TAX AND MARRIAGE, GO TOGETHER LIKE A HORSE AND CARRIAGE

The Tories have unveiled a tax break for married couples which will be funded by a levy on banks.

They hope that this will “seal the deal” with the electorate.

Oh dear. How I laughed! They really are out of touch aren’t they?

George Osborne called the tax break “modern and progressive”, although I’m not sure why, except that they are probably meaningless buzz words that his spin people have told him will impress us ordinary folk.

Osborne insisted that promoting marriage in the tax system is not preachy but says “a society where more people are married is a stronger society”. Actually, I’m not sure that it is, but it makes good money for solicitors when the divorces come along so, at least someone profits.

So, anyway, actually it is preachy, but preachy for a reason in that it pleases the old dears who read the Daily Mail, who maybe haven’t given much thought about how much difference a wee piece of paper actually means and who maybe hope that everything will be fine again if only people get married. To be gay friendly (this may be the modern and progressive bit? and the bit the blue rinses will have palpitations over), the package will apply to Civil Partnerships as well!

It will only benefit a third of married/civilly partnered couples and, wait for it, the maximum benefit of £150 a year would be enjoyed by those couples where the main earner takes home between £7,300 and £42,500. OK. So the tax bribe for getting married will only affect 1/3 of married couples and will be worth at the most £2.88 a week.

Brilliant idea Mr Osborne. You really are a star. I can see people rushing out to get married. The Registry and Registrars’ Offices, churches, mosques and temples, chapels and synagogues will be doing a roaring trade if you get in next month.

You preachy old thing you.

Osborne is taking a huge risk of course with the City of London, and for that matter Edinburgh’s financial district. His proposals will tax banks to pay for this without waiting for international agreement. He is staking his credibility on other countries following his lead. I’m not entirely sure that following George Osborne is something I’d be rushing to do.

According to the Times the tax allowance is planned for next April, although there is no formal commitment from the party to bring it in then.

The marriage tax break was first mooted by David Cameron in 2005 and was intended to be for couples with young children. I imagined at that time that it would be something financially worthwhile, a bribe, if you like, to get couples to marry. But at under £3 per person, per week, the whole thing is surely designed only to create a headline in the Daily Mail that will please the blue rinses.

Nick Clegg has described the proposals as patronizing drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age and I’m inclined to agree. Even people at the bottom end of the tax bracket aren’t going to go to all the expense of getting married so that can buy 1 ½ extra loaves of bread a week.

To each individual the money means nothing but it will cost half a billion a year. I’m not sure what that would build in today’s world, but it might pay off some of our gigantic debt.

Maybe this wasn’t the brightest move.....Time for Ken Clarke at Number 11?


Pic: A typical wedding affordable for everyone with the new Tory tax breaks; and George Osborne, author of this great fortune.

The on-off marriage tax bribe is on again.... at least for the moment

So now it's on again... you know the on-off marriage tax break that Cameron has been wittering about and dithering over, like so many other things that the Tories have been dithering over...

After calculating the dreadful plight in which he finds himself and desperate to do something to buoy up his troops at the Spring Conference, he fell back on the old favourite. When in doubt with the Tories, promise to introduce tax breaks for getting married.

It is reckoned that it will cost in the region of £3.5 billion a year, money which, of course we don’t have. And exactly what will it do for the country?

Will some Tory please, please tell me what good will come of subsidising marriage? What will it do for Scotland? Will it bring down crime? Will it deal with immigration? Will it stop Scottish soldiers being killed in Afghanistan? Will it sort out the corruption, greed and inefficiency that is parliament, local authorities, health boards, the BBC, the banks, the whole financial system, the legal profession? Will it help to reduce the gap that Labour has made between rich and poor? Will it sort the transport system that is the laughing stock of Europe? Will it do something to improve the roads, also the laughing stock of the western world? Will it make any difference to old people being abused and maltreated in homes all over the country in order to make a profit?

Nope. It will please a few activists and prove that the Tories are still the party of traditional values, even though this policy is somewhat at odds with the notion that it’s a party that doesn’t believe in interfering with the ways that people live their lives.

The money will go largely to people who would have got married anyway; people who can afford the divorce lawyers when it all goes wrong. If it is a substantial tax break (or bribe as I prefer to call it) it will go too, to some people who will get married especially so that they can lay their hands on it. The very poorest of course will get nothing, as they don’t earn enough to pay much in the way of tax to have rebated. Some of them will stay together; some will pocket the money and get on with the business of their lives quite separately, but with an extra tenner a week in their pockets. Some pensioners with a couple of million in the bank will be bribed to stay married.

And the taxpayer will be stuffed again. Still it will be music to the ears of some of the party faithful and that's something that Cameron really needs right now.

