I normally don't have any time for the miserable Tory apologist, the bulk of his article on the married couple's allowance in today's Evening Standard is drivel, for example "...since the Married Couple's Allowance began to wither on the vine in the early Nineties, the process of social breakdown, particularly among the poorest in the inner cities, has gathered pace to a frightening extent..." but he nails the real problem with this:
"At present, the message [that people get from the interaction of tax and welfare system] is that the state is at best neutral and at worst actively hostile to marriage... And the perverse consequence of the [Tax Credit] structure has been the so-called “couple's penalty” — the price a couple pays for staying together. According to calculations based on figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions, for instance, a family earning about £35,000 a year would be better off by £186 a week if the parents split up."
That, my friends, is what we should be complaining about.
Personally I'm a great believer in the state being absolutely neutral as between two individuals and one couple (whether married or not), which is best achieved via universal benefits (although allowing a married couple to fill in one tax return and claim two personal allowances greatly simplifies matters, administratively), but before we waffle on about tax incentives for marriage, the most important thing is to take a very close look at that £186 (about which I have blogged many a time, see example showing that the penalty can be as much as £224 per week).
A grim document
3 hours ago
8 comments:
£186 per week better off????
That is an incredible amount of money.
Anon, in theory it can be up to £224, see here.
We have lost our morals in this country and commitment used to be part of that.
Now we have children who, should they ever wish to trace their roots, will find it impossible because the names on birth certificates will be different and there will be no marriage licences.
I make no apology for saying I firmly believe children should be brought up within marriage. Children aren't appreciated these days, they're used by adults instead of being nurtured and counted as a blessing.
Truly I'm sick of hearing it's someone's right to have children. It's not, no more than it's my right to be wealthy.
One eight six quid a week! Where do I sign?
I personally know two ladies who have made the choice to have children and live on benefits. They get housing free, council tax paid etc etc. They get a net figure that when grossed up goes well over NAE. It's a job paid for by me and you.
Mind you I know another lady with three children who's had four partners three of whom were worse than useless and has still managed to bring up three excellent children. Without benefits she and her family would not have survived. But of course the absent fathers paid very little for the children's upkeep. Why would they?
How much better of are the couple if they "actually" split up, as opposed to pretend to.
It's abit measleading the way you word it.
Anon, the offical DWP TBMT figures say that they gain around £200 a week better in benefits if they officially split up.
If you want to factor in the extra rent that Dad would have to pay of he actually moved out, that's your call.
Here's an observation which I'm sure others will have noticed down their way too... *
Drive around your local stock-broker (footballer) belt and you'll see the large houses and mansions festooned with lights on the outside. Drive in the middle-class suburbs and you'll perhaps glimpse a low wattage bulb glowing in a porch and little else. Take a trip through (or as near as you dare) the council estate and you'll spy every room, upstairs and down, lit up like electricity is free. You'll also often see windows wide open, even on the coldest of nights!
Is anyone surprised by these observations... ?
* Clearly I have few hobbies during the winter months ;-)
Post a Comment