I think nearly all Liberal Democrats will take this as good news rather than bad:
The highly-critical assessment of the coalition’s first year in power was delivered by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) – which was founded by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.
And it comes just months after the former Tory leader himself risked stoking tensions with Liberal Democrat colleagues by renewing calls for the state to reward marriage financially.
In a report to mark the anniversary of the power-sharing deal, the CSJ complained that the tax break plan had “moved off radar” because of opposition from the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Wells to Walsingham: The world's smallest public railway
Funding Political Parties
Government says it won't tackle election turnout blindspot
The ongoing cost of Brexit
Dunston fair video
David Allen
Peter Hirst
Mrs Rita Baker
8 Comments
Have to say, I’m delighted that tax breaks for married couples aren’t in the coalition agreement – it may offend hegemonic family structures, but it’s a win for equality.
You only have to look at France’s income tax to see how unfair and illiberal our own is. A transferable tax allowance between married couples would be the first step in reforming our own. What’s so wrong in giving a very modest tax break to families where a parent chooses to stay at home and dedicate themselves to their family and society?
Nothing to proud of, Charles is right.
“What’s so wrong in giving a very modest tax break to families where a parent chooses to stay at home and dedicate themselves to their family and society?”
It’s not a tax break to ‘families’,. though, is it? it’s a tax break to ‘married couples’ – who may not have children. If my partner doesn’t believe in the need for a piece of paper to prove our commitment to one another, why should we suffer financially?
The problem I have, is that a marriage-tax break is inherently unfair.
Why give a tax break to someone who is married, and not anyone else whether single, or living at home in an unmarried yet stable family? Unfortuantely, this tax break idea does point to the hetero-orthodoxy that somehow marriage fixes all ills and creates the only environment a child can flourish in (a general thought, neither of you have suggested that). Many marriages, of course, DO have these positive points – but marriage alone does not guarantee them.
As a single person, why should I pay more tax than someone who chose to get married?
@London Liberal
Because at its base level marriage is a state recognized partnership. The state can’t give tax breaks to couples who don’t register their relationship. Anyone who objects to marriage because it’s “only a piece of paper” needs either their head or their motives examined because if its not that important why not go along with it?
@Lee Dargue
Much of what I said to London Liberal also applies to your comment. Your question needs rephrasing because a straight comparison isn’t possible. For the transferable tax allowance to benefit a married couple one of them has to either not work or be earning less than the allowance, therefore the question is in fact:
Why should someone, who’s married to a partner who’s not working, pay less in tax than I, someone who is single?
And the answer is quite clearly because the person who is married is financially supporting someone while you are not. For the same job and the same pay, you are better off than them financially and so should have to pay more in tax. Unless you believe we should all pay the same tax irrespective of our ability to pay then objecting to the married couples tax allowance is illogical.
If you wish to make this argument then you must first make marriage available to everybody.
Because let’s not beat about the bush here. The Tory “marriage tax break” proposal was not about families, it was about kicking gay people.
@Andrew Suffield
People in Civil Partnerships would also have been entitled to the transferable tax allowance, in keeping with the principle that civil partnerships and marriage are equal. Lets not beat around the bush, you are ignorant of the facts.