Tories' tax breaks for married couples - would it make you change your mind?

carolt

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8612610.stm

Wouldn't work for me, as we earn too much to benefit.

But even if we did, would a measly £150/year buy my vote?

Looking back to when we did earn little enough to benefit, the answer is still no.

Anyone else? Think this is going to be a big vote-winner?

Personally, I think they've spilt the beans too early. As long as all married couples thought they were going to benefit, and by an unspecified amount, it was a strong point in favour for the Tories. Now we know it's only a few, and only £150, I suspect it will get them few votes.

Arcaine

Nah not a vote winner for me, (even though I am married). The one vote winning issue for me is that no party has mentioned public sector pension deficits and how they are going to fund them in the future.

mitchaa

It's a half hearted effort. Only £750 (£150) transferrable is next to being useless. They should have planned for the whole £6475 (£1295)

With todays cost of living surely most married couples are both in work anyway and only a small portion would benefit.

carolt

Agreed, my thoughts exactly. Either do it or don't do it.

This is just a bit meaningless.

Spartacus_Mills

carolt wrote: »

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8612610.stm

Wouldn't work for me, as we earn too much to benefit.

But even if we did, would a measly £150/year buy my vote?

Looking back to when we did earn little enough to benefit, the answer is still no.

Anyone else? Think this is going to be a big vote-winner?

Personally, I think they've spilt the beans too early. As long as all married couples thought they were going to benefit, and by an unspecified amount, it was a strong point in favour for the Tories. Now we know it's only a few, and only £150, I suspect it will get them few votes.

It is for married couples and those in civil partnerships as well so it is not just a married persons tax allowance.

It will help those low earners so it may help in that group. It also helps the Tories fight off claims they are just for the rich and the few, which are plainly nonsense as all parties are for the majority, they just have a different way of getting there.

However the Tories are now fleshing out their policy pledge which makes it intereting. I doubt it is a game changer but I do not see it hurting them either.

Spartacus_Mills

Arcaine wrote: »

Nah not a vote winner for me, (even though I am married). The one vote winning issue for me is that no party has mentioned public sector pension deficits and how they are going to fund them in the future.

Root and branch reform, AFAIC, they need to be reformed and the public sector needs to get used to their pensions being worth less in the future or they have to contribute more. The taxpayer should not be expected to step in and pay for this especially when the taxpayers in the private sector have had to get used to lower provision.

Only the Lib Dems have had the gumption to recognise this prior to the election and to say it is unaffordable as it is.

carolt

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

It is for married couples and those in civil partnerships as well so it is not just a married persons tax allowance.

It will help those low earners so it may help in that group. It also helps the Tories fight off claims they are just for the rich and the few, which are plainly nonsense as all parties are for the majority, they just have a different way of getting there.

However the Tories are now fleshing out their policy pledge which makes it intereting. I doubt it is a game changer but I do not see it hurting them either.

I disagree, I think it will hurt them - as long as it was vague, all married couples could imagine they'd benefit.

Now we know it will only apply to a few.

Spartacus_Mills

carolt wrote: »

I disagree, I think it will hurt them - as long as it was vague, all married couples could imagine they'd benefit.

Now we know it will only apply to a few.

I was going to reply to this but I saw a comment from a poster on another forum which summed up perfectly what I was going to say.

What the Tories are doing is nodding towards marriage being a *good* thing.

There are a lot of people who are confusing/conflating being single parents with somehow being disadvantaged by the Tory proposals - they aren’t.

This is simply starting to redress the balance.

Symbolism about marriage is like the minimum wage that Labour wanted - the money’s not the issue - it’s the principle it represents.

by Plato April 10th, 2010 at 8:26 am

CLAPTON

more interest is the fact that it's going to be funded by a special tax on the banks.

once the principle is established that there is a regular banking tax then of course it can easily be increased to pay for other socially desirable ends.

and increased it surely will be

Andy_L

Arcaine wrote: »

Nah not a vote winner for me, (even though I am married). The one vote winning issue for me is that no party has mentioned public sector pension deficits and how they are going to fund them in the future.

by paying about 2% of GDP per year

Radiantsoul

I can't see why we should penalise those who aren't married. Many people(especially women) find themselves as single parents as they have had to flee abuse, been left or had a partner die.
I was never keen on the single mother bashing.