If Cameron knows that families don’t respond to financial incentives then what is the point of giving a tax break to married couples?

You see, this is the problem that the Tories have had – they just don’t seem to be able to get their message across. In every single interview – and I mean every single one – since they announced the marriage tax-relief policy everyone has said, basically what you just did. People don’t get (or stay) married for money, so why have a tax break?

And every time the answer has been the same – the policy is that marriage should be recognised in the tax system, and it’s actually the recognition that’s more important. At the moment, marriage is at best tax/benefit neutral and in some cases decidedly harmful – the cases where it makes good financial sense for a couple to split. What message does that give about how our society views marriage?

One of the points about the modern Tories (and I’m speaking here as an outsider rather than as one of them) is that they are big on ‘nudge’ style social politics – the idea that the state has a role in shaping society, and that role is best shown by small nudges. We like marriage, it’s a good thing, married couples split up less, it deserves our approval, and we should say so. It’s the saying so that’s important.

Sunny, you’re very engaged in politics – have you really not heard this argument before from the Tories?

actually, my girlfriend is considering marrying me for the tax break

I’m sure society will be all the better for it.

My girlfriend doesn’t want to marry now thanks to Cameron endorsing and bribing us single folk with £3 a week…

Thanks Dave!

P.S. All the leaders have been grilled more by BBC 1Xtra & Radio 1 listeners more than any media type!

“We like marriage, it’s a good thing, married couples split up less”

This is a nonsense argument though. You are not comparing like with like. It’s not the act of marriage that makes people stay together, it’s the people who choose to get married as opposed to the people who choose not to get married.

In general (and this is a huge generalisation, but a useful one) people who choose to get married tend to have more stable lives, and therefore will be more likely to remain married than people who choose not to get married. If you make marriage more cost effective than living together then people who probably shouldn’t get married in the first place will do it for the money, and then end up splitting up anyway, or remain trapped in bleak loveless marriages, just like before divorce became easier.

Marriage isn’t some kind of magic that makes people better.

Tim J @ 1

This isn’t about ‘nudge politics’, this is attempting to smuggle an admittedly modest tax income tax cut to their supporters. Nobody really believes the shit that the Tories spout off in defence of this policy. This is just an idiotic policy based on an entire raft of false logic. Has it never occurred to the average Tory that people who are more likely to split up (for whatever reason) are by the very definition, less likely to get married? The rest of us normal people worked out that simply by looking at ‘real life’.

Could it possibly be that many couple do not get married because they know in their respective heart of hearts, that the relationship is simply not going to last? Surely if you live in an environment/lifestyle that means you are more likely to split up, that once you ‘encourage’ people to get married they are going to face the same pressures/temptations as before? The idea that if enough people on a sink estate to marry each other will transform that estate into a living embodiment of ‘Terry and June’ is simply laughable. By the same ‘logic’ you could buy every seventeen year old yob a Bently and every unemployed forty year old a BMW in order to convert them into World class football players and sales executives.

What is worse is not so much the actual policy, but what it signifies about the ‘Government elect’ and the current shallowness of the media in all its forms. The very idea that you could look at two very different families structure and ignore all the obvious disparities, from income, housing, job security etc and pull out the ‘marriage card’ and suggest that is the answer and not merely evidence of the problem. Stable societies encourage marriage, not the other way around.

If the Tories want to encourage marriage, perhaps they should NOT been busy systematically destroying communities? Show me two villages which one will have the lower marriage rate? The one whose residents were not cavalry charged in the eighties and ravaged by Thatcherism would be my guess.

If the Tories want to encourage marriage, perhaps they should NOT been busy systematically destroying communities? Show me two villages which one will have the lower marriage rate? The one whose residents were not cavalry charged in the eighties and ravaged by Thatcherism would be my guess.

Oh Lord, it’s Fatcher again.

An interesting thought – in 2030, does anyone think right-wingers will be going on (and on and on and on) about Brown and how he ruined everything?

Tim J has this right, the Tories aren’t bringing in the tax cut because of the likely consequences, this is about morality.

The Tories believe in using laws to say what is right and what is wrong, and they think marriage is right, so they give money to the married. As we will all find out if they get the chance, they think single motherhood is wrong so they will take money away from single mothers.

This is why they ban drugs, not because it stops people taking drugs, but because they think taking drugs is wrong so there should be a law against it.

