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.”
23 Responses to “Cameron’s marriage tax on the ropes”
Rob
@joe. Appologies on my poor use of language. My point with the graphs and borrowing during the “boom” was merely to show that the government was running heavy debts and large amounts of borrowing before the economy went over the edge. That is to say we have a structual deficit beyond our current problems that needs to be dealt with.
I disagree that the philosophies of the leading figures in labour are that minor. I think especially with mandelson/brown there is a clear substantial difference of out look. Brown is old school labour keynsian with some real class issues going on. Whereas mandy is economically liberal i think his aproach to economics would not sit uncomftably with the soft centre tory position. Admitadly the diffrences between brown/darling are more about how to aproach the issue than they are real deep divisions. Brown wants to put off the cuts wheras darling is all up for talking about public sector pay cuts and the need for structual changes in the budgets.
Regarding the tory position. Yes i think it is a little fuzy but such is the way in a long ellection season. You never run strong and heavy early on otherwise you leave your flanks open. That said i think they have painted a broad picture of what needs to be done regarding cutting the budget. They were brave to short step labour and come out first regarding cutting but they have not been brave about what the cuts will mean. I think they underestimate the resolve of the british people and our ability to deal with unpalatable truths.
Regarding uncosted promises. Most of your post was strong i disagreed with it but it was consistant, this last point wasnt. If you measure a politician on his ability to adequatly cost his preposals then cameroon thrashs brown. What happened to the national care service or all the splurging that went on in the Labour confrence. Or even telling departments what they are going to have in the next couple of years. Brown is trying to string the british along by promising us that this wont hurt and it just dosnt stand up.
Joe
The example you give is clearly outrageous – but when has Labour (especially new Labour) ever been on the side of people who abuse the benefit system? The problem is finding an answer. Remove benefits, or savagely cut them, and can you imagine what happens to crime and child poverty? The consequences of tough love might be worse than the original problem.
Fortunately most people want to work and Labour have done a good job with the New Deal, family tax credits (ignoring some of the administrative cock-ups) and the recent promise of a young person’s work guarantee. Far better than just telling people to get on their bikes. It’s also a relief that unemployment hasn’t spiralled out of control like in the recessions of the early nineties and eighties. Other schemes like Sure Start are important in the long run; targeted help for young families (married or not) in deprived areas. The Tories are still unclear on whether they’ll keep that one going, but surely it makes more sense than a tax break for married couples?
Rob
@joe, it is a very complex problem. I think the answer is a combination of tough love with incentives to work. Growing up in a household where my mum was out of work through no fault of her own i understand the issue relating to child poverty.
New Deal- Going down the right road, one of labours good achievments.
Tax Credits – An idea that went badly wrong. Have had personel experience of how these can go wrong in my family. Through no fault of your own you can get a letter demanding thousands back in over paid credit. A better idea would have been targeted tax cuts so people in such positions could keep a larger preportion of their own money.
Re tories cutting programs. Times are tough the tories aint looking to cut these programs because they are cruel people they are looking to cut because we are running out of money.
Joe
At the risk of running around in circles; I believe we have far more detail on Labour’s approach. Yeah, sure in terms of language they are being careful not to emphasise cuts and pain etc. for the sake of dividing lines, but ultimately it does spell a different philosophy.
Neither parties have outlined everything, and until we have more detail on the economy it would be inadvisable, granted. But the Tories have never revealed anything but a mess of contradictory aspirations in both philosophy and policy; trying to have the best of both worlds. I know that George Osborne wants immediate and deep cuts (of which we have no idea of his priorities) followed by a public pay freeze. I but I also know the Tories have also promised some 23 billion in spending promises…
Martian Kettle spells things out pretty well; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/21/deficit-cuts-conservatives-labour-election
I think Mandy’s position is more flexible than you suggest; a strategic economic strategy is more Keynesian than liberal after all. Anyways, I should get back to some real work myself… nice talking to you Rob.
Ah, just read your later post, and yes there was a tax-credit cock up, I would defend the policy, but the way it went wrong in that instance is something different!
Joe
Blah, now my language is going to hell…