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”
Joe
Labour were not borrowing to the hilt at the top of boom. As the boom took off, Gordon paid off all the inherited Tory debt. Even when the debt started to rise again, we had a low rate of borrowing compared to other industrialised countries. There’s a compelling argument that the high level of debt we now have is an acceptable compromise, compared to the alternative of not taking action.
There are good answers to the public debt problem without being hopelessly pessimistic. Once the economy returns to growth (as it tentatively appears to be doing) we can afford to make cuts and savings without endangering employment, essential services and further growth. There is also a matter of philosophy; the same conservative ideas that would have prevented the stimulus and bailouts and would have led to a prolonged recession, would now have us cut too fast; contracting the economy and have paying a cost in social security and lost revenue that otherwise could be paying off the debt.
Yeah, the answers to welfare dependency have to be big. Just cutting welfare is tempting but would most probably make the problem worse and hurt those in genuine need. I think Labour’s record on encouraging employment has been important, and on crime even more so. As to your opinion on restructuring to an export economy, look at Lord Mandelson’s ideas (not perhaps the most appealing politician but hear him out.) Anthony Painter’s blog is interesting in comparing it with the Tory position; http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk/2010/01/25/tories-on-the-economy-all-hope-and-no-plan/
Rob
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=277 i think that shows borrowing during the boom
Rob
That is not to say labour didnt do some important work paying down debt in the early years.
I respect mandleson as ironically beneath the spin he is a conviction politician who is up to telling uncomftable truths. Ironically mandy is probably right of the soft tory position re economic stuff. Within this gov I grudginly respect mandy and to an extent the chancelor as both have tried to be realists in the face of browns investment vs cuts mantra.
Rob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L55GmtfpV4A american liberal perspective on dependancy culture.
Joe
Ah, we simply have different definitions of when the boom was at its height!
To find differences between Brown, Mandelson and Darling is a little hair splitting; any Government navigating such difficult economic waters is bound to have some disagreements. They have a difficult job explaining the complex economic situation in simple terms (when previously it had been very easy) and Brown and Darling are hardly the best communicators!
At least the government’s position on the economy is now pretty clear, or as clear as it can be given current uncertainties. A return to growth and a deficit reduction plan over four years that protects essential services. The conservative alternative is still mysterious; a long list of uncosted promises they’ve yet to be clear on, yet with calls for fiscal responsibility that is put in similarly vague terms. Maybe they’ll do a good job on working out all the contradictions, but with the example of the marriage tax break (back on topic…) that’s clearly not the case so far.