idea, no firm commitment, is here to please the core tory vote plain and simple
am sure a few on emigration and Europe will follow

I think it is incredibly unreasonable that married couples are not allowed to transfer their tax allowances to each other.

If the state recognises the partnership (which it does, to the financial detriment of married couples of some cases) then it should allow families the maximum flexibility in terms of managing their finances.

If unmarried couples want to avail of this advantage, then they can get married. Obviously this accommodation should extend to people in Civil Partnerships.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with single people tbh.

I utterly fail to see how it can be construed as misogynistic.

Agree with Abra1d

Well, I'll leave you smug marrieds to discuss it amongst yourselves as it's "nothing to do with single people". Cheerio.

Abra1d: the days of parents needing to agree that their adult daughters may enter into marriage are long gone. Is all your thinking based on such out of date concepts? If the Croation cousin chooses to get married, she can. Family hoo-ha it may entail, but then you might think that if she wants to marry but quails in the face of her family she simply hasn't got the determination that any long-term relationship demands. And so falls into the categories of non-married relationships which are erroneously compared with married couples.

Has anyone done a study of the children of co-habiting parents who stayed together until the child was 18, with those of married parents who stayed together for the same length of time? Because that is the only way you could determine whether the actual married status makes a difference.

Or, studied the effect of a family break up on children whose parents were, and were not, married?

Encouraging people to enter into marriage on the basis of a few hundred quid cash seems v irresponsible, Skidoodle.

But it might, of course, add to even greater numbers of divorce as people discover that, no, it really wasn't worth it, and discredit this whole notion of marriage, per se, being worthy of tax concessions.

It is misogynist because the whole idea of 'married cou[ples tax' comes from the days when a man took financial responsibility for supporting his wife, as a chattel, if you like.

"The tax and benefit system should reward desired behaviours."

But this proposed policy merely rewards the state of marriage. It does not and could not judge the behaviour within the relationship /family unit.

A man on his third marriage who has walked out on two other families will be "rewarded" in the same way as the ideal tory couple Cameron may have in mind.

I agree with the OP and Haveitall - its ill thought out and icky.

"The tax and benefit system should reward desired behaviours."

But this proposed policy merely rewards the state of marriage. It does not and could not judge the behaviour within the relationship /family unit.

A man on his third marriage who has walked out on two other families will be "rewarded" in the same way as the ideal tory couple Cameron may have in mind.

I agree with the OP and Haveitall - its ill thought out and icky.

Oops - my musings really werent worth a double post. Sorry.

Me too! I felt distinctly uncomfortable. Why does a married couple need a tax break? For what possible reason?

'Countless surveys show that children in married families do better'

That's a correlation though not necessarily a causation, you have to look at the factors involved in people marrying, people marrying are, you would hope, in happier relationships. Getting married does not itself guarantee happiness and whatever 'doing better' is.

had to post. defo agree with t/f tax allowance that would be a huge help.
we both work, married. not looking any favours
But please explain to me why the couple not married, get financial help when preg., help with childcare costs?
am i naive? do they say they live apart?
we could not afford private nursery but the not marrieds can?
something not right with the system

I dont understand your post mumof2. Current tax and benefit system treats married and unmarried couples the same. "Not marrieds" do not get any special treatment.

but they often claim to be living apart, or maybe thats just my experience?

I am genuinely surprised to read the level of support for reintroducting this tax benefit (and yes i am married myself).

more to the point its an absurd waste of money.