I hope they realise that something will have to go to pay for it. I just hope it isn’t a cut in rations for the other ranks in Afghanistan.

....

CAMERON PROMISES BRIBES TO GET MARRIED AND MORE RESPECT AND DEFERENCE

There is no doubt in my mind that there is something wrong with some of the parenting in Scotland, or indeed in Britain, and I look forward to a challenging debate on how, in a new parliament, with a new government in London, we can make changes that will help children to have a happier and better start in life. Today David Cameron set out his stall on this matter.

In a departure from previous Tory administrations, Mr Cameron said that as Prime Minister he would promote active intervention in families to build a “responsible” society. The institution of marriage, the best environment in which to raise children, would be supported by tax breaks, and schools (a devolved issue here) would see a return to traditional values of respect and deference.

He called on the entire community to ensure that children picked up responsible messages, and warned businesses and advertisers that unless they stopped “sexualisation and excessive commercialisation” of young people, legislation could follow.

Mr Cameron pointed out: "What matters most to a child's life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting. Of course there's a link between material poverty and poor life chances, but the full picture is that that link also runs through the style of parenting that children in poor households receive.”

He also set out a new policy on Sure Start Centres for parents with young children. He said he wanted Sure Start to focus on the most “disadvantaged and dysfunctional” families, with staff paid by results.

Well... that’s enough to be going on with. A mixed bag of good, bad and indifferent here.

His warning to business and to advertisers is good. Stop treating children like adults. They are not. They have been exploited and sexualized for too long and it is a relief to hear someone, not so much in the pockets of big business as the current government, promise action.

I worry about a return to “respect and deference” though. Both of these things are good of course, and I’d love to see more of them, but before you encourage people to demonstrate them, there has to be something worthy of that respect and deference. I wouldn’t want to encourage kids to show respect to, for example, our lying, cheating politicians, just because they think themselves up there and us down here. Too much deference is the reason that they managed to steal so much from us without fear of being found out.


And I have a real worry about the mixed message Mr Cameron is sending. Children don’t necessarily thrive where there is more money, he tells us, but he proposes to pay couples to get married (children or no). Is this to please the Daily Mail?

Finally I note that after years of “paid by results” organisations, usually private sector ones, it still hasn’t got through to the people at the “top” that TARGETS DON’T WORK. I know. I’ve been there. Guess what Dave... Everyone, and I mean everyone, CHEATS. The people who really need help are ignored because it can take months, maybe even years, to tick just one box with them. The easy to help are helped, because within a week, all their boxes are ticked. Simples!

More thought required..... please!

WILL MARRIAGE TAX BREAK BE THE ANSWER TO BROKEN BRITAIN OR A SOCIAL ENGINEERING SUBSIDY

The Tories today appeared to wobble on their commitment to subsidise marriage. Mr Cameron was forced to guarantee tax breaks for married people if he wins the election, having previously downgraded his pledge to an aspiration because of the parlous state of the economy. It is unclear what he will do, the cost, or how he will fund it. The original plans were estimated to cost £5 billion a year.

First of all, let me say I am a believer in the family. In my opinion there is no more stable or better way for children to be raised than in a family unit: Mum, Dad, and 2 children, a dog and goldfish, living in a nice house with a garden, with enough space that when they start to grow up there will be room to entertain their friends, situated in a pleasant area with good schools and so on. Ideally of course, neither of the parents should drink to excess, nor should they smoke, do drugs, have affairs, or rows, or leave the kids unattended, etc. Whilst many of these things may not be available to the average family in Scotland, of them all, the family is the most important. I’d love it if every kid could have that start in life.

I believe too that the state has a role in our society. It should provide absolutely necessary services to our communities: health, water, power, education, housing for those who need it, etc. I also think that we should pay for some of these services through the tax system. I’m not, however, keen on the state interfering in the day to day life of individuals. I imagined the Tories would have been equally sceptical of this.

I understand that the family represents tradition: the “back to basics” that Mr Major was so fond of. But I worry about this method of encouraging us into it. Today marriage, tomorrow church services, to make us better citizens?

The truth is that, unless a couple has children, what on earth has it to do with the state how they chose to live as long as it does not break the law? Unless Cameron has been imposed upon by Daily Mail readers I can’t see why he proposes to use our taxes to do this.

I can of course understand that the ideal life for kids described above may have to be subsidised by taxpayers, but not, for example, two people working in high power jobs, who have no time, and no inclination to have children or to interrupt their careers. Why would we subsidise that?

Of course, some people may well decide to pop down to the registrars and get themselves a certificate worth a subsidy of £500 - £1,000 a year. Who cares if they stay together for more than a year; who cares if they even live together at all? How will we know?