Conservatives - Marriage and Child Tax Breaks

funk de fino

Dreaming of unicorns
funk de fino
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
11,938
Location
UAE
Nic Clegg has just hit out a the coalition partners proposals to introduce tax breaks for married couples.

Ahead of a speech to think tank Demos on social issues, the Deputy Prime Minister accused Conservative ministers of seeking a return to the 1950s.

He told Sky News' Murnaghan show: "As a liberal, I just think there are limits as to how much the state should try and micromanage and incentivise people's own behaviour in their private life.

"Most people get married because they love each other, not because they have looked at their tax returns and seen that they are going to get some cash back from the state.
Click to expand...

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/clegg_attacks_tories_married_tax_breaks_plan

So what are the thoughts on this piece of social engineering by the Tories?

Why should I be penalised on tax compared to the married couple next door just because haven't married my partner?
 
It's a familiar Tory dream; that somehow if they give people a financial incentive to get married and stay married then the world will magically become better. Which is ridiculous.

On the other hand it is quite nice to have the government consider doing something that will benefit me for a change ;)
 
Conservatives would much rather have two deeply unhappy people staying together "for the sake of the children" causing emotional scarring to those children in the process than having happy unmarried couples or, heaven forfend, children raised by single parents (maybe wit the support of the estranged partner).

I'm not 100% sure that this isn't an example of cargo cult culture. Studies may show that children do better when raised by married parents but maybe it's because parents who stay married are, on average, more satisfied with their family life than those who are not. Providing incentives for unhappy people to stay together may not have the desired results.

The Conservatives are conservative and there is a tendency for them to want to return society to the "golden age" of the '50s (or '30s or whenever) when....

  • Dad went out to work
  • Mum stayed at home and looked after the kids
  • Families stayed together because (unless they were upper class) divorcees were shunned socially and women could not leave because they were financially dependent on their spouses
  • Domestic violence was commonplace but divorce was rare for the above reason

Call Me seems to be pining for a middle-class idyll which doesn't exist outside films. TV and fictional novels.
 
Francesca R said:
I support the tax system being used to benefit reproduction, but not marriage (nor civil partnerships)
Click to expand...

I have no kids, and I never want kids.

Are you saying that I should pay more tax due to the fact I do not want to bring more kids into the world?

Or that those who have the kids should get a reduction in taxes?

Or are you thinking child benefits here?
 
The Labour government introduced child trust funds which are the same thing. They were withdrawn by the current government.

ETA: It was nowhere near as big as Australia's baby bonus though, and was not something that parents could spend themselves, so child benefit is more comparable (and that accumulates to quite a lot)
 
Last edited:
Funny.

The (financial) positive externalities of higher fertility, coupled with the observation that fertility is below replacement level in many rich countries, are why I think you should pay more tax than someone with a child or children.

Incidentally this is reflected in public policy in a lot of (most I think) OECD countries, and is not particularly conservative.
 
Or another way of putting it (simplified):

Society pretty much depends on there being children born, growing up, and hopefully become what is known as "productive members of society". But if you're having a child, then there's a price to pay for that; because while being a nurse or babysitter for someone else's kid is paid work, nursing and taking care of your own child comes out of your pocket. You're essentially risking your own livelihood for what will, in turn, most likely become a benefit of society.

So, the society reckognises this disparity and realises that many people probably aren't all that willing or even able to pay that price, so in order to make sure that enough people are being motivated enough to breed, they'll make sure that the parents are in fact getting some reimbursement for the services they're hopefully doing to society.

So think of it as an investment in keeping society afloat. And if you count yourself a part of society, then you'll probably want to enjoy the benefits of it working.
 
Last edited:
One of the questions not asked is how this tax break can be afforded when the coalition take glee in telling us 'there is no money left'.

As for "how much the state should try and micromanage and incentivise people's own behaviour in their private life" as Cleggy says, it's impossible not to do this in politics.
 
Francesca R said:
Funny.

The (financial) positive externalities of higher fertility, coupled with the observation that fertility is below replacement level in many rich countries, are why I think you should pay more tax than someone with a child or children.

Incidentally this is reflected in public policy in a lot of (most I think) OECD countries, and is not particularly conservative.
Click to expand...

So you support govt attempts at social engineering? I am punished financially because I either canny have or do not want kids?

I fail to see any logic in that at all. You have not supported your position.
 
funk de fino said:
Why should I be penalised on tax compared to the married couple next door just because haven't married my partner?
Click to expand...

Because it complicates the paperwork. Since we have aparently decided that partners have rights to things like widow's pensions remaining unmarried puts an extra burden on the state since it has to sort things out afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom