Marriage tax breaks: Lib Dem members oppose Conservative plans by 62% to 22%

Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 750 party members responded – thank you – and we’ve been publishing the full results.

(There were a couple of results I ran out of time to publish during the Christmas holiday period – I’ll be publishing them this week.)

Lib Dems oppose married couple tax-breaks by 62% to 22%

The tax break for married couples and civil partners was a Conservative election pledge that has lain dormant during Coalition. Not because of Lib Dem opposition (the Coalition Agreement commits the party to abstaining) but, reportedly, because Chancellor George Osborne is underwhelmed by it. However, Conservative backbenches are wedded to the idea and the £1,000 transferable tax allowance will now come into effect from 2015. In return, Nick Clegg secured Conservative support for universal free school lunches for children aged 5 to 7 and disadvantaged students in further education.

We asked our sample of members for your views…

Do you support or oppose allowing married couples or civil partners to transfer up to £1000 of their tax allowance to their spouse (worth £200 a year to married couples where one stays at home or earns less than their tax allowance)?

    7% – Strongly Support
    15% – Support
    Total support = 22%
    26% – Oppose
    36% – Strongly Oppose
    Total oppose = 62%
    14% – Neither support nor oppose
    1% – Don’t know

By 62% to 22%, then, Lib Dems oppose marriage tax-breaks (this is pretty much the mirror-reverse of the public at large who back it by 62% to 20%). Here’s a sample of your comments…

• Lib Dems have no choice because we let it into the Coalition Agreement, but it’s a phenomenal waste of £700m that could have been much better spent.
• I don’t see a problem with it as long as those who don’t have the ability to do it aren’t left disadvantaged by it.
• Don’t judge my family
• Ideally, it should be available to any cohabiting set of individuals.
• It’s not a significant amount. Hardly worth the effort. Up to 50% would have more value.
• Let those silly tories have something.
• Our manifesto should promise to repeal or avert it.
• My opposition would be less strong if it were for all couples.
• But if we don’t give the Tories one of “their” policies we don’t get one of “ours” – that’s coalition.
• Why should married couples e treated differently from single people? Are they second-class citizens?
• Gesture politics that I might accept if it kept the Tories happy and got us something woorthwhile in return
• I support any measure that recognises the value of the unpaid work done within families.
• We are liberals, we don’t like this sort of thing.
• It is very bad gesture politics, for bad reasons. (Tory dogma)
• I would like to see anyone in a dependent situation be able to transfer their surplus tax allowance to the person they are dependent on, including children being given a tax allowance transferable to parents. It might be that actual allowances might need to be reduced to pay for this.
• I’m in a tiny minority supporting the principle – we’ve spent all year saying that marriage is worth fighting for so we shouldn’t stop now. Solid evidence base for better outcomes for children and adults in married families. However benefit should be for all married couples not just those with a stay at home partner, and I’d like to see exemptions where anyone fleeing evidenced domestic violence wouldn’t lose out.
• The money could be spent so much better, and so much more fairly.
• Should be able to transfer all of allowance if one partner doesn’t not work or should be taxed as family instead of individuals like in the USA.
• Should not be limited to married couples or civil partners, as cohabiting couples are penalised by the benefits system and also need to be compensated
• The money could be better spent in other places
• It helps very few people.
• Not enthusiastic but if this tokenistic sop from the Tories gets us something in return I can live with it. BUT the rather underwhelming announcement from Clegg on future Personal allowance increase was not it.
• Nasty little trick by Tories
• Even more than I oppose the populist nonsense of giving free school meals to primary school children whose parents can easily afford to feed them.
• 1 in 3 households is a single person. strange than that anti-singleton discrimination is enshrined in law and no party has an acknowledged policy to support singletons.
• This is a ridiculous sop to Tory grassroots.
• This is favouring a certain section of society over another.

  • 1,500 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. 749 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 14th and 18th December.
  • Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past offered accurate guides to what party members think.
  • For further information on the reliability/credibility of our surveys, please refer to FAQs: Are the Liberal Democrat Voice surveys of party members accurate? and polling expert Anthony Wells’ verdict, On that poll of Lib Dem members.
  • The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll
  • * Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

    Read more by or more about , , , or .
    This entry was posted in LDV Members poll.
    Advert

    2 Comments

    • Stephen, I think your question would be more revealing if you had pulled it apart a bit more.

      For example, I support a fully transferable unused personal allowance between married couples. So at one level in answer to your question I oppose what is being proposed. However, I also support it, knowing that once the principle is in place we can then go about moving the debate on to get something more sensible…

    Post a Comment

    Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

    If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

    To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

    Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

    *
    *
    Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

    Advert



    Recent Comments

    • User AvatarJoeB 22nd Sep - 12:53am
      A Political commitment to restoring the ability of the NHS to meet its targets for health outcomes requires tackling the issue of domiciliary and residential...
    • User AvatarMichael 1 22nd Sep - 12:35am
      @John Marriott I am not exactly sure of the point you are making. The two parties that are members of ALDE in the Netherlands do...
    • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 22nd Sep - 12:31am
      Surely, John, the zeitgeist is not actually in liberalism (sorry, Sean) but social democracy: powerful all these years till now in Sweden, powerful in Spain...
    • User AvatarFraser Coppin 21st Sep - 11:02pm
      I was at conference too and had a good time overall, but one of the less appealing aspects of it was that I heard the...
    • User AvatarGlenn 21st Sep - 10:08pm
      Frankie It is. The one party is the Communist Party of China.
    • User AvatarJohn Marriott 21st Sep - 10:02pm
      @Michael 1 You are obviously someone who has done a lot of research on Liberalism. So can you tell me why most Liberal Parties or...