Personally I, don't think this is a party political policy really, it's pretty bloody clear that the tax system penalises married couples. Of course, the quick answer is that there are tax credits, but many either don't qualify, don't want to spend the time doing the form and getting stuck in the system; or, if you're like me, don't want to tell Gordon Brown the intricate detail of my income in order to get given some of my own money back.
Given the non-party political nature it's not a surprise that there are even those in the Tories that have said they don't agree with it. Admittedly he has been courted by Labour more than once about defecting, but this is what John Bercow said in Parliament last night.
There is an honourable view in support of the transferable tax allowance to married couples, but it is not everybody’s view. I think it is a thoroughly bad idea; it will be highly expensive; it will not cause anyone to get or stay married who would not otherwise do so; and it sends a detrimental signal to many other people. It should be relegated to the circular filing tray sooner rather than later.Inside the tent pissing in as it were. Glad to see discipline amongst some Tory MP's is so strong.
Update: I note that it is claimed that this would cost £3.2bn to achieve. The obvious "cuts to front line service" cry will likely go up from the Labour Party as result. However, given that the total spend on IT alone each year according to the Government is equivalent to £206.90 per head for every man, woman and child of whatever age (roughly 60million people), you could cut that by £50 per head per year and save £3bn.
What's more, when you consider how much of that £12bn year is given to Crapita, CapGem and all the other consultants for producing things that usually get scrapped as 'not fit for purpose', it kind of puts any Labour claims about cuts to services into perspective.
3 comments:
Dizzy,
I'd appreciate a blog from you on this 'Tax & Marriage' issue. So often you seem able to crystallise my age related, rather woolly thinking.
It seems to me that the connection IDH, DC & Co. believe there to be between marriage, families, live in fathers etc., and what I would call decent parenting may be a trifle spurious.
Perhaps the type of person who still believes in being married also believes in a parenting style that leads to relatively well behaved offspring.
So, if you encourage marriage for tax reasons, you don't necessarily achieve the goal of being able to walk around Tescos without being driven witless by feral children.
It seems to me that it is parenting style that needs attention.
Maybe a transferable allowance would encourage women to revert to their natural place in the home. But if they spend the tax saved on Gordons (gin that is) and DVDs for the 'kids' it's unlikely to make my visits to Tescos that much more bearable.
Would that I could afford to shop at Waitrose. Sadly Gordon's (the PM that is) pension raid, coupled with the Equitable Life fiasco precludes this.
Things are not what they used to be (not that they ever were).
Maybe a transferable allowance would encourage women to revert to their natural place in the home.
What I find really odd is that while the conservatives want to encourage married mothers to stay at home (I suppose a man could in theory stay at home, but I think this is really about encouraging stay at home wives), the same set of proposals wants to kick unmarried mothers out into the workplace. This a glaring inconsistency in policy.
Thatchers economic reforms caused a lot of pain, but produced long term gain in terms of out economic competitiveness in the new globalised world.
Painful social reforms (yes by this I mean abolishing tax credits alltogether and encouraging marriage) will pay dividends in the long run too.
Yes there will be pain, but we need it. Take it from me, a working class Northerner, people need to stop thinking along the lines 'I'll just get pregnant and the cooncil and the government will sort me out'.
Post a Comment