Afternoon:
9°c
David Cameron ‘proud’ to back tax breaks for married couples
Joe Murphy, Political Editor22 Jan 2010
David Cameron came out fighting to defend his marriage tax break plans today.
After a week of Labour attacks on his proposals, he vowed to speak up “loudly and proudly” for the principle of supporting marriage with the tax system.
The Tory leader denied he was treating the children of unmarried couples as less worthy, and he told a public meeting in Kent: “I absolutely feel at my very core that recognising that relationships matter and that marriage matters is something we should say loudly and proudly.”
Mr Cameron spoke without notes for what was billed as a keynote speech on family policy and values, a technique he has used before to emphasise a personal commitment to an issue.
The draft manifesto stated this week that marriage would be honoured in the tax system but gave no details.
In fact, senior Tories are divided over whether to go for a £4 billion plan to let non-working wives transfer their tax-free allowance to their spouse, or to have a cheaper, mainly symbolic policy, of tax breaks for young parents who tie the knot.
“I do not believe for a minute that people get married for money or that people will stay together if you give them a few pounds here or a few pence there,” Mr Cameron conceded.
“But you cannot escape from the evidence that marriage works.”
Marriage meant parents stayed together longer, giving children a better start, Mr Cameron said.
By the time a child was five, one in 11 married parents had split up, according to research. But among unmarried couples, a third separated.
He added: “We have produced the most family-friendly manifesto seen. We cannot do that without standing up for marriage, too.”
Mr Cameron said the current tax and benefits system made parents better off if they split up.
Reader views (6)
Regarding this issue of Cameron's proposed marriage tax break, Nick Clegg says: "What does is mean for the poor woman who has been left by some philandering husband who goes on to another marriage and gets the tax break and she doesn't?".
This is a load of rubbish!
No one has considered that this "poor woman" can sometimes be better off. Take the tax credits, for example, a man who is married with children, but pays child support for another child from previous relationship. His full salary is calculated, along with his wife's, for purposes of tax credit then the family is told that they earn "too much" to qualify for tax credits.
Why is his salary not calculated AFTER his child support has been deducted?
The situation as is, is a false economy. The man pays to the other child and the mum still gets tax credits and few other benefits then him and his current family get nothing!
So really what is calculated is not the family's real income but less what is paid as child support.
Regarding the marriage tax break, what is wrong with a little break for married people as they get penlised (financially) for every thing else!
- Kemmy, London, UK, 26/01/2010 16:01
Report abuse
Broken Britain, maybe, trouble is, its never been mended. Really it all comes down to education, having a real basic grasp of history, politics and literature. Of which even an educated teenager today knows nothing. When I jokingly said to a group of teenagers, all six formers, Magna Carta, she did not die in vain, they asked who killed her. Labour has failed dismally in improving our schools, all beurocracy, performance tables, and health and safety. While the Conservatives are determined to continue on that path, even suggesting teachers should have a first in the subjects they taught.
I went to a Public School during the second world war. The best teacher we had was a first world war infantry officer, he had no degree. All boys adored him and in his classes worked like a slave. he taught classics and art with a passion. The head a devoted socialist, imposing Officers in Charge everywhere, even for even emptying the waste paper boxes, was a Doctor of this and that, we all detested him, he taught French. Needless to say in Matriculation the schools success in classics was outstanding, we all failed French.
- Alan,, England. The forgotten country., 25/01/2010 09:30
Report abuse
As a single person with no kids who has to pay all the bills myself I don't see why my tax should subsidise couples whether married or not. Two can live almost as cheaply as one. If anyone should get a tax break it's single people.
- Richard, London, 25/01/2010 08:53
Report abuse
I would rather live with divorced parents than those that are at each others throat every day because they are only staying together for the sake of their children.
- Josh, London, 24/01/2010 11:47
Report abuse
“But you cannot escape from the evidence that marriage works.”
Er, 45% of marriages end in divorce. Of the other 55%, quite a few couples stay together unhappily after the gloss has worn off, for financial or cultural reasons (e.g. Catholicism forbids divorce). Quite a few more break their vows through affairs.
Those who want to marry for lifestyle reasons should do so, but it is unfair to expect others to subsidise them through the tax system.
This is going to be a classic own goal by David Cameron, particularly if he uses this as a fig leaf to bring in his much hyped 'green taxes'.
- Jools, London, 22/01/2010 18:40
Report abuse
Parents staying together longer gives children a better start? Oh really, Mr Cameron? Where's the evidence for that? Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so. Much rather a child grows up in a single parent, loving household, than with two parents who are at each others throats, but staying together for the sake of the child.
- Steve Robbins, London, 22/01/2010 16:38
Report abuse
