Tories propose marriage tax break

[GinandTonic]

What are they thinking ?
Do they really believe this will encourage couples to marry ?
Couples who would only marry with tax cuts shouldn't marry at all...

They are thinking that promising tax-cuts used to be a vote winner for them but became a liability because everyone saw the terrible arse they made of health and education. Now people equate tory tax cuts with a collapse in public services.

They are thinking that "family values" used to be a vote winner for them untill half the last tory cabinet who trumpited it had to resign after their affairs came to light. Now it makes people think of sleeze and hypocrasy.

This is a way of associating themselves with tax-cuts and family values on the financial and moral cheap, hopefully without raising those specters. It is also a way of trying to set an agenda of public debate onto the areas they percive themselves to be stronger in. Given the "Brown bounce" and the recent terror attacks they desperately need to change the agenda. Where Cameron is percieved as smoother and Brown as stronger the worst thing that could have happened to the tories was the terror attacks. Brown looks tough and dignified while the polished public-schoolboy cannot use his quick feet to snipe at him. The situation has played to Browns strengths and Cameron's weakneses - and the tories need to shift the agenda ASAP.

EDIT - This initative was unvailed the day before the verdict on the 20/7 tube bombers. Which are we talking about now?

 

[Samson]

They are thinking that promising tax-cuts used to be a vote winner for them but became a liability because everyone saw the terrible arse they made of health and education. Now people equate tory tax cuts with a collapse in public services.

They are thinking that "family values" used to be a vote winner for them untill half the last tory cabinet who trumpited it had to resign after their affairs came to light. Now it makes people think of sleeze and hypocrasy.

This is a way of associating themselves with tax-cuts and family values on the financial and moral cheap, hopefully without raising those specters. It is also a way of trying to set an agenda of public debate onto the areas they percive themselves to be stronger in. Given the "Brown bounce" and the recent terror attacks they desperately need to change the agenda. Where Cameron is percieved as smoother and Brown as stronger the worst thing that could have happened to the tories was the terror attacks. Brown looks tough and dignified while the polished public-schoolboy cannot use his quick feet to snipe at him. The situation has played to Browns strengths and Cameron's weakneses - and the tories need to shift the agenda ASAP.

EDIT - This initative was unvailed the day before the verdict on the 20/7 tube bombers. Which are we talking about now?

I would like to think this is true. However it seems to me that the memory of the "voting public" seems to be less than 1 term, so I have my suspisions that this may help them. They need something to distance them from New Labour (New Tories) and appealing to the "family values" / "evil assilum seekers" / "let the daily mail run the country" type crowd cound be the ticket.

 

[GinandTonic]

I would like to think this is true. However it seems to me that the memory of the "voting public" seems to be less than 1 term, so I have my suspisions that this may help them. They need something to distance them from New Labour (New Tories) and appealing to the "family values" / "evil assilum seekers" / "let the daily mail run the country" type crowd cound be the ticket.

When they pander to the Mail they tank elections. Big turn-off to the floating voters. Same as Lab was unelectable when they spent their time preaching to the converted.

Its the Sun reading, Trevor McDonut watching essex boys that will decide it, assuming both sides keep their core votes okish. Awful thought.

 

[JollyRoger]

From a U.S. tax perspective, would a scheme like this be considered since we would automatically be rewarding the likes of Senator Vitter, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, and Rudy Giuliani with special tax breaks simply because they conned someone into marrying them?

 

[bhsup]

From a U.S. tax perspective, would a scheme like this be considered since we would automatically be rewarding the likes of Senator Vitter, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, and Rudy Giuliani with special tax breaks simply because they conned someone into marrying them?

Well, really it should be introduced right along with the reintroduction of punishment for adultery, the abolishment of the no-fault divorce, etc.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, really it should be introduced right along with the reintroduction of punishment for adultery, the abolishment of the no-fault divorce, etc.

I thought that was what Senator Vitter's Defense of Marriage proposal should have included, but apparently Vitter's idea of defending marriage was to encourage a certain segment of the population to remain promiscuous. I'm sure that Ted Haggard's wife appreciates her husband having a bigger pool of promiscuity to dive into.

 

[mdwh]

Actually, this is the bad example. 2 or 3 isn't an average. 2.59 is. Odd as it may seem. Just think of it this way: if it makes sense it can't be statistics.

Actually he has a point, well you're both right really - 2.59 is the mean average, but the mode and median averages would be whole numbers.

 

[The Yankee]

From a U.S. tax perspective, would a scheme like this be considered since we would automatically be rewarding the likes of Senator Vitter, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, and Rudy Giuliani with special tax breaks simply because they conned someone into marrying them?

