YouGov has the Tories ten points ahead as the Tories unveil their marriage tax plans

Moraymint

Way to go.

Silent Hunter

Not a good day for Labour.

No wonder Gordon Brown looked glum today.

JohnAnt

Yeah, but now we all have to get married, right? To gay as well as to a straight person, is that it?
I'm getting confused.
OTOH, why don't the Tories just get the gov.uk out of our lives and leave us to decide? We might even want to stay single, until the divorce laws are reformed...

Dirty Euro

It is good news for those who hate equality.
Now taxes well go up on working and lower middle class people. Taxes will be cut for the rich. A word of inequality and social insurance well d0one devil worshipers.
I ask you people why do you hater working and lower middle class people so much?

David Lindsay

The low-paid should be helped as the low-paid.

The marital union of one man and one woman is a public good uniquely and in itself, and the taxation system, among so very many other instruments of public policy, should recognise that fact. It should recognise marriage as a unique public good, to which civil partnerships are not comparable. And it should recognise marriage as a public good in itself, whether or not there are children, a related but different public good of which other forms of recognition rightly exist.

With no legal requirement to be consummated, civil partnerships are unjustly restricted to unrelated same-sex couples. This iniquity must end. When it does, then some fiscal recognition of the public good that civil partnerships would then be might very well be appropriate. But not before. And that iniquity must end anyway.

Tim W

Considering they had to do it because of what Cameron said years ago, this marriage proposal is cleverly done. Personally I agree with the point that married couples shouldn't be 'worse off' than singles/ unmarried couples. But to my knowledge single people aren't exactly helped by the tax system as it is.

The way it is argued baffles me. I can accept that evidence shows that children are better brought up in a married home. However, that has nothing to do with a tax break and doesn't suggest it is the solution. All it means is that the 'problem parents' (unmarried) are relatively worse off than they were before - surely increasing the problem for their children?

It may play well in the polls or it might not. As he had to do it then keeping it to just £550m is sensible.

I would rather Cameron had done what Clegg did a while back and say that because of the recession, all tax and spending plans are off and we're starting from scratch. That way he wouldn't have been lumbered with the 'Only for the priviledged few' jibe from labour about IHT etc, either, which in my opinion is why the poll lead is not as high as it could be.

Simon Orr

Excellent, I didn't think they were going to be able to afford it. Real substance behind the broken society message and can only be good for children. I must declare huge self interest in this matter, never knew how good barrelled pork tasted.

Alan Cadwallender

When Civil Partnerships first came into existence we were assured that they were not the same as marriage. Consequently, if the Tories truly believe in mending "broken Britain," and equally truly believe in the institution of marriage, why are they planning to extend married tax breaks to gay couples, thereby saying that Civil Partnerships are the same as marriage in every respect?

wrinkled weasel

You link took me to the BBC News live election stream. It appears to be unmitigated Labour Propaganda judging by the contributions. This one is a gem:

"As he finishes his speech, Mr Brown gets a rapturous round of applause and is now greeting party activists. In the background, the song your "love lifts me higher and higher" is playing in the hall."

It kind of makes reporting of North Korea's Dear Leader, Kim Jong il look modest and reticent.

What are they on at the BBC? Oh yes - well over £100,000 a year.

Silent Hunter

Dirty Euro:

"I ask you people why do you hater working and lower middle class people so much"?

Well; for me, I "hater" their inability to speak proper like wot I does.

Oh yeah . . . and their ludicrous faith in an overtly corrupt political party because their parents voted for them or simply because they are too feckless to care about anyone but themselves.

Ben Stevenson

Marriage is good for society. Stable relationships with family save the state billions of pounds each year in social care as people help their own family, rather than them needing social services or the NHS to do it.

Therefore, although in general I am not keen on tax credits making the tax system increasingly complicated, I can accept this idea.

TrevorsDen

Why should not the decent and needy get a little bit of help.

Has anybody seen the truly awful staged photos of Brown in The Times (I presume they are done to be published elsewhere). The last time I saw somebody looking like that he was wearing long johns in a Littlewoods catalogue.

Stephen Alexander

The low-paid should be helped as the low-paid.

The marital union of one man and one woman is a public good uniquely and in itself, and the taxation system, among so very many other instruments of public policy, should recognise that fact. It should recognise marriage as a unique public good, to which civil partnerships are not comparable. And it should recognise marriage as a public good in itself, whether or not there are children, a related but different public good of which other forms of recognition rightly exist.

With no legal requirement to be consummated, civil partnerships are unjustly restricted to unrelated same-sex couples. This iniquity must end. When it does, then some fiscal recognition of the public good that civil partnerships would then be might very well be appropriate. But not before. And that iniquity must end anyway.

daniel maris

Ten points ahead?

Hmmm, I wonder whether we might see at this election a reverse effect of the old "lying Tories" factor in 1992 (back then people wouldn't admit they voted Tory, now perhaps people don't want to admit they vote Gordon?).

We will see but I will be surprised if the Tory win is anything like that margin. I think you have to factor in the likelihood that Lib Dems will do better by a few points than polls suggest (they nearly always do - probably because the "ditherers" turn to them when they find themselves in the polling booth). I also think UKIP is going to show better than polls suggest when the vote comes, particularly in areas where they can build on their EU vote.

