British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to announce new plans this week during the Conservative Party conference that will create a tax break for married couples of up to £200 per year, providing the couple are in the basic tax bracket.
But faith leaders and political activists have challenged the move as insufficient in a letter to the Sunday Telegraph. In addition Cameron seems to miss the whole point by extending the benefits to those who are in civil unions and by including gay couples.
The letter, which includes the signers Bishop Nazir-Ali, Lord Singh - director of the network of Sikh organisations, Robert Woollard - chairman of Conservative Grassroots, Harry Benson of the Marriage Foundation, Nola Leach chief executive of CARE and the Bishop of Chester says:
“We believe that marriage is the fundamental building block of human society and provides many tangible and non-tangible benefits to our communities and our children. Family breakdown costs the taxpayer an estimated £46 billion a year. It is therefore clearly in the interests of government and the taxpayer to work to counter the devastating trend of family breakdown. … This is why we urge all political parties not only to back the new transferable tax allowance, but also to ensure that it cannot be dismissed as an empty gesture, given that it has been set at the low level of £150. To be meaningful it must be paid at a higher rate, even if this means a phased introduction or application of other conditions.”
The original Conservative proposal in 2010 was £150 but has been raised in announcements since the letter was written to £200.
Unlike in America where a married couple can pool all their income and deductions together, Britain treats individuals largely separately for tax purposes. The proposal would allow a non-working or low-earning spouse to shift up to £1000 of their tax-free allowance to their partner provided both earn in the ‘basic rate’ category or lower (under £34,370 per year 2012-13).
Critics who say that it doesn’t go far enough rightly highlight that family breakdown is a core issue that needs to be addressed. As illustrated in the letter, family breakdowns cost every household £2000 per year and the government needs to go much further in promoting real marriage whilst distinguishing the marital covenant from civil unions and gay partnerships.
Instead, Britain’s illustrious leader says "From April 2015, if neither of you are higher rate taxpayers, you will be able to transfer £1,000 of your tax free allowance to your spouse. … And of course this will be true if you're gay or straight - and in a civil partnership or a marriage. This summer I was proud to make Equal Marriage the law. Love is love, commitment is commitment."
Except that it’s not Mr. Cameron! Love and commitment are actually intertwined. The purpose of marriage if for a man and a woman to join together for life and, in many cases, to commit to raise children together through to adulthood. A civil partnership creates an easy-in-easy-out relationship with some legitimacy and now some rewards that it doesn’t deserve.
Cameron’s coalition partner, Liberal Democratic leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, is far more hostile to the concept and has said the proposals are unfair on people who choose not to marry. He seems clueless that the ideas are to steer a struggling society into better waters, instead his mind is mired in a utopian concept of absolute equality.
Indeed Clegg was prepared to block the move and was only appeased after being offered something on his plate. Actually something on children’s’ plates – that being the absurd idea that all British schoolchildren age 8 and under would receive free lunches regardless of means and circumstance.
Whilst Deputy PM has been bought off with a lunch programme hasn’t taken up the offer of journalist Selena Gray. She wrote for the Daily Mail in July that Clegg would change his mind if he visited the neighbourhood she grew up in and “would learn that the idea of a tax-break for married couples is something that benefits all of us by sending a message that society values the family and the commitment, stability and self-sacrifice that goes with it”. She added that if Clegg joined her he would “witness the devastating effect on people of a society that does not value marriage”.
Ironically Clegg’s Dutch mother was interned during World War 2 by the Japanese in Indonesia. Despite this it seems his upbringing in affluent Chalfont St Giles in the London commuter belt enabled him to develop a less realistic world view.
Clegg’s dislike of his (political) partners plan was echoed by Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Stephen Williams who said: "This is a tax cut for some, paid for by everyone else. Liberal Democrats are committed to helping everyone with the cost of living, single or married, and to deliver a tax system which is fair and progressive to everyone. That is why we have given a £700 tax cut to over 20 million working people across the UK.”
Given the obvious disagreements that the two parties have its amazing that their coalition continues to exist, but such is their thirst for power and control. Amazingly reports are about to surface from the new book ‘In It Together’ by Matthew d'Ancona, that discussions have already taken place between the two leaders to extend their coalition beyond 2015.
The Labour Party’s opposition to anything out of Cameron’s head is far more direct. Although adopting a classic class-warfare strategy Shadow chief secretary to the treasury Rachel Reeves sums it up well when she says: "David Cameron's so-called marriage tax break won't even help two-thirds of married couples, let alone millions of people who are separated, widowed or divorced. He's so out of touch he thinks people will get married for £3.85 a week.”
Lefty’s it seems can’t wait to get children away from the parents and into the hands of the local authorities
Unfortunately Reeves stops sounding intelligent almost immediately when she says "David Cameron also needs to explain how this policy will be paid for. Will he be raising taxes or making cuts elsewhere to fund this? At a time when millions of people are facing a cost of living crisis we should be helping all families and not just some. That's what Labour set out this week with plans to freeze energy bills and expand free childcare for working parents."
So Rachel Reeves, having just lambasted the Prime Minister on the subject of ‘how will you pay for that?’; then proposes universal free childcare with no mention of where the money will come from for a massive expansion of the state control of our children. Lefty’s it seems can’t wait to get children away from the parents and into the hands of the local authorities, regardless of the financial realities.
It seems none of the powers that be in Westminster understand the commonsense behind promoting real marriage and allowing couples to best decide how to raise their children without financial encumbrance. British voters will have to continue their search for those that do.