It’s the opposite of the consequentialist model of policy making that we call evidence-based – it says that the consequences of the policy don’t matter; what matters is the message it sends.

An interesting thought – in 2030, does anyone think right-wingers will be going on (and on and on and on) about Brown and how he ruined everything?

Yes…mainly because they were banging on about the ‘Winter of Discontent’ right up until 1997…and every time there’s an industrial dispute between October and March ever since.

Tim J @ 6

An interesting thought – in 2030, does anyone think right-wingers will be going on (and on and on and on) about Brown and how he ruined everything?

Past evidence ‘the sixties’, ‘the permissive society’, ‘The Unions’, ‘the winter of discontent’, ’the IMF’, ‘Enoch Powel was right’, ‘immigration’, ‘The GLC/Red Ken’, ‘the looney left’, ‘the EEC’ etc suggests that they will…

…then again, a good few Lefties will be doing the same PFI, anyone?

Tim J has this right, the Tories aren’t bringing in the tax cut because of the likely consequences, this is about morality.

I thought he also said he cared about poor people? That he cared about cutting the debt and how this government was wasting money? I thought he said he was passionate about helping kids from poorer backgrounds?

Oh right. Instead we find out what because of morality, he wants to make rich people richer, while claiming it helps poor kids, and also offering a tax cut while screaming about our debt.

Brilliant. Morality will save our society.

“Tim J has this right, the Tories aren’t bringing in the tax cut because of the likely consequences, this is about morality.”

Oh please…… you do talk rubbish.

This is about CASH. Pure and simple.

As always with the right wing, follow the money…

“If Cameron knows that families don’t respond to financial incentives then what is the point of giving a tax break to married couples? That is simply a transfer of wealth to relatively affluent families.”

The point is to signal that mariage is a good thing for society. Good for parents (beacuse they stay together longer, live longer are healthier and less strassed than single/cohabiting people) good for kids (because they have better outcomes) and good for the taxpayer (beacuse the net result of the first two is a huge lifetime saving in government interventions).
I don’t think anyone has ever seriously suggested that people get/stay married for tax reasons.

@ 7 “It’s the opposite of the consequentialist model of policy making that we call evidence-based – it says that the consequences of the policy don’t matter; what matters is the message it sends”.

Are you saying the current government, or the left generally, employs evidence based policy ? How much evidence do they need that single parethood creates an exponential cost on society before they stop being “neutral” (i.e anti the nuclear family) on the family. How many times does it need to be demonstratedf that big state causes more problems than it solves ? I’ve lost count of the number of times lefties defend failed/ineffective policies with “But we had good intentions”, meaning “we fucked up again but at least we sent out the right message and can therefore bask in the glory of another hollow gesture”.

“In 2030, does anyone think right-wingers will be going …..on about Brown and how he ruined everything? – The simple answer is ‘no’ because once something is ruined it is ruined and Thatcher had already made a magnificent job of it.

Matt @ 13

How much evidence do they need that single parethood creates an exponential cost on society before they stop being “neutral” (i.e anti the nuclear family) on the family.

What are you on about? No-one is ‘anti the nuclear family’. Government cannot directly influence the type of families that exist, not in any real sense at least. Perhaps you could break a habit of a lifetime and do some actual research on this subject and find out when the expotential rise in single parenthood occured and explain what government policy kickstarted that. (clue: try looking at 1982).

What a typically crass remark from a typically crass Tory.

So just what can Government do about stopping single parenthood, and what evidence do you have to back that idea up?

Matt @ 12

The point is to signal that mariage is a good thing for society. Good for parents (beacuse they stay together longer, live longer are healthier and less strassed than single/cohabiting people) good for kids (because they have better outcomes) and good for the taxpayer (beacuse the net result of the first two is a huge lifetime saving in government interventions).
I don’t think anyone has ever seriously suggested that people get/stay married for tax reasons.

Has it never occured to that married people are a self selecting group of people? Surely it is exactly the other way round. Healthy, wealthy people living in less stressed conditions get married because they are happier and have a more positive outlook in life? Surely to Christ no-one thinks that two unemployed junkies living in chaos getting married will suddenly transform into ‘outnumbered’. For Fuck’s sake man, tell me you are not so simplitic as to think the position they are in is down to not being married?

