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?

"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"

I think it's absolutely fine to give tax breaks to married people. I quite like the idea. I think it is a good idea to give couples a variety of possible legal and economic contracts to choose between, too.

doulasarah..

hear hear..you have articulated what i was trying to say to Herb... and Ivy,
thankyou

As i am soon to be a SAHM this is great.
I am fed up with the gov pushing everyone to go back to work - fine if you want to / have to then do - but... what about a bit of a break for those who want to look after their own children? to me it seems a positive and would be hugely beneficial for us if it's brought in quickly.
i dont' care about the marriage / non-marriage thing really - make it available to any cohabiting couple would be fairer.
it's really the only thing i like about the tories poilicies TBH - don't think i would actually vote tory though because as we're in the earning less than £30k bracket they will probably take all our money in other ways to cancel it out!
(and give it to those earning 100k plus of course )

is the government saying 20 years of co habiting shows a lesser commitment?

will divorcees be made to pay back?

Yes the torys are saying that co habiting is showing a lesser commitment and therefore you will not get the tax allowence - if you marry though you will get the tax cut. You need to comply with society and do as you should

No! it's not a reward for married couples but a recognition that my DH supports me and therefore has more expenses than a single person. The Conservatives are saying that they would like to support us in that. Personally I'd like to see it as a transferable allowance that could go to any partner including common law. Or at least this could be applied to any family with children under 16.

Because I stay home we're tight for cash so my DH works extra weekends to make ends meet. He also ends up working offshore which terrifies me. Brown calls me a lady of leisure and that pisses me off. Cameron seems to be the only one who appreciates that having some families where one parent stays home is a good option for society. (And having some working mothers is important too - what would we do without many of our teachers, GPs, nurses etc).

And I love monkeyfeathers post - if we are going to look at family income when calculating working tax benefit then how come we can't look at family income when taxing my husband? (I'm a SAHM partially due to the cost of childcare).

"but I also know from experience, it is not the only scenario that can provide this, whether through choice or not."

Your experience shows you that marriage is the only scenario that can provide stability for you. Other people have other set ups which provide stability for them. Many marriages are horribly unstable and unhappy, why should taxpayers finance them?

I'm not against a transferable tax allowance for couples where one wants to stay at home to look after the children; what I am against, is the tax burden of a single parent being higher than that of a married, childless couple.

Taxes and benefits should support children, not give childless adults extra money for another holiday just because they happen to be married.

I am being to think I really am glad I am not an expense to anyone but myself

Tax credit looks at family income regardless of whether you are two people married, two people unmarried or one adult with a family. Tax credits only looks at family income and that is under 66k

The tax system is already grossley unfari for anyone earning under 16k. But it will mane that if you are unmarried and earn under 16k you will be penalsied even further for being single

But of course Cameron isn't looking for their vote, he wants middle England.

Herb...Ivy...I dont think we will be able to agree, our mindsets are completely at odds.

Herb...you are obviously skilled in misinterpretation, assumption and changing facts to suit, which by chance is the 'one' thing our present government is also skilled in,

Ivy...It is this attitude of everyone is entitled to everything that has got us into this mess,

please show me where Tories say 'the torys are saying that co habiting is showing a lesser commitment and therefore you will not get the tax allowence'. I think this is your personal interpretation influenced perhaps by your political persuasion which you are perfectly entitled to, but writing it as fact is a bit disingenuous.

co-habitors choice (or not), have a further burden of proof, there is no legal documentation to attach any incentive, this does not say they are less committed or less able.

perhaps in the future with thought out practicalities this could be rectified,

but as things are the Tories marriage incentive is a start.....

and just for the record I have never been married, never wanted to get married, done a perfectley good job raising my children on my own, but I am not so closed minded to reconise actual facts, and it is a fact that marriage on the whole is a good thing both for family and 'society'.

Ivy...It is this attitude of everyone is entitled to everything that has got us into this mess

Where exactly did I say everyone is entitled to everything? perhpas you would like to mis read things yourself? Then skirt around the real questios you have been asked - like where is the proof that children do so better in a married home? Still not answered that one have you.....

camreone is trying to flirt the middle voters and it is obviously working. Tory stands tax the poor and keep the rich happy. Middle voters are not going to really profit it is tit bits to keep them happy and get their vote.

Bottom line, why should every other tax payer (single, co-habiting, whatever) pay for a tax break for couples who choose to marry? That is my problem with it (and always was...) Like Otters point about ddo you pay it back if you divorce

"please show me where Tories say 'the torys are saying that co habiting is showing a lesser commitment and therefore you will not get the tax allowence'. I think this is your personal interpretation influenced perhaps by your political persuasion which you are perfectly entitled to, but writing it as fact is a bit disingenuous."

