The Tory marriage tax plans are in further confusion this morning as it emerged that just 1 in 20 couples would benefit. The policy would cost £800 million.
The Tory marriage tax plans were in further confusion last night as it emerged that just 1 in 20 couples would benefit.
The Mirror reports this morning that:
“David Cameron’s marriage tax-break bribe would help only one in 20 couples who tie the knot, Labour has found.
“And he is again in retreat over the plan after a spending black hole was uncovered. Only marrieds with children under the age of three are now expected to benefit.
“But Treasury figures – showing only 6% of those who get wed would be better off – found that would [sic] still cost other taxpayers [£600 million] to be raised through “green” taxes.
New costings released last night and seen by Left Foot Forward outlined:
“Treasury analysis of this proposal shows it would benefit 6 per cent of married couples, 2 per cent of all family units (single people or couples and their dependents) and 3 per cent of adults.
“Treasury costing of this proposal shows it costs £800m (not the £600m Iain Duncan Smith claims).”
In yesterday’s Observer, former shadow Home Secretary David Davis mounted a defence of the policy but conceded that:
“Take the category of single mothers alone. The common assumption is that they are mostly young teenagers who are careless or who even deliberately get pregnant as a step to a council flat and a benefit cheque …
“But that is not the typical single mother by a long chalk. Single mothers come in a wide variety of categories. There are married mothers who are separated or divorced from their husbands. There are single mothers who decide to have a baby, but who are capable of providing for that child, both financially and emotionally. Then there are widows.”
Sky News quotes Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne:
“Marriage plays a vital role in our society.
“But David Cameron’s latest marriage tax plan does nothing for 19 out of 20 married couples – except put a tax rise on their cars and holidays.
“David Cameron broke his promise to help all married couples when he was forced to admit his plans didn’t add up.
“Now, he’s got himself into the absurd position of having a married couples policy that leaves the majority of married couples worse off.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Cameron’s marriage tax on the ropes”
Claire Spencer
Oooh, well. Divisive, regressive and now almost pointless. Seriously, great idea DC: http://bit.ly/7rGWGE (via @leftfootfwd)
Rob
@ Joe If the banks are too big to fail why is the labour government opposing measures to break them up into smaller units. Further i think it is rather hypocritical of the left to have ago at the tories for uncosted measures considering the deficit.
Further pouring money into a problem without thinking about it does absloutly no good. I grew up in the west of cornwall around penzance. Saw huge amounts of money poured into the sink estates and all it seemed to do was subsidise a certain way of life. Social services were not really intrested in the welfare of these individuals. Children who came from problem homes were left to rot as child services didnt want to get involved. Was truely messed up and the place is still rotten.
Joe
I didn’t mean big in that sense! I was referring (perhaps badly) to the risk of contagion with other financial institutions and the danger to the wider economy if they failed.
It’s my understanding that the US and UK banking systems, in relation to hedge-funds and private equity, are quite different, so Obama’s plan is not directly applicable, but that both Obama and Brown are sincere in banking reform.
It’s kind of besides the point; I was only disagreeing with Martyn, and others unsympathetic to Labour, that the debt is simply due to incompetence, and that it should be bought up as such at every moment no matter what the policy. I’m simply saying it’s better to have used counter-cyclical spending in response to a global crisis and to pay it back sensibly, than to have watched our economy crash and burn, which I reckon would have been much more expensive. But this is a difficult topic to do justice to on an internet comment board!
And Rob, I agree that welfare dependency can be a problem (also where I grew up), I guess I see it as a legacy of Thatcherite mass unemployment, but whatever… is a marriage tax break really part of any answer?
Rob
If by big you mean the banks were too spread into non traditional areas why has this government not sought to reinstall something along the lines of the american glass steagall act? A lot of what the banks suffered was an over exposure to an overheated housing market. That is a non political point. Both the major parties have been more than willing to follow a policy of low intrest rates and booming house markets that eventually fell apart. Where i would make a political point is that labour were borrowing to the hilt at the top of the boom and therefore amased crazy debt before the house of cards fell down.
Regarding how to deal with public debt i realise this is a massive problem to which there are no good answers. It seems either we prolong the debt and suffer economic stagnation and cuts in services later or we cut it now and feel the pain now. I honestly dont think it would kill the recession to start cutting now, that is not to say it would not be painfull.
Welfare dependancy. No i dont think the marriage thing is the answer. In all i think the marriage thing is a non issue a small part political speck destracting us from much, much bigger issues. I think the answer to dependancy culture is to get a lot stricter on thouse who are claiming benifits for long periods of time. In the long term it will only be solved by a cultrual, educational and socio-economic restructering back to an export economy. We need to rebuild our enginering and technology base. That said i am not unsympathetic to thouse on benifts my mother (now a head teacher) was unemployed when i was younger. Neither am i unsympathetic to labour. My family is labour and so was i for a long time, i campaighned for my local candidate when i was 15. I just thing labour at the moment has gone to the dogs. It has become a narrow minded tribalist party soley intrested in winning over the old enemy the tories. The left needs to spend a long cold look at itself.
Martin Johnston
RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron’s marriage tax on the ropes: http://is.gd/6ZkLB reports @wdjstraw #reasonsnottovotetory