Three cheers for the marriage tax break

Not because it rewards traditional relationships, because it means less child poverty

Share

It hardly seems two minutes since the Chancellor delivered his Autumn Statement. But this time next week we will be digesting the small print of George Osborne’s 2014 Budget – a pre-election exercise if ever there was one, given that most of its measures will take effect just a month before the country goes to vote. The generally upbeat mood among economists suggests that he may be able to afford some surprise giveaways, while, of course, soberly acknowledging the amount of work there is still to do.

There is one little bauble, though, that we already know about. Well, to some it is a bauble; to others it is an intense irritation. This is the so-called marriage tax break, foreshadowed by Osborne last December. As outlined then, anyone who is married or in a civil partnership and does not use their personal tax-free allowance will be able to transfer £1,000 of it to their earning partner. The value of this tax break is not huge. Any couple qualifying for the new concession stands to be only around £200-a-year better off. But the change has, as David Cameron well appreciates, great symbolic value. It marks the first time for 20 years that marriage will be recognised by the UK tax system.

As such, it is a victory for those who have campaigned over many years against what they see as an injustice. If one half of a couple does not work for whatever reason – small children or disability in the family are common reasons – their personal tax allowance is lost. For the Exchequer it has been irrelevant that the single earner has family responsibilities. The extra costs of children are acknowledged through child benefit.

So far, the size of the so-called marriage tax break makes the victory largely symbolic. But campaigners are cock-a-hoop that the principle has been set. And for many, it is more about principle than cash. They include some church leaders and many stalwarts of the “traditional” family, who regard the institution of marriage as a pillar of a solid society and believe that a government should support it.

This is precisely why the marriage tax break, so-called, also draws such ire, especially from many women. The Government is accused of trying to “bribe” people to get married and, because women are more often the ones who stay at home, of wanting to put women back into the kitchen. “You won’t persuade me to get married for £200 a year,” is a common refrain.

This, though, is not the point – or at least it should not be. The real point is that the independent tax system, as it has operated in the UK for more than 25 years, has some seriously adverse effects. One is that, for many people, it entails a marriage penalty. One-earner, or low-earning, couples can be several thousand pounds a year better-off if they live apart, because tax is assessed  individually and benefits are assessed by household. This encourages dishonesty and has fostered a state known as “living apart together”, which cannot be good for anyone.

It will take a larger transferable allowance than is now envisaged to change this, and recognition for cohabiting as well as marriage. But the “marriage tax break” is grievously misnamed. Far from favouring marriage, it merely starts to redress a costly bias in the tax and benefits system against it.

A second adverse effect is on those, not only women, who stay at home, through necessity or choice. With childcare in the UK so expensive and so poorly organised, there are many who do this anyway. But the strong bias in the tax system is in favour of paid work; only the well-off can really afford to stay at home. This is not about putting women back in the kitchen, it is ensuring that they are not penalised – or are penalised less – for providing the care that the state would otherwise have to provide.

There is though a third adverse effect of individual taxation, which is rarely highlighted but ought to clinch the argument. The failure of the UK tax system to recognise family responsibilities contributes directly to keeping children in poverty. According to the charity Care’s annual update on the taxation of families, the marginal tax rate faced by one-earner families with two children in the UK remains higher than anywhere else in the developed world. This means that it is more difficult for a single earner here to improve the family’s lot by working harder or earning more. The UK and Mexico are the only two medium-sized OECD countries  to have a strictly individual-based tax system. These figures show why most others prefer to tax according to household.

In some ways, it is unfortunate that this comparative paper is published by a Christian charity which has made the “marriage tax break” a cause. Rightly or wrongly, this only reinforces the idea that the change is about moralising, repressing women and recreating outdated notions of family. But Care is not alone in its findings. A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year showed that one-earner couple households accounted for the largest group of children in poverty. Its preferred remedies were different – higher pay, more flexible hours, better childcare – but a change in the tax system would be far simpler. If family-based taxation is good enough for the vast majority of developed countries, it should be good enough for us, too.