OK. Let's put this simply.

If you are married, you get the proposed tax break. Because your marriage is contributing to society.

If you are co-habiting, you do not. Because your lack of marriage is contributing to 'Broken Britain'.

Please let me know if either of those statements is a personal interpretation rather than a fact.

(A fact that it's tory policy, obviously, not a fact in the wider sense. As both statements are clearly bollocks)

"Herb...you are obviously skilled in misinterpretation, assumption and changing facts to suit"

Ooooh..kay. Which bit of my post does that?

the heathen...says it all really..

Ivy... I am far from middle class so dont even try to pratronise me, your gingerbread report does not contain historic fact, I do not disagree with the content, but its agenda is to prove that single parents are just as able as marrieds, that is fact, I know to be true. no disagreement there then.
Same as Co Habs.

as for 'proof that children do better...'

try googling,

'do children do better in marriage'

'marriage family society'

world concensous?....

cammelia: That's a bit arbitary and not a reason for a tax break per se, though. Having a joint mortgage or rent agreement, and joint parental responsibility for a child is a legally established relationship including contracts, too.

you still don't come up with the goods ....

Herb...

'Your experience shows you that marriage is the only scenario that can provide stability for you. Other people have other set ups which provide stability for them. Many marriages are horribly unstable and unhappy, why should taxpayers finance them?'

does this answer your ? Herb..

No Herb.. I believe, research, global consensus, overall statistics 'Shows' this.

and with regards to
'Many marriages are horribly unstable and unhappy, why should taxpayers finance them?'
Divorce. as i said previously, there is plenty of help out there for this situ.

but the vast majority of marriages around the world seem to work to the benefit of family life and social cohesion.

my experience Herb.. as you put it, involves very little close experience of marrieds, most of which have failed, my experience is of single parents, and co habs (often not declared for financial reasons.

the marrieds I know are mainly from ethnic groups, very traditional, seems to work well for majority them.

Blackduck.. the bottom line is....

there are very many things that taxpayers of all persuasion disagrees with, and would rather not contribute to.

Ivy... 'I have' read research, looked at (dare i say) statistics, listened to experts etc and the fact that marriage is overall the the prefered method for raising families in, etc etc.

please do the same.

so where are we now .. I agree that alternative family set ups can be just as good and in some cases better than marriage, but i also believe the majority of marrieds consistenly provide more stability within families and in turn benefits social cohesion.

And the Tories like every other party has to provide policies that appeal to people whatever class.

Ivy... i dont know how to link. so i suggested some google search

Ivy... 'I have' read research, looked at (dare i say) statistics, listened to experts etc and together with the fact that marriage is overall the the prefered method for raising families, etc etc. i also read the report you linked.. .

please do the same.

so where are we now .. I/we agree that alternative family set ups can be just as good and in some cases better than marriage, but i also believe the majority of marrieds consistenly provide more stability within families and in turn benefits social cohesion.

And the Tories like every other party has to provide policies that appeal to people whatever class.

Sorry but your arguments are simply incoherent.

You're basically saying that there's a worldwide consensus that marriage is better.

You don't address the point I made yesterday, which is that marriage tends to be better for children because there is more money in a home with 2 parents than 1. The solution to that would not be to force everyone to be married, but to have more money in the homes with 1 parent. Then you level the playing field.

You still haven't explained why the tax burden of a single parent with 3 children, should be higher than that of a married couple with no children.

I will gladly read what ever evidence you choose to give me - you can copy a web address and type it in the page and I will be happy read the page.

theres the difference...Herb... Ivy....

i really dont think the tax burden of a single parent of 3 children (dependant on earnings) would be higher than that of a couple with no children, without that single parent recieving consessions, benefits and tax credits, please show proof of this....Herb...as i said earlier......

and Ivy i think we are going round in circles
so lets try this.. as i do believe i am of open mind, please provide evidence that proves that marriage in the majority does not provide family stability and does not benefit social cohesion.

thankyou for the tip re links i will try and practice this,;o)

but as for providing links on this subject, i think i would be accused of posting biased site links suited to 'my agenda' best you look using search words suggested and brows varied sites.

thankyou both this has been my first interaction on this site, i have enjoyed our debate, but concede to a we agree to disagree
look forward to chatting with you on other topics.

"Blackduck.. the bottom line is....

there are very many things that taxpayers of all persuasion disagrees with, and would rather not contribute to."

Yes, Tired I am aware of that (you are a tad patronising), but we are talking about THIS tax break, not any other...and my point is why should we all pay for a tax break for people who get married (and don't bring children into this - this break would go to ALL married couples, regardless of whether they have children or not and THAT is what I object to...)