@ 16 Jim, the modern marriage might well be dominated by sucesfull, educated, articulate, wealthy “middle class” (in the broad sense of not welfare dependent) people but it hasn’t always been thus – marriage used to be evenly spread across social classes. It’s probably also worth pointing out that the UK is almost unique in not recognising marriage in it’s tax system.

In my brief interpretation of social history (it begins, oddly, pre 1982)

1960s – 1980s The left firstly de-stigmatised birth outside marriage/co-habitation/single parethood in the naive beleif that this would free people from the opressive patriacry/allow them to self actualise/free them from loveless marriages etc etc. This inevitably undermined marriage – because the social reinforcement for it was eroded
Then;
1990s – Now; They removed the financial incentives for marriage and perversely incentivised it’s alternatives using the tax/benefits/legal system, such that marriage (and even co-habitation) became financially neutral at best, and at best a disadvatage.

Under twin social and economic attack, it’s hardly surprising that the institution is crubling, although it’s worth pointing out that the majority of people still get married at some point in their lives and that nuclear families are the biggest single block of family units. So far, so what you might say

The problem is the whole “liberate women from the patriarchy” feminist fantasy bollocks, is fine if you are a stable, educated, articualte etc citizen able to make informed choices which are in your best interests. If you are not, without some sort of stabilising framework, your life, far from feeling more liberated, might well feel more chaotic and unfocussed. Again, so what you might say. Well the so what has turned out to be a huge increase in expensive, intrusive, and largely inefcetive state interventions, and misery for many, especially children

” Surely to Christ no-one thinks that two unemployed junkies living in chaos getting married will suddenly transform into ‘outnumbered’. For Fuck’s sake man, tell me you are not so simplitic as to think the position they are in is down to not being married?”

Of course it isn’t, why do lefties keep making this bizzare strawman. Said junkies position is not going to be affected by marriage one way or the other, it is too late for him, but the point is why did he become a junkie in the first place ? Part of the answer might be that he lacked direction, and he lacked direction, in part because he is statistically more likely to be a product of a single parent household, which existed, or is at least reinforced by, the liberation from marriage his parent(s) “enjoyed”.

It is worth noting that better than a third of the benefit of this law would go to pensioner couples. That is, couples who have already been married for decades and, tellingly, who overwhelmingly vote Tory. It certainly has nothing to do with children, or future generations. Like most policy from the right, and I include Labour in this, it is constructed solely to engage with the paranoias of those over 40, like Gillian Duffy.

Also, let us abandon the canard that this is about promoting marriage; it’s nothing of the sort. 5.8 million (out of 12.3 million) married couples in the country would not benefit from this law. Why? Because they do not follow the 1950s middle-class model of a single, male, breadwinner. And that’s really it. The tax is designed not to shore up marriage as an institution but to specifically recreate a the experience of a single class from a bygone era of pan-social militarisation and repression.

If they wanted to make a tax law that promoted marriage, then they would pass one which said the lower earner of any couple in which both work would be exempt from income tax altogether; and they’d extend it to civil partnerships. That would change marital customs all right. I would like to be very explicit and clear when I say that I do not think such a law would be a good plan.

If they really wanted to promote marriage (or in fact any stable relationships) they’d introduce tax breaks for counselling! I got married in the last year that the married couples allowance last existed (and by the way it was worth more than the pittance that is on offer now). The decision was in no way influenced by the tax system.

And when things got to a stage where it just wasn’t working no amount of tax incentives would have kept me in that relationship.

Oh and by the way they may be aiming at promoting marriage but the tax break doesn’t actually do anything to encourage sustained relationships because it will apply whether it is your first marriage or your sixth. The only thing stopping you doing serial marriages is the stratospherically high costs of divorce lawyers.

Matt @ 17

1960s – 1980s The left firstly de-stigmatised birth outside marriage/co-habitation/single parethood in the naive beleif that this would free people from the opressive patriacry/allow them to self actualise/free them from loveless marriages etc etc. This inevitably undermined marriage – because the social reinforcement for it was eroded

How did the left manage this? Surely, this is down to social attitudes, and nothing to do with politics? No Government can make two people rut like deer, via a public policy? If this is the product of the left then why did single parenthood rise so dramatically in the 1980′s? Could it be that whilst destroying communities, the Right also managed to destroy the institutions that those communities were built on?

