This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/tories-wary-tax-breaks-married-couples

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why Tories should be wary of giving tax breaks to married couples Why Tories should be wary of giving tax breaks to married couples
(3 months later)
Bridget Jones was never going to get a tax break out of David Cameron. The prime minister believes in marriage, and he wants to introduce a married couples' tax break to prove it. After much prevarication, owing to the political difficulties of getting the policy through, Cameron is now bringing forward to the autumn legislation to recognise marriage in the tax system.Bridget Jones was never going to get a tax break out of David Cameron. The prime minister believes in marriage, and he wants to introduce a married couples' tax break to prove it. After much prevarication, owing to the political difficulties of getting the policy through, Cameron is now bringing forward to the autumn legislation to recognise marriage in the tax system.
So all you Bridget Joneses out there can now add to your list of grievances the fact that you won't qualify for a tax rebate that your smug married friends will be boasting about.So all you Bridget Joneses out there can now add to your list of grievances the fact that you won't qualify for a tax rebate that your smug married friends will be boasting about.
I know Cameron believes in this policy personally and passionately because I once sat in the back of a car with him and listened to him nagging a twentysomething female aide about why she hadn't yet found a husband. "We really must get you married. Marriage is wonderful," he said, with great feeling. (The female aide has since married and divorced.)I know Cameron believes in this policy personally and passionately because I once sat in the back of a car with him and listened to him nagging a twentysomething female aide about why she hadn't yet found a husband. "We really must get you married. Marriage is wonderful," he said, with great feeling. (The female aide has since married and divorced.)
It may yet be the case that in rushing out an announcement on this most traditional policy, against the wishes of ministers including George Osborne, Cameron shows himself to be in tune with the British people – who have a soft spot for marriage and want it promoted.It may yet be the case that in rushing out an announcement on this most traditional policy, against the wishes of ministers including George Osborne, Cameron shows himself to be in tune with the British people – who have a soft spot for marriage and want it promoted.
Certainly, the prime minister has done himself proud recently by sticking to instinctive Tory values. His stance on Europe and welfare cutbacks – both of which Labour predicted would be unpopular – have won enthusiastic backing from voters. Ed Miliband has looked out of touch in refusing to back an EU referendum and by not having a cohesive alternative to counter financial austerity. Polling last weekend showed the Labour party leader lacking the power to secure a Commons majority.Certainly, the prime minister has done himself proud recently by sticking to instinctive Tory values. His stance on Europe and welfare cutbacks – both of which Labour predicted would be unpopular – have won enthusiastic backing from voters. Ed Miliband has looked out of touch in refusing to back an EU referendum and by not having a cohesive alternative to counter financial austerity. Polling last weekend showed the Labour party leader lacking the power to secure a Commons majority.
But there is something about a marriage tax break that makes me doubt its populist appeal. Perhaps because I am a singleton myself, I have deeply conflicted feelings about financially rewarding "smug marrieds", as Bridget Jones calls them.But there is something about a marriage tax break that makes me doubt its populist appeal. Perhaps because I am a singleton myself, I have deeply conflicted feelings about financially rewarding "smug marrieds", as Bridget Jones calls them.
I don't oppose it completely, however, because whatever the idealist Cameron believes, a married couples' tax break is essentially a tax break for the middle classes. The reason the idea has gathered so much pace within the Tory party, which was poised to revolt if Cameron did not act, is because it is the only way, in the current financial climate, the Conservatives can legitimately – and with moral authority – get a tax cut through for "people like them". In principle that is fine by me. The middle classes deserve a tax break. They've been paying into the system more diligently than anyone else for years.I don't oppose it completely, however, because whatever the idealist Cameron believes, a married couples' tax break is essentially a tax break for the middle classes. The reason the idea has gathered so much pace within the Tory party, which was poised to revolt if Cameron did not act, is because it is the only way, in the current financial climate, the Conservatives can legitimately – and with moral authority – get a tax cut through for "people like them". In principle that is fine by me. The middle classes deserve a tax break. They've been paying into the system more diligently than anyone else for years.
My problem is that if you want to give middle Britons some of their hard-earned money back, give it to them honestly and up front. Say you want to reward responsible people on medium incomes and be done with it.My problem is that if you want to give middle Britons some of their hard-earned money back, give it to them honestly and up front. Say you want to reward responsible people on medium incomes and be done with it.
The problem with dressing up a tax cut for the middle classes as "marriage tax breaks" is that it excludes some very worthy groups of people, namely wives deserted by their husbands, husbands deserted by their wives and the children of those sad, broken unions. It also further stigmatises that fast-growing demographic – the single person who fails, through no fault of their own, to find a mate. To judge if a taxpayer deserves some slack according to whether or not they have persuaded a partner to walk down the aisle seems very arbitrary when fewer people than ever make a go of wedlock.The problem with dressing up a tax cut for the middle classes as "marriage tax breaks" is that it excludes some very worthy groups of people, namely wives deserted by their husbands, husbands deserted by their wives and the children of those sad, broken unions. It also further stigmatises that fast-growing demographic – the single person who fails, through no fault of their own, to find a mate. To judge if a taxpayer deserves some slack according to whether or not they have persuaded a partner to walk down the aisle seems very arbitrary when fewer people than ever make a go of wedlock.
Ah but, the marriage tax proponents say, if only marriage carried tax incentives it would be more popular and last longer. Would these enthusiasts please point me to one example of a separated couple they can honestly say would rediscover their love of each other if they were given £150 a year. Bickering, angry, resentful lovers do not stay together for the sake of an extra £12.50 a week (the sum mooted when the idea was in the Tory manifesto).Ah but, the marriage tax proponents say, if only marriage carried tax incentives it would be more popular and last longer. Would these enthusiasts please point me to one example of a separated couple they can honestly say would rediscover their love of each other if they were given £150 a year. Bickering, angry, resentful lovers do not stay together for the sake of an extra £12.50 a week (the sum mooted when the idea was in the Tory manifesto).
More pertinently, perhaps, this policy has no effect on the problem families we really need to help lower down the socio-economic scale. Take the young couple I saw in my local park in south London the other day, screaming at each other in front of their frightened toddler: she accusing him of beating her up, he barely able to walk or speak, presumably because of the influence of drink or drugs. These are the couples we need to make stable, but the reality of their lives will not be altered by telling them they can share a tax-free allowance. Married couples are a self-selecting social group.More pertinently, perhaps, this policy has no effect on the problem families we really need to help lower down the socio-economic scale. Take the young couple I saw in my local park in south London the other day, screaming at each other in front of their frightened toddler: she accusing him of beating her up, he barely able to walk or speak, presumably because of the influence of drink or drugs. These are the couples we need to make stable, but the reality of their lives will not be altered by telling them they can share a tax-free allowance. Married couples are a self-selecting social group.
As I say, I don't mind rewarding the middle classes per se. But there is one more reason why the Conservative party should be cautious. The spectre of "back to basics". You pose an interesting moral question as a politician if you reward marriage through the tax and benefits system. You inevitably draw attention to your own union. You put the spotlight on the marriages of those in the cabinet and, indeed, of all MPs who vote through such legislation. Suddenly, rumours of a "high-profile affair in Downing Street" might become all the more intriguing. Whispers about a senior cabinet minister who has had a fling and put his wife through hell become more than gossip. They become an important part of a policy debate.As I say, I don't mind rewarding the middle classes per se. But there is one more reason why the Conservative party should be cautious. The spectre of "back to basics". You pose an interesting moral question as a politician if you reward marriage through the tax and benefits system. You inevitably draw attention to your own union. You put the spotlight on the marriages of those in the cabinet and, indeed, of all MPs who vote through such legislation. Suddenly, rumours of a "high-profile affair in Downing Street" might become all the more intriguing. Whispers about a senior cabinet minister who has had a fling and put his wife through hell become more than gossip. They become an important part of a policy debate.
Is marriage a state-sponsored benefit, a matter for public policy, or a well-intentioned but fraught personal arrangement that a growing number of couples are finding hard to abide by?Is marriage a state-sponsored benefit, a matter for public policy, or a well-intentioned but fraught personal arrangement that a growing number of couples are finding hard to abide by?
To wit: do you take this marriage tax break as your lawfully wedded policy, to have and to hold through scurrilous tabloid revelations? It is a brave politician who says "I do".To wit: do you take this marriage tax break as your lawfully wedded policy, to have and to hold through scurrilous tabloid revelations? It is a brave politician who says "I do".
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.