This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/29/tory-marriage-tax-credit-wedding

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
This Tory tax allowance is just a marriage of convenience This Tory tax allowance is just a marriage of convenience
(about 21 hours later)
It is autumn, and David Cameron speaks of love; it must be party conference. I would have hoped that after section 28 and its cruel, self-hating struggle to accept that homosexuality is not a moral defect, the Conservative party had ceased to consider one kind of love superior to another kind, and thus to recognise it in the tax system, which is their own personal whinny of desire, but it is not so. And thus, eight years after Cameron first suggested it, the marriage tax allowance (ooh!) arrives. That is a long walk up the aisle for any poor, palpitating policy, but there it is – love will be rewarded by the state, if she is faithful. How extremely un-Tory of her.It is autumn, and David Cameron speaks of love; it must be party conference. I would have hoped that after section 28 and its cruel, self-hating struggle to accept that homosexuality is not a moral defect, the Conservative party had ceased to consider one kind of love superior to another kind, and thus to recognise it in the tax system, which is their own personal whinny of desire, but it is not so. And thus, eight years after Cameron first suggested it, the marriage tax allowance (ooh!) arrives. That is a long walk up the aisle for any poor, palpitating policy, but there it is – love will be rewarded by the state, if she is faithful. How extremely un-Tory of her.
There are many objections to this policy, which will enable lower rate taxpayers (up to £42,285 in 2015-16) to use £1,000 of their spouse's or civil partner's unclaimed allowance, so it will largely benefit part-time workers and stay-at-home mothers, who will receive perhaps an added £4 a week. The least important is that it allowed Cameron to ruminate on love, and even "sacrifice", in the Daily Mail, which ought to leave readers giggling. This, we should remember, is a newspaper that thinks the removal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers is the principle injustice of the age of austerity. Even so, politicians hinting at their personal "happiness" may be disgusting, but it is not a party political issue – every baby bump, no matter its allegiance, must be stroked in the rush for politicians not to appear abnormal. We must move on. There are many objections to this policy, which will enable lower rate taxpayers (up to £42,285 in 2015-16) to use £1,000 of their spouse's or civil partner's unclaimed allowance, so it will largely benefit part-time workers and stay-at-home mothers, who will receive perhaps an added £4 a week. The least important is that it allowed Cameron to ruminate on love, and even "sacrifice", in the Daily Mail, which ought to leave readers giggling. This, we should remember, is a newspaper that thinks the removal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers is the principal injustice of the age of austerity. Even so, politicians hinting at their personal "happiness" may be disgusting, but it is not a party political issue – every baby bump, no matter its allegiance, must be stroked in the rush for politicians not to appear abnormal. We must move on.
Slightly more important is the objection that the campaign to create the allowance was led by Tim Loughton MP, a man who values committed relationships so highly he tried to derail the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. From this I surmise that the true aim of the marriage tax allowance is to make the outside world look more like the inside of Loughton's head, which may be comforting for him but is inexplicable to those who do not draw their conclusions about marriage from a doctored photograph on the back of a cereal packet.Slightly more important is the objection that the campaign to create the allowance was led by Tim Loughton MP, a man who values committed relationships so highly he tried to derail the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. From this I surmise that the true aim of the marriage tax allowance is to make the outside world look more like the inside of Loughton's head, which may be comforting for him but is inexplicable to those who do not draw their conclusions about marriage from a doctored photograph on the back of a cereal packet.
Even in Loughton's exploding floral universe, with its bells and bubbles and Boden-smelted ecstasies, £4 a week will not send previously feckless lovers stampeding to church or turn a previously vicious spouse into a loving one, or a bad parent into a good one. No one, even on the outer fringes of Ukip, is that stupid. Stability, an ambivalent thing in any case, breeds marriage; marriage does not breed stability – and if Loughton lifted his eyes from Mills & Boon's A Bride for the Taking, he would know it.Even in Loughton's exploding floral universe, with its bells and bubbles and Boden-smelted ecstasies, £4 a week will not send previously feckless lovers stampeding to church or turn a previously vicious spouse into a loving one, or a bad parent into a good one. No one, even on the outer fringes of Ukip, is that stupid. Stability, an ambivalent thing in any case, breeds marriage; marriage does not breed stability – and if Loughton lifted his eyes from Mills & Boon's A Bride for the Taking, he would know it.
The most serious objection, however, is one of tone. This is customary from a government that rules largely by rhetoric, either benevolent or disgusted. It sets one love above another in the British tax system and ignores the absence of love entirely. This is morally repulsive, and has the equally disturbing effect of making innocent columnists sound like Barry Manilow's recently sacked lyricist.The most serious objection, however, is one of tone. This is customary from a government that rules largely by rhetoric, either benevolent or disgusted. It sets one love above another in the British tax system and ignores the absence of love entirely. This is morally repulsive, and has the equally disturbing effect of making innocent columnists sound like Barry Manilow's recently sacked lyricist.
For instance, single mothers, already beleaguered – as a group among the poorest in Britain – will not benefit because they are not married. I can hear Jane Austen sobbing from her bank note, in a choir with Iain Duncan Smith and the owners of upscale dating agencies. They are not married, so there will be no tax break for Miss Bates, but there will be one for Mrs Collins. And, should Mrs Collins be abandoned by Mr Collins, who then takes a second Mrs Collins, there will be no tax break for the first Mrs Collins either. This will not surprise anyone who has watched the dedicated Tory campaign to make women poorer – unless they are dependent on men. Widows, and widowers too, lose out; Mrs Bates is equally screwed by this government. I hope she haunts Loughton.For instance, single mothers, already beleaguered – as a group among the poorest in Britain – will not benefit because they are not married. I can hear Jane Austen sobbing from her bank note, in a choir with Iain Duncan Smith and the owners of upscale dating agencies. They are not married, so there will be no tax break for Miss Bates, but there will be one for Mrs Collins. And, should Mrs Collins be abandoned by Mr Collins, who then takes a second Mrs Collins, there will be no tax break for the first Mrs Collins either. This will not surprise anyone who has watched the dedicated Tory campaign to make women poorer – unless they are dependent on men. Widows, and widowers too, lose out; Mrs Bates is equally screwed by this government. I hope she haunts Loughton.
Had the Tories been kinder in office, this policy would only be a minor idiocy, a wedding gift from the state to happy conformists, a contribution towards the £20,000 or so they will spend on a wedding – perhaps we could have a pile of HMRC balloons instead of cash? But since they have already taken from those least able to afford it, and given to those who can, it looks less like generosity than a desire to place citizens in a synthetic hierarchy of morals, and then reward or punish them accordingly. Thus the leadership smiles on marriage from its cloud; an expression of the Tory creed that anything, even love, can be monetised to endure.Had the Tories been kinder in office, this policy would only be a minor idiocy, a wedding gift from the state to happy conformists, a contribution towards the £20,000 or so they will spend on a wedding – perhaps we could have a pile of HMRC balloons instead of cash? But since they have already taken from those least able to afford it, and given to those who can, it looks less like generosity than a desire to place citizens in a synthetic hierarchy of morals, and then reward or punish them accordingly. Thus the leadership smiles on marriage from its cloud; an expression of the Tory creed that anything, even love, can be monetised to endure.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.