Now; They removed the financial incentives for marriage and perversely incentivised it’s alternatives using the tax/benefits/legal system, such that marriage (and even co-habitation) became financially neutral at best, and at best a disadvatage.

Er, you surely cannot possibly be unaware of the huge economic/employment upheavals that took place during the Thatcher decade? Female employment rose dramatically during that time. Surely as women became financially independent of their husbands, it became necessary to tax them independently?

The problem is the whole “liberate women from the patriarchy” feminist fantasy bollocks, is fine if you are a stable, educated, articualte etc citizen able to make informed choices which are in your best interests. If you are not, without some sort of stabilising framework, your life, far from feeling more liberated, might well feel more chaotic and unfocussed. Again, so what you might say. Well the so what has turned out to be a huge increase in expensive, intrusive, and largely inefcetive state interventions, and misery for many, especially children

What on Earth is that all about? Are so determined to ignore the fact that men and woman find themselves in positions where they no longer feel the need to get or stay married? Government has no way of influencing that. Government cannot force two people who hate each other to fall back in love, nor can they stop adultery, gambling, drinking, watching porn, getting uglier or the myriad other reasons that people split up. Nor can they stop people getting pregnant either.

Part of the answer might be that he lacked direction, and he lacked direction, in part because he is statistically more likely to be a product of a single parent household, which existed, or is at least reinforced by, the liberation from marriage his parent(s) “enjoyed”.

Leaving aside any evidence you have for such a claim, let us assume you are right. The Government has noreal way of preventing that from happening, has it? I am not sure you could make a woman stay with a wife beating husband for example, given that advice to a battered wife is always to get out of the relationship.

What can the Government actually do to stop people from splitting up? Or not get married?

@ 20 “How did the left manage this? Surely, this is down to social attitudes, and nothing to do with politics?”

Social attitudes don’t just happen. They generally flourish if, and only if, they are re-inforced by social norms. I think most politicians would hope that they are among the people who set those norms

“If this is the product of the left then why did single parenthood rise so dramatically in the 1980’s?”

I can’t answer that, possibly becsue they were the first generation to grow up in an environment where single parenthood had started to be de-stigmatised.

“Surely as women became financially independent of their husbands, it became necessary to tax them independently?”

Outside the middle class (In the true sense of professionals on at least 2x average nat income) most women are not “financially independent” (whatever that actually means). Most women (and indeed men) don’t earn enough to be independent of their partner without becoming dependent on the state. In reality divorce just means a switch from dependence on their husbands to dependence on the state.

“Government cannot force two people who hate each other to fall back in love”,

No and nor should they, so why do they (and by proxy the taxpayer) feel the need to pick up the pieces for other peoples mistakes ? Government should be neutral on *all* relationships. At the moment they decalare themsselves “neutral” on some relationhsips (e.g marriage) but strongly supportive of others. That isn’t neutrality

“I am not sure you could make a woman stay with a wife beating husband for example, given that advice to a battered wife is always to get out of the relationship”.

Yes, because of course all marriages fail because of wife beating husbands. The solution is not to marry a wife beater, quite obviously.

21
“The best solution is not to marry a wife beater”
This is excellent advice Matt, you’d think those silly women would read the sign on men’s foreheads.

Matt @ 22

Social attitudes don’t just happen. They generally flourish if, and only if, they are re-inforced by social norms. I think most politicians would hope that they are among the people who set those norms

But how do they set those norms? The Profumo affair perhaps or good old Cecil Parkinson perhaps?

Most women (and indeed men) don’t earn enough to be independent of their partner without becoming dependent on the state.

Women can earn as much as their husbands and contribute to the household income., so it makes perfect sense to tax both equally.

In reality divorce just means a switch from dependence on their husbands to dependence on the state.

Isn’t that a gross generalisation? What evidence have you for that remark?

feel the need to pick up the pieces for other peoples mistakes

Eh? What do you mean?

Government should be neutral on *all* relationships. At the moment they decalare themsselves “neutral” on some relationhsips (e.g marriage) but strongly supportive of others.

What on Earth are you talking about, what strongly supportive are you driving at?

Yes, because of course all marriages fail because of wife beating husbands.The solution is not to marry a wife beater, quite obviously.

Two idiotic statements there, Matt.