And I am betting on the TV debates favouring Gordon Brown to the extent that he may be able to make Cameron look inexperienced.

I would be betting on a slim Tory margin but no overall majority.

Derek

Dirty Euro

"those who hate equality" ... that would not of course be the Labour government of the last thirteen years who in implementing "the project" consistently betrayed its original socialist principles, would it?

But, as a man of the people, what is it with you and equality anyway? You think I should expect you and Heifetz to be as good as each other on the fiddle? Or legislate for it? So far your comrades have been on the fiddle for 13 years, but no melody yet.

THX1138

So married couple where husband earns 40k PA and wife stays at home get Tory tax break but married couple both earning 10K don't.. And this is supossed to make sense?

Mark

Dirty Euro, *sigh*

The fundamental truth is that society should reward those behaviours that are desireable.

Sadly, you are so blinkered to probably don't realise that Labour has put party before country for years, which is clearly why Labour likes to ensure it's vote by welfare slavery,engorged public sector and pandering to every possible minority for "fairness" headlines, and to be seen making "tough" decisions. For example this one must have been very "tough": http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/2010/04/if-you-subsidise-certain-behaviour.html

And clearly all those who oppose are "devils" to be despised. Not debated with, despised. Yours is not a political party, it's a quasi-religion the blind faith in which has spoiled this country.

Drymen

It is disappointing that this proposal covers 'civil partnerships' as well as marriage. This makes it harder for many to believe that Cameron is a Conservative.

mitch

About time too, Blair and Brown abolished this the year after I got married followed by the tax break on Profit Related pay, cost me nearly £30 a week 12yrs ago.

davefromluton

I really don't see the point of this, particularly as the amount to individuals is relatively small.
The country is broke and we can't afford more handouts. Furthermore it gives the wrong impression about the Tory attitude to what should be a personal decision.
In short a mistake

Fragmeister

Just seen Ed Balls pontificating on how the money for the tax break will come from schools and children. How does he know? Does he write the Conservative party manifesto? Perhaps thepublic are finding the constant Labour knows what the Tories will do attack a bit of a bore. Where are the Labour policies? What will they actually do?

Fees Office Clerk

New Labour hates families.

New Labour wants the State to bring up children!

TrevorsDen

Its easy to see who the rabids are who actually really DO hate society.

A little bit of help for people who are married - and they start to foam at the mouth.

What a pathetic bunch of 'too many tweets'.

Ivy Eileen

David Lindsay @ 11.19a.m. ? Stephen Alexander @ 12.55 a.m. ?? Er .....

oldtimer

I hear that Mr Clegg has dismissed this idea as "patronising drivel" and the Mr Cable has described the business backers of the Conservative NI proposal as "nauseating". Am I alone in thinking that this is an odd way to fight an election, to win votes and influence people? Unless of course the aim is to attract the Labour core vote. Then I suppose it might make sense.

Moriarty

Daniel, you are absolutely correct. Nobody I have met will admit that they are going to vote Labour.

Billericay Dave

This could also help benefit fraud, how many people live together and still claim child tax credits ? so this could end up self funding !

Peter From Maidstone

THX1138, a couple both earning 10k are already liable to lots of breaks. Marriage should always be supported in any society as a good in itself - as statistics clearly show. There should be incentives and encouragements to both marry and remain married. I am all for this tax break. Although of course there should be less tax all round in any case.

Neil McEvoy

All these thresholds - £44k for marriage break, £100k for personal allowance, employee's NIC limit - make the tax system far too complicated. Furthermore, they're unfair to rich bar stewards like me.

Snowman

David Lindsay & Stephen Alexander: I’ll vote for you, my lovely Siamese twins.

The proposal amounts to mere tinkering, and doesn’t appear to benefit those families that need it most as THX1138 points out. It also hoists civil partnerships to the level of marriage. A mistake that.

Two aspects of sex are undeniably true. We reproduce by it, and we enjoy it. The State should have no say in the latter, only the former. Like it or not, civil partnerships do nothing at all for the reproductive function of the species. No societal good can accrue from benefiting them fiscally, it’s just a waste of resources. One can hardly justify their equal treatment with marriage on the basis that partnership couples may adopt children since it isn’t inconceivable that some of the children brought up in such an arrangements may not like it when they grow up.

Nothing short of recognising traditional marriage as the best building block of a society that wants to avoid the sort of problems we are faced with will do. Partnerships are fine, but the State shouldn’t bestow any fiscal advantages on them, but deploy the resources on heterosexual families with children. This is where our future lies.

Seasurfer1

The banks will apply charges to personal bank accounts as soon as a tax charge of this nature is applied. This is the trigger and excuse the banks are waiting for.

Paddy

Have just seen Ed Balls on Sky News - his eyes were nearly popping out of his head.

They need to concentrate on their own policies instead of knocking the Tories.

Paul B

THX, it does make sense. The persons earning 10k a year will both be using the their PA, whereas in the other couple you cite, only one partner will be using their PA. Thats the point of the change.

Jay Mullett

Mr brown an his useless labour team have got to GO NOW! The country is in a total mess an four more years of him is beyond thinking about. Enough said!!!!!!!!!!