Do people think this is a good idea or not?

As part of a married couple with a child on the way, I must say that I am utterly convinced that a tax break for married couples with children is a fantastic idea 😀

Me too I think it's a great idea, those with spare cash should pay more.

so any reasons OTHER than the fact your married?

Yep, for sure. We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children, so I think that tax breaks should be reinstated for married couples.
Oh, and the reintroduction of mortgage interest relief.

Agree, Great Idea

Actually I don't really think it's a great idea. Promotion of the "family unit" is probably a good thing, but I'm not sure that financial incentives are the right way to go about it.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children, so I think that tax breaks should be reinstated for married couples.

You believe that? Honestly? Even if you do its not a reason for it being a good thing, what benefit wold it have?

This will no doubt mis-fire as the Tory faithful will initially love the idea of supporting wedlock until the Daily Mail finds an immigrant claiming the tax break multiple times over as he has numerous wives.

We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children

I don't think that is even remotely relevant. And I would presume that the tax relief would apply equally to same-sex marriages which many Christians don't recognise.

As with any policy – it is only *generally* of interst or deemed a good thing if it benefits you. In general we all have our own best interests at heart.

And why shouldn't we? After all, that's what the politicians do…

so any reasons OTHER than the fact your married?

I'll pay less tax.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

small change compared to Mummy was attracted to Daddy because of his money….
Ecclestone, McGee et al.

As with any policy – it is only *generally* of interst or deemed a good thing if it benefits you. In general we all have our own best interests at heart.

Well I suppose if you take that view thats fine.

small change compared to Mummy was attracted to Daddy because of his money….
Ecclestone, McGee et al.

I fail to see what possible relevance that has.

I'm in – where do I sign?

best idea, I've heard for ages

I'm in – where do I sign?

Conservative Party Central Office.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6992961.ece

seems funny how the tories drone on about needing to cut the defecit and come out with this.

To me having had to grow up in a single parent family during the last period in which the tories were in power this just smacks of more single parent bashing and is the main reason I would never, ever vote for them.

Well I suppose if you take that view thats fine.

I am only taking what is a realistic view. The majority of voters vote for the party that *promise* to make changes that will benefit them – most low income voters vote Labour, most middle income voters vote Conservative.

I would wager that it is a small minority of voters that vote for the 'greater good'.

it will probably amount to about £6 / month (before deductions) so not worth the paper its written on.

I just want them to sort the bloomin inheritance tax thing and I am on board.

Its a load of bobbins.
We are not a Christian country – we are a secular country. Marriage is not the crucial thing – a sable family is the crucial thing.

Its a very minor piece of stupidity of no great consequence however.

I just want them to sort the bloomin inheritance tax thing and I am on board.

That and stamp duty.

How could it it apply to same sex 'marriages'? That's just icky.

I think it's a terrible idea, despite being married. You are effectively penalising people for not being married. What kind of message is this giving? That marriage is the ultimate aim? That you SHOULD be married? Who the bloody hell are politicians to preach morals or attempt to bribe people to accept their way of thinking?

Absolutely disgraceful, and I choose those words carefully ie not just as hyperbole as is common these days.

Im not particularly in favour of it, much as I dont particularly like universal child benefit payments and child trust certificates for the middle classes.

And I say that as married higher rate tax payer with a child.

Such incentives are an unneccessary "well done" to those who need no further encouragment to form a stable nuclear family while they are of little relevance to the bulk of people who form the disfunctional families of the nation.

Some reform of the child benefit wouldnt go amiss – available to only lower rate tax payers and possibly in extreme cases administered by a guardian organisation.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

It's never too early to teach your children to be tax efficient.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

1/ If a marrage is irretrievably flawed it will end whether there's a few quid of tax breaks involved or not.

2/ If a marriage isn't irretrievable and a few quid in tax breaks is enough incentive that a couple will stay together and work out differences I don't see that as a bad thing.

Divorce is too easy and too many people enter marriage nowadays without being prepared to work sufficiently at it.

TandemJeremy – Member
Marriage is not the crucial thing – a sable[/u] family is the crucial thing.

Good tax break if we can all dress in sable 😀

Yet another subsidary, paid for by the taxpayer – who may or may not benefit.

What really needs to happen is for the country to spend far less, and for far more people to be taken out of tax altogether. Increase the tax-free income to £10k pa, flat rate of tax 25%, reduce NI to 5% of all income for both employees and employers; combine HMR&C and DWP so only a single point for all income/benefits/taxation – and then work out what public expenditure needs to be cut by – probably 20%. Do it over one year, wham-bamb.

And for the record, married with kids.

so ther than some people will pay less tax no one has any idea how it would help anything?

Why should some people be taxed less than me and mrsmidlife (we're not married, but will be having a 25th anniversary (of 1st shag before you ask) party this year) just because some mystic has muttered an incantation for them. Nuts.

Oh and don't get me started on registry office marriages and civil partnerships. Paying good money to take out a wholly unenforcable contract? Some people are more gullible than others it seems.

If a marrage is irretrievably flawed it will end whether there's a few quid of tax breaks involved or not.

So that suggests the tax break is pointless because it isn't large enough to actually alter behaviour.

How could it it apply to same sex 'marriages'? That's just icky.

WTF? Homophobe much?

I'm not sure if the proposed policy does apply to same-sex marriages, but if ti doesn't then that would be another major mark against it.

How about a tax break for single or partnered people and heavy tax for children?

Or even paying out of your onw pocket for education for your kids?

IMO the only sensible thing the state should do about marriage is get out of the business altogether. Recognise that religions might have something called marriage as a sacrament or whatever, but give it no more legal weight than baptism or last rites. Don't give any legal weight to marriages or civil partnerships for any reason, and if people want to draw up legal docs such as wills or pre-nup type things let them get on with it with a lawyer. I just don't see the state as having a role. Anyway I'm off to pick the three bastards from school.

How could it it apply to same sex 'marriages'? That's just icky.

Speak for yourself! I quite enjoy mine!

I'm not sure if the proposed policy does apply to same-sex marriages

Wouldn't same-sex 'marriages' not comply due to the technicality that they are not actually marriages but a civil partnership? Or has that changed now?

Why should some people be taxed less than me and mrsmidlife (we're not married, but will be having a 25th anniversary

Yep, can't see why common-law marriages shouldn't be included by this measure either.

You are effectively penalising people for not being married

No, you are giving people a tax reward for bringing up your children with a mother and father in a (hopefully) stable relationship.

I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children. I think thats just wrong.

Wouldn't same-sex 'marriages' not comply due to the technicality that they are not actually marriages but a civil partnership?

Well, it'd be hard to see how they could deny it given that:

Civil partners must be treated the same as married couples on a wide range of legal matters, including:
[list][*]tax, including Inheritance Tax[/*]
[*]employment benefits[/*]
[*]most state and occupational pension benefits[/*]
[*]income-related benefits, tax credits and child support[/*]
[*]their duty to provide reasonable maintenance for their civil partner and any children of the family[/*]
[*]ability to apply for parental responsibility for their civil partner's child[/*]
[*]inheritance of tenancy agreements[/*]
[*]protection from domestic violence[/*]
[*]immigration and nationality purposes[/*]
[/list]
— http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_10026937

I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children.

😯 ..because…..?

we're not married, but will be having a 25th anniversary (of 1st shag before you ask) party this year

Bet that's a nice cake 😀 Will you be "renewing your vows" 😉

just because some mystic has muttered an incantation for them. Nuts.

No mystics were involved in our wedding. It was held in a nice hotel with us making promises before family and friends. And yes it is a legally binding contract ta.