Crufs used to be a dog show

Long ago, a harbinger of spring was the newspaper picture of dogs and their owners, making their way up the steps of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre for Crufts. The country’s premier dog show transferred to the National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham more than 20 years ago. Room to expand, easier to get to, more modern accommodation were the justifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accuse me of London-centrism, but I still lament the move. And I lamented it even more this year, seeing the entertainment extravaganza that Crufts has become. Way back, the only distractions from the judging of recognised breeds were the agility and obedience competitions. Now, Crufts has gone all showbiz. There are now far, far more recognised breeds, but anything below “best in show” seems – at least for televisual purposes – to have become secondary.

A whole dog celeb culture has grown up, with the contenders for champion introduced with music and drum rolls like prizefighters. With the end of quarantine (not before time), the show has also been internationalised, so the top dogs meet repeatedly around the world like any global elite.

I half hope that serious dog people will tire of it all and set up their own, alternative, show. Or must we accept that the champion dogs of the future, like British champions of everything else, will find themselves being scored also as entertainers?

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Electrical Engineer

£26500 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company is going through a period o...

Recruitment Genius: Digital Optimisation Executive - Marketing

£30000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: The UK's fastest growing, multi...

Recruitment Genius: Professional Sales Trainee - B2B

£15000 - £30000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: First things first - for the av...

Recruitment Genius: Creative Web and UI Designer

£30000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An experienced creative web and...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

Charles Kennedy: A talented politician and a great friend, with a shared enemy

Alastair Campbell
 

Caitlyn Jenner's first shoot is a victory - but is this really best version of femininity we can aspire to?

Sirena Bergman
On your feet! Spending at least two hours a day standing reduces the risk of heart attacks, cancer and diabetes, according to new research

On your feet!

Spending half the day standing 'reduces risk of heart attacks and cancer'
Liverpool close in on Milner signing

Liverpool close in on Milner signing

Reds baulk at Christian Benteke £32.5m release clause
With scores of surgeries closing, what hope is there for the David Cameron's promise of 5,000 more GPs and a 24/7 NHS?

The big NHS question

Why are there so few new GPs when so many want to study medicine?
Big knickers are back: Thongs ain't what they used to be

Thongs ain't what they used to be

Big knickers are back
Thurston Moore interview

Thurston Moore interview

On living in London, Sonic Youth and musical memoirs
In full bloom

In full bloom

Floral print womenswear
From leading man to Elephant Man, Bradley Cooper is terrific

From leading man to Elephant Man

Bradley Cooper is terrific
In this the person to restore our trust in the banks?

In this the person to restore our trust in the banks?

Dame Colette Bowe - interview
When do the creative juices dry up?

When do the creative juices dry up?

David Lodge thinks he knows
The 'Cher moment' happening across fashion just now

Fashion's Cher moment

Ageing beauty will always be more classy than all that booty
Thousands of teenage girls enduring debilitating illnesses after routine school cancer vaccination

Health fears over school cancer jab

Shock new Freedom of Information figures show how thousands of girls have suffered serious symptoms after routine HPV injection
Fifa President Sepp Blatter warns his opponents: 'I forgive everyone, but I don't forget'

'I forgive everyone, but I don't forget'

Fifa president Sepp Blatter issues defiant warning to opponents
Extreme summer temperatures will soon cause deaths of up to 1,700 more Britons a year, says government report

Weather warning

Extreme summer temperatures will soon cause deaths of up to 1,700 more Britons a year, says government report
LSD: Speaking to volunteer users of the drug as trials get underway to see if it cures depression and addiction

High hopes for LSD

Meet the volunteer users helping to see if it cures depression and addiction
German soldier who died fighting for UK in Battle of Waterloo should be removed from museum display and given dignified funeral, say historians

Saving Private Brandt

A Belgian museum's display of the skeleton of a soldier killed at Waterloo prompts calls for him to be given a dignified funeral