Laurie Penny

Pop culture and radical politics with a feminist twist

This divorce tax is emotional terrorism

Persuading poor people to stay married eases the strain on housing stocks and provides a modesty slip for inequality.

By Laurie Penny Published 17 January 2011 15:29

The denial of compassion is big business for this government. Under the coming austerity package, which includes a de facto large tax break for bankers, single mothers will be punished more than any other group in society, save those with severe disabilities. Roll that sentence around your mouth and see how bitter it tastes.

This month, expected plans by the Tories to charge separating couples to use the Child Support Agency - essentially a divorce tax for parents - have hit the news. Put this in the context of tax credits and housing benefit cuts that will force many single mothers out of their homes and leave hundreds of thousands more in penury, the removal of legal aid services that allow women to leave abusive husbands without threatening their children's safety, and cuts to front-line public services that will leave more than a million women jobless, and it is hard not to see the scheme as an attack on women dressed up in the bad, Thatcherite drag of think-of-the-children-ism.

What the coalition has just done has made it all but illegal for women earning much under £25,000 a year to leave their husbands. Why? Because it wilfully misunderstands the purpose of the welfare state. In The Pinch, written at the height of Tory propagandising against single and working mothers, David Willetts, who is now a cabinet minister, laments: "A welfare system that was originally designed to compensate men for loss of earnings is slowly and messily redesigned to compensate women for the loss of men."

This is untrue. The welfare state was brokered at a time of high employment when many women were raising children alone because of wartime bereavement. It was there to protect women, working unpaid, from destitution, and was later expanded to allow women with children the option of independence from men. That painfully won independence has just been kneecapped.

Think of the children

The line we are usually spun is that marriage is good for kids, but anyone who grew up with parents guilt-tripped into staying together "for the sake of the children" will understand why decades of research has failed to prove any causative, rather than correlative, link between parents staying married and children growing up happy. The notion that marriage, which only ceased to be understood as a deal to protect property within the past century, magically creates loving relationships through the power of a legally binding document is just propaganda.

Furthermore, it's quite possible that couples forced to stick together because of the financial threat of this new divorce tax might not go on to create a happy little house on the prairie together.

None of this matters to the coalition. The real reason behind the government's crusade to "recognise marriage in the tax system" is breathtakingly cynical: it's about saving money. Persuading poor people to stay married eases the strain on housing stocks and provides a modesty slip for rising inequality; rich couples can still divorce as they please.

This financial intimidation of women with families has nothing to do with the welfare of children and less still to do with "family values". It is a simple cash-grab, dressed up in the language of moral manipulation. This intimate micromanagement of the personal relationships of the poor is a shameless about-face for a party that accused Labour of instituting a nanny state.

The sheer hypocrisy of withdrawing welfare only to shrink the state small enough to fit into people's bedrooms, and the cruelty of playing on women's guilty fear of being bad parents in order to force them to swallow Thatcherite benefit cuts have nothing to do with child welfare.

It's emotional terrorism, and any government should be above it.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Laurie Penny

81 comments

Sun, 2011-01-30 05:05 — msn weather (not verified)

Nice work Brian you obviously put a lot of work into it. Lets hope 2010 is as fruitful for you.

Wed, 2011-01-19 17:35 — stuart (not verified)

well said nick.at least some commen sense in coming into this debate now.

Thu, 2011-01-20 09:23 — Nick (not verified)

Mr D: Soluble Paracetamol will work wonders for the hangover!

Wed, 2011-01-19 18:44 — JoyM (not verified)

The divorce rate has skyrocketed in the last two decades because gender equality laws have permitted more women to earn enough money to leave their husbands, not because of an explosion of immorality. Despite this fact, studies (in the U.S. at least) prove that the majority of women suffer financially after divorce and the majority of men do better--even taking child support into consideration. Why? Because men still earn more than women.

Governments use tax codes to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. It's clear that this new fee is meant to discourage divorce. Your government is taking into consideration only one side of the equation: the money they can save now by not having to support poor mothers and their children. They're ignoring the cost in prosecuting and incarcerating abusive husbands (that's what happens when a fighting couple stay together), the cost of providing shelter to women fleeing abusive situations, the cost created by the unstable or criminal children who are sometimes produced by violent homes. There will be a cost either way. I'd choose the option that produces the happier outcome.

Wed, 2011-01-19 21:31 — Luddite (not verified)

Nick you don't have to constantly suck on the tit of state dependency.

Thu, 2011-01-20 22:14 — stuart (not verified)

i like laurie pennys new pic on her blog,,she looks like a new woman and short hair always makes a woman look more feisty and intelligent

Thu, 2011-01-20 22:17 — helen_back

But still quite different to what she looks like in real life..

Thu, 2011-01-20 23:01 — helen_back

Hahahaha... Ermmmm nope. I'm old enough to be her mother. And happy with the skin I'm in !

Thu, 2011-01-20 23:02 — Nick (not verified)

Buckskins, you leave Helen alone, she's got no reason to be jealous! That's right isn't it Helen? Now will you get yourselves over to the article about cuts in front line public services and promote the role of the Legal Aid worker? Come on :-)

Tue, 2011-01-18 18:59 — stuart (not verified)

true ehtch tee,,and i will go one step further,,you name me one couple in history that has been happily married and i will award them the nobel peace prize.

Thu, 2011-01-20 00:10 — watchman (not verified)

"[It] was later expanded to allow women with children the option of independence from men."

This attitude really bothers me. If you want independence from men, all power to you. But why should this choice be offered to you at taxpayer expense?

Why do so many women think the government should become an alternative husband, no matter how great the expense?

The word "independent" which is so often thrown about by feminists, is supposed to be the opposite of "dependent". What you really want is to be deregulated. That is, you still want men to provide you with protection and financial support, but you want any reciprocal obligations on you removed.

Stand on your own two feet if you want independence. There's a thousand more important things taxpayer money could be spent on than funding your lifestyle choices.

Tue, 2011-01-18 19:06 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

The Tory-Libdem government could hardly do anything else.
'Stay-together' is a policy it must follow. Not unlike the inviolable marriage ties of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
Surely, this Con-Libdem arrangement was blessed and created by the Monarch and Her advisors. Certainly, some civil service flunkeys were involved. But this is ever the case.
Can you imagine the fight that would ensue if a separation ever came about.
The 'little woman' would be treated horribly - even her own children would hold 'her' responsible. Of course, there is the pre-nup. Rules out 'gold-diggers', no doubt'.
In this case, the government leads by example. Bad example, maybe. But they've got to stick it out!

Henry VIII

Thu, 2011-01-20 23:31 — helen_back

No Nick .. None at all ! I shall have a look, but Question Time is about to start :-)

Thu, 2011-01-20 23:32 — helen_back

Hmmm would help if I knew where I was looking..

Thu, 2011-01-20 01:37 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@Nick: My opposition to government has nothing to do with one experience which incidentally I don't regard as bad. It is more to do with the fact that the government in the UK used to take about 40% of my wage in tax and NI contribution. And then the government would spend it on other people. I don't mind being taxed a small amount for roads, education etc. However I object to it being spent on people who use the benefit system for their own private lifestyle choice. I can't understand why my money is taken from me and given to divorced couples in the form of legal representation.

If one of the couple has all the wealth and wont give it up then obviously some sort of legal deal is needed. But why not charge the couple's estate for the legal representation instead of the taxpayer? I'm sure this would be a big incentive for the squabbling couple to come to an agreement without state funded legal recourse.

When people say the government should do different things it means that people will have to be taxed more. It means that money is taken from them and given to someone else. It is a form of theft.

When I worked in Japan the income tax was about 7% and the sales tax 3%. I liked the Japanese government. It meant that I and my wife could save enough money to buy a detached house outright in leafy London within five years. It meant that I was no longer a slave to a mortgage, it meant freedom.

Anyone who advocates more government spending and more taxation to me is an enemy of freedom.

Fri, 2011-01-21 00:12 — stuart (not verified)

helen, lauries old pic made her look like some hippie camping out at glastonbury,,her new pic makes her more professional and party going,,i dont like sexism,but most women on the left are a pretty unkempt ugly lot..you cant say that about laurie penny and her new image..

Fri, 2011-01-21 00:25 — Nick (not verified)

Helen, hmmmmmm.....Tales from the frontline?

Boy, is QT funny tonight!

Thu, 2011-01-20 02:14 — Nick (not verified)

Mrs D: "But why not charge the couple's estate for the legal representation instead of the taxpayer? "

They do, it's called the Statutory Charge, did you not read my post? And they charge interest on it too.

Divorce is generally a little deeper than mere 'squabbles' by the way.

Fri, 2011-01-21 00:27 — helen_back

I don't like sexism, BUT.. Tut tut Stuart !

Fri, 2011-01-21 00:29 — helen_back

It is funny ... I think George may spontaneously combust any time soon !!

Fri, 2011-01-21 00:43 — Nick (not verified)

Helen, move to 'Tales from the Frontline' and collect take a card from the community chest: Go now!

Oh yes Catman was on form but spellbound was even more hysterical when it came to NHS reform!

Thu, 2011-01-20 04:53 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Does the statutory charge cover all the legal costs?

Thu, 2011-01-20 08:35 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Actually Nick, you're right I didn't read your comment properly... I was really pissed last night and really hungover this morning.

Thu, 2011-01-20 11:11 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

I'm cured now. A swimming pool helps just as much as tablets. You should get yourself a pool. Our pool is in near constant use. We have loads of parties where kids are the focus, some are drunken, some like today, coffee, cake, pies and cheese. Because there are no near neighbours, as well as a brilliant outlook, and the pool is nice, its really popular in the summer. We're going away next week and about 8 couples are invited to use our pool whenever they want. So there'll be parties here when we're on holiday! The weather is perfect, low 30Cs, no humidity and clear blue skies.

One thing that may be true is that people get divorced because they are able to get more benefits. Two separate entities get more than one married one. Perhaps the government is trying to close that 'loophole'. Maybe it was case of many people divorcing in order to get more benefits.

Thu, 2011-01-20 11:15 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Hey, I've just seen Laurie's new picture. WOW!

Sun, 2011-01-23 00:24 — Seaman T

A few serious comments excepted.
Is this what's become of the New Statesman, once the flagship publication of Britain's left wing elite.
Now a refuge for sad pervs and naughty ignorant boys who seem to think an end to class means no manners or public decency, no class at all.
No wonder the posh boys of the right are winning on all fronts, hands down. It always was an uneven fight, even when the enