Tax cuts won't tempt me down the aisle

I might change my mind if I have children - they say hormones do funny things to your head. But the way I feel today, and for the past 20 years, is that I'd rather join the Foreign Legion than trip down the aisle.

Of course, it wouldn't be a church aisle anyway, because I'm not Christened and so don't qualify for a church wedding. Evidence, to my mind, that institutions discriminate against nonconformists.

And that's what David Cameron's proposed family tax "cuts" amount to - discrimination against those who won't stand in line. His concern, he says, is for families, and he's prepared to give a married woman's tax allowance of £1,000 a year to her husband if she gives up work to look after the kids.

Well, I take it personally, Dave, that you think it's OK to give my friend cash to stay at home with her children but not me, just because I didn't tie the knot and she did.

I've plenty of reasons why not, some political, others personal. As an angry young feminist I rejected marriage as an outdated structure that rendered women chattels. I still think the words "my wife" sound proprietorial and reduce humans to roles. I'd much rather hear an individual's name than their job title.

Other people's marriages don't bother me and weddings are great fun but I'm not prepared to blow thousands on a party or make promises I don't think it's feasible to keep. And the social status that so many weddings are about is anathema to me.

But the main reason I won't marry is I don't feel the need. I'm secure with my partner; neither of us wants a document to cement our relationship.

I'm sorry I don't fit into David Cameron's plan, but there are millions like me who've made a deliberate decision to stay unmarried. And I like to think most of us won't be tempted to sell our integrity for £1,000. The one thing that has nothing to do with my decision, and never will do, is tax.

Why not instead target the cash at children? Coming from a family that stayed together years longer than was good for my parents - or us children - I know there's little benefit in remaining in a relationship that is already broken. State-sponsored bribery is an irresponsible - and cheap - way of keeping people together who'd be better off apart.

And why, as Cameron claims, should a tax system recognise marriage? The last thing I want is a third person in my relationship, adjudicating over whether my deeply personal decisions deserve tax breaks. I'd rather David Cameron got out of my bed. Sam, you're welcome to him.

For Charlotte Ross's full column buy Thursday's Evening Standard