I don't see why not. After all, we introduce all kinds of tax breaks to try to influence behavior. That's why the tax code could probably be stacked to the moon and back.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't see why not. After all, we introduce all kinds of tax breaks to try to influence behavior. That's why the tax code could probably be stacked to the moon and back.

Well, I suppose a special tax break for being married could open the door for special tax penalties for cheating or getting divorced.

 

[The Yankee]

Well, I suppose a special tax break for being married could open the door for special tax penalties for cheating or getting divorced.

Then we'd have to raise the congressional pay again to take into account those cost of living increases.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually he has a point, well you're both right really - 2.59 is the mean average, but the mode and median averages would be whole numbers.

That can't be right, it makes sense

 

[MobBoss]

That can't be right, it makes sense

Heh, and until they start producing kids in partial units, a woman is going to have 2 or 3 kids, on average....not 2.59.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Heh, and until they start producing kids in partial units, a woman is going to have 2 or 3 kids, on average....not 2.59.

And that does not make sense. And is not what I agreed on with mdwh. She will do both. On average.

 

[Grisu]

Actually he has a point, well you're both right really - 2.59 is the mean average, but the mode and median averages would be whole numbers.

hush, how dare you?

but still, I doubt that women with 2-3 kids make up more than 50% of the female population, so my argument still stands: the most people are not average

 

[Pangur Bán]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6285826.stm


The Tories says this would help married couples - I say this would discrimante against singles and couples who do not wish to marry!!.

Or maybe about rewarding people doing something for the future of the country; that is quite a common use of tax privileges. I mean, seriously, is it right that people who wish to spend their lives enjoying the extra materialistic binge from being childless then retire on a state pension should be treated the same as those who use their resources to bring up children who will pay that pension?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

What are they thinking ?
Do they really believe this will encourage couples to marry ?
Couples who would only marry with tax cuts shouldn't marry at all...

Just to repeat, and enhance, something I said before – this is NOT money to encourage people to marry – it is money to help persuade people not to split up.
At the moment it is financially advantageous for low earning couples to split up. The Tories want to try and stop that happening.

A single mother working 16 hours a week, after tax credits, gains a total income of £487 a week. A two parent family earning the minimum wage has to work 116 hours to gain the same income. This discrimination helps to explain why children in working two parent families now make up the single most important group of poor children.
http://www.frankfield.co.uk/type2show.asp?ref=432&ID=23

@G&T Yes this is an extreme example of a very complex matter but it illustrates the all to often financial advantages for low earners not to stay together (or, if they are crooked, to stay together but claim they are living apart).

And just in case there is anyone out there questioning how good marriage is for the country in general and kids in particular:

Britain has the highest level of divorce and lone parenthood in Europe and one of the highest rates of births outside marriage.
Seven out of 10 young offenders come from lone parent families. Only eight per cent of married parents have split up by their child's fifth birthday, compared to 43 per cent of cohabiting parents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ntory211.xml

Shouldn’t something be done to try and promote marriage and at least not make it a financial advantage to split up?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Shouldn’t something be done to try and promote marriage and at least not make it a financial advantage to split up?

Yes. You should promote marriage non-financially and remove the financial advantage of splitting up.

By the way, from the article:

In response, yesterday's report calls for transferable tax allowances for married couples, a move that will give couples an extra £20 a week and cost the taxpayer £3.2 billion.

It seems that Jolly Roger was right in concluding it will cost the taxpayer more money.

By the way

 

[The Yankee]

Well, I'm sure there will always be a few that will base their decisions on small advantages in the tax code, but, I'd wager that a handout to married couples will do no more to deter people from marriage as would a few penalties against being unmarried or divorced. Unless social attitudes change, I don't believe there will be much of a change in out-of-wedlock pregnancies or divorces in the UK.

 

[GinandTonic]

@G&T Yes this is an extreme example of a very complex matter but it illustrates the all to often financial advantages for low earners not to stay together (or, if they are crooked, to stay together but claim they are living apart).

Shouldn’t something be done to try and promote marriage and at least not make it a financial advantage to split up?

I agree there are wird anomolies. Clearly there are situations where alone a parent would qualify for benefits while togeather they are just over the threashold. It is similar to the farce where if you are on the dole and are offered a bit of casual work it can leave you worse off.

Offering an untargeted tax break to the married is a nonsense - there are already family tax credits for couples with kids, play with them.

 

[The Yankee]

Offering an untargeted tax break to the married is a nonsense - there are already family tax credits for couples with kids, play with them.

I suppose the reason for the bureaucratic adjustment would be that there are married couples without children and unmarried couples or single-parents with them.

This is why studying taxation is a degree in itself.