married couple tax break

I can see what you're saying. However, if a marriage tax break is effective in improving educational attainment & reducing crime, drug addiction etc. then it should over the pay off well economically over the long term, and result in increased general wellbeing.

Obviously a tax break isn't effective for people on extremely low incomes who don't pay a deal of tax, but I've no idea how many people work part time rather than claim benefits – I suspect the benefits would be a better deal than part time work almost every time.

How about a tax break for couples without children! (namely me!)They are putting a lot less strain on the countries health service, schooling, waste disposal etc are they not?

However, if a marriage tax break is effective in improving educational attainment & reducing crime, drug addiction etc. then it should over the pay off well economically over the long term, and result in increased general wellbeing.

True enough but I expect I have more chance of getting a BJ from the Pope than that being the case.

However, if a marriage tax break is effective in improving educational attainment

The trouble is this is being proposed for married couples, not couples with children so if you are married with no kids then you still get the tax break. I really do fail to see the point in a tax break like that. An incentive for one parent to stay at home to look after kids (like a transferable tax free allowance) I understand but not just because they are married.

One of the issues here is nobody knows what the policy is – at some points it has been described by a tax break for all couples, at others as being just for couples with children.

I doubt the Tories actually know what they're going to do, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they find some real shockers in the books when they get in, purely because the current lot know they're on their last stand.

thats enough of him above. I feel nauseous.

Tories Pledge Tax Breaks For Musical Families

I'll keep it brief – the money would be better spent elsewhere IMO. To quote Bliar – "education, education, education".

Read Polly Toynbees column in yesterdays Grauniad.

not sure if the idea is good, what i do believe is that the current system that makes it more beneficial to not live together is wrong. I do know couples who live apart because they get more in benefits that way.

I do know couples who live apart because they get more in benefits that way.

Changing tax laws is not going to affect them

Changing tax laws is not going to affect them

depends on how the system is changed. No one thing should be done without looking at other effects, or at least any sane person trying to implement a system should consider the consequences of their actions.

We're resident in a Christian country,
mind-boggling level of lunacy.

[stw mode on]
me, me, me. Someone else is having something I don't get. I hate them. It's not fair
[/stw mode off]

So if you are on a low or middle income and one parent doesnt work you get a tax break. Now not many things about politics get me that angry but this is **** disgraceful.

if you didnt have the potential to have them with each other naturally, you shouldn't be able to adopt them, imo.

Ow, bit harsh on infertile couples? Surely they're one of the main groups of people who adopt – take them and gay couples out of the equation and there's going to be even more kids unable to get homes.

£150 max, so a Hope Hoop back wheel then…

tories identify group of voters by common identifier (i.e. married couple) to entice both in household to vote for same party they invent a tax rule that makes average joe and mrs average joe think 'we'll get some money out of them, lets vote for Dave'

time honoured tory tactic

Can't believe all the people claiming this is a great idea because they are going to get a few extra quid – people are so easily bought eh 🙁

Stupid, unfair and pointless.

Social Engineering. No

I expect the state to treat me as an individual and not be penalised

Can't believe all the people claiming this is a great idea because they are going to get a few extra quid – people are so easily bought eh

Lulled into a stupor by consumerism and easy credit. Mindless sheep. 🙁

As for the 'married' bit, and attitudes like this:

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.

Aren't we supposed to live in a 'Democracy'?

Religion should be down to the choice of the individual. I don't think it has any place in the way society is governed. I'm not Christian, so why should I be compelled to adhere to Christian ideology?

if you didnt have the potential to have them with each other naturally, you shouldn't be able to adopt them, imo

What if, say, for argument's sake like, the infertile male had a bollock blown off in Iraq fighting for his country. Or the infertile female had been violently raped at some point in the past rendering her infertile in natural circumstances?
😕

1. We have a deficit to pay off, this will just increase it.
2. What are the benefits?
3. This has got to be the worse election in years to think people would vote for a party because of a marriage tax break – god help us.
4. I dont care who wins either way I will lose a lot of money.
5. I dont mind paying more tax to help with the deficit as our business has done very well after the slump with minimal job losses (or we got rid of deadwood).

Please can we stop talking about the election and get back to bikes nowhere to hide from all the bullshit being spoken.

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.

Unbelievably, I actually agree with Stoner on this. 😯

I'm sure we would disagree on the methods of delivery however. 😉

Also i think "dysfunctional" is a bit of a sweeping statement with regards to the family units of this country.

Its put me (even more) off voting for them. I have no children or family. I am happy for my taxes to go towards education costs and NHS care costs of other peoples children/family. I think University should be free of tuition fees. But I so resent married people getting tax breaks or people with children getting extra priority over others. They are privileged enough already by actually having a partner, frequently 2 salaries and also the actual choice of having children.

I would love to have a partner, home, family etc. But I have no choice in the matter. As a result of being single (and therefore a one salary household) I have to pay a proportionality a higher share of Council tax, my utility bills are higher, as is trying to run a car, rent holiday accommodation (joys of single supplement) and anything else that a normal couple would split the costs of. I cannot afford to buy a house at all so will live in rented all my life as a single salary is no longer enough to purchase with, so I loose money normally invested in mortgages and will get no return on a property and will have nothing to leave to anyone when I die. The government considers me a 'lesser' person because I have no partner or children so if things go wrong or I get sick I will get limited benefits and probably no offer of accommodation at all, as families get priority, even if they only just moved to this country. On top of that I get to be looked down on as a social failure for not being able to successfully 'partner up'. No, not a vote catcher for me!

I like how now its been worked out that 40% of the married couples who'll benefit are pensioners…