So will a tax break "support marriage"?

[ItsGraceAgain]

I'm watching the Question Time debate on this. Personally, I think it's bonkers.

When I first married, the Married Tax Allowance still existed. When I made my second mistake , it had been abolished. An extra £50 a month might buy you a meal out together, but I can't see how it "supports marriage". Both divorces would have happened anyway; the tax allowance didn't make any difference to whether we got hitched.

Surely the money should be added to Tax Credits, or benefits, or used in some other way to support poor people - whether or not they are married?

Any better ideas on how £50 of taxpayers' money could improve marriages? Maybe Mumsnet could do a bit of lobbying!

(Thinking about the "how to tell" thread - perhaps the £50 could go towards private detective's fees

I think they would be discriminatory towards unmarried parents to be honest. It's not some single parents fault that they are single parents, many would want things to be different if they had the chance. It would be wrong (and against the human rights act) for the government to interfere in this way and to try to engineer society IYSWIM.

£50 spent 'improving children's lives, regardless of their parents marital status' is what's needed!

It's also only relevant to married couples where one partner isn't using their allowance, so working couples - married or not - won't be affected.

Just seems a bit random. Do a couple in their 50s with no children living at home, him on £70k, her helping out in the Oxfam shop* really need a tax break to keep them together?

*Disclaimer: nothing wrong with that, but I don't think they need my taxes to subsidise them quite frankly. I'd much rather that £50 a month went to a single mother or couple with children on a low income.

add itn to the child benefit?

Wow, Belle? Would it really be against the human rights act?

Bit of an own goal for the Tories then ...

Well if a middle aged man dumped his middle aged wife for a younger model and married her, it would certainly support his marriage, yes.

It wouldn't support his children though.

It wouldn't surprise me Grace, it would be discriminatory on grounds of marriage, which is contrary to the human rights act IIRC.

HerBeatitude! Wonder if that's why all those MPs are so keen on it??!

Belle - interesting point ...

They won't be so keen when I research it tomorrow and get back to you

It's all semantics isn't it? Marriage equates to solid, life-long commitment- which, of course, it doesn't. You can say all the vows you like but without real boring practical commitment it means bugger all.

I assume the married allowance thing is meant to be used for the benefit of the children? So what happens if a couple divorce, the wife (or husband..yes..yes..) gets custody of the kids but does not remarry while the other spouse (without kids) remarries. And what happens if the remarried spouse a) does not pay child support and b) has a 'new' family?

btw, I'm not married, lived with partner for 18 years and have 2 children. I have an engagement ring (in the wardrobe) do you think I'd qualify for a reduced rate allowance?

No almay292, you are living in sin and will go straight to hell. Mend your wicked ways or you don't get a bean.

Annie's right - and funny!

The proposed allowance is supposed to make more people want to get married & stay married.

As others have pointed out, it would only benefit couples who are already paying tax - ie, it would exclude the poorest. So, I guess, it's an incentive to marriage between taxpayers

God yes, you don't want poor people breeding, they'll only fill the place with more poor people. How about introducing a big fat fee for a "parent certificate" before couples are allowed to TTC? That way you could be sure they were fully committed and rich (as well as married) before starting a family.

Oh wait, I'd better not suggest stuff like that, some bugger'll agree with me next. #shudder#

It depresses me. Society is already mysoginistic enough without the bloody tory buggering it up even more.

It's also very patronising. Give the poor little wifey an extra £50 a week so she can buy some more cleaning products and she'll want to stay with her crappy husband and won't want to leave him.

Whatever happened to love being a reason to stay together?

If I had a husband who I loved (and I would like one one day) I wouldn't give a monkey's arse about an extra £50 a week.

A month sorry

There are many couples who would stay together with or without this money.

There are many couples who wouldn't stay together with or without it.

There are some couples who could go either way. Going through a bad patch in a fairly okay marriage, a financial incentive to stay together or part might nudge them in a particular direction.

It's that book Nudge. I'm mildly interested to see if it will work as a political philosophy.

I think it could help

When i gave up work for childrearing a few years ago and so was no longer a tax payer, i got a huge (unpayable by myself) tax bill - this was due to an earlier 'mistake' by tax office and i was paying it back by way of a change in tax code.

However when i stopped paying tax they came after me for the remainder - when i said i could not pay and was not actively avoiding the bill - they said my husband was liable.

However i could not transfer my tax allowance to him whilst i was not working .

I actually felt i would have been better off had i got divorced as then my h would not be liable.

I did fight the case and started paying the debt back once i started working again.

I feel that if you choose not to work to look after children you should be able to allocate your tax allowance to your spouse for that time.

The present system certainly does not support people staying together.

Well, well, Nickname! I hadn't seen that 'Nudge' article ... and so it is: a nudge. Cheers.

Mind you, I still think it's bonkers. For all the reasons stated above (especially the one about remarried divorcees).