tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post1943093146471636492..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: The real signal sent by the Tory marriage tax break: we value those marriages where one partner stays at homeTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-75951809927469638272010-04-10T10:11:32.132+01:002010-04-10T10:11:32.132+01:00Hello both Simons.
Simon2,
Yes, I am keen to ide...Hello both Simons.<br /><br />Simon2,<br /><br />Yes, I am keen to identify what data or survey evidence we have on civil partnered couples, to find out how far their inclusion in the policy is actual as well as theoretical, ie is there a significant difference in the % of civil partnered as opposed to straight marrieds?<br /><br /><br />Simon1,<br /><br />Good point. If the question (assuming marriage benefits and undersupply arguments did stand up) was 'how could £550m be spent to encourage people to get and stay married' this wouldn't be it. <br /><br />What might be? Perhaps picking (on a jury service/lottery principle) by lottery a selection of single citizens to say they could get £1000 for getting married and £5000 for being married 5 or 10 years later might have more impact on behaviour, though it would similarly face the problem of the quality of marginal marriages incentivised in this way. One might seek to screen/exclude people who already had a significant other in some way, which might raise civil liberties concerns!<br /><br /><br />---Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-19630864615392135612010-04-10T09:35:58.309+01:002010-04-10T09:35:58.309+01:00(this is a different Simon btw)
I would be v inte...(this is a different Simon btw)<br /><br />I would be v interested to know just how many couples in a civil partnership would benefit from this.<br /><br />I would guess the answer would be not many assuming that those in civil partnerships have fewer children than married couples and therefore stay at home less.Bill Kristol-Ballshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00909399779067445911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-46051394645297971392010-04-10T08:36:03.481+01:002010-04-10T08:36:03.481+01:00The challenge on this policy is that there is so m...The challenge on this policy is that there is so much wrong with it that critocism gets pvercomplicated. Surely the best line is VfM. If the Tories say a figure for number of extra marriages created, we can work out the 'cost per marriage' - presumably unfavourable. If the policy doesn't incentivise extra marriage, we can label it 'the deadweight policy'. Since when was it good government to pay more for the same policy outcome? Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04829711172777460752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-28285080248852637432010-04-10T07:33:35.504+01:002010-04-10T07:33:35.504+01:00Mark
Thanks for your kind comment about the post....Mark<br /><br />Thanks for your kind comment about the post. Reasoned disagreement is always welcome. <br /><br />1. One question: your argument would depend on those proposing this being prepared to defend the policies in those terms. Let's see, but I personally doubt that. <br /><br />The Conservatives should expect to be asked: does the policy intend to value marriages where somebody stays at home over other marriages?<br /><br />I can imagine the question being ducked - 'we have had to make a start with something affordable', stressing the exclusion of higher rate payers, and ducking the exclusion of others, and treating the impacts it has there as something of a fluke rather than the obvious impact of the policy design.<br /><br />2. BBC reports that IFS analysis is that 32% of married couples would be included, and 68% wouldn't.<br /><br />Those out would include households with a higher rate taxpayer (by design), but also married couples with two full-time modest earners (say £15k and £12k), or with a full-time and part-time earner (say £25k and £8k) with one juggling say a couple of days work with childcare, etc.<br /><br />Those in would include middle-income single earner households (eg £40k and 0) but also some low earner households with a single earner (eg £15k and £0).<br /><br />These seem to me very odd effects judged from a position of accepting the policy's overall goal - to recognise and value marriage in the tax system. Of course, others challenge that goal as well, but <br /><br />---<br /><br />There is a good case for recognising caring responsibilities in some way, and extending financial support. There is strong public support for financial support for carers, for example. The Fabian Society Solidarity Society report proposes a universal tax credit, partly because it would do something for those left out of eg tax threshold changes.<br /><br />But the Conservative policy would be poorly targetted if this was its goal. Of the 4 million couples (out of 12.3 married couples) who benefit, the IFS calculate that only 35% of the gainers have children and only 17% children under 5. A third of beneficiaries are pensioners. The gainers therefore make up only a small proportion of families with children. Cohabiting couples who make the same sacrifice you describe are also excluded by design.Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-57928839252233295752010-04-10T01:26:09.276+01:002010-04-10T01:26:09.276+01:00It's a good, thought-provoking post, this.
J...It's a good, thought-provoking post, this. <br /><br />Just to play devil's advocate: what's wrong with a tax break that says 'we value those marriages where one partner stays at home'?<br /><br />House wives/husbands are forfeiting a gainful employment to stay at home with their children; some form of compensation is surely not beyond the pale. <br /><br />It is not for government to explicitly value one position as morally superior to the other, of course - but as you say, the net gain for these couples under this policy is minimal (even negative, if you consider potential earnings lost). This is primarily a symbolic gesture that recognises a sacrifice that some couples feel compelled to make, for which at the moment they are only penalised.<br /><br />I think, on balance, I support it.Mark Yoxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17812793698673965488noreply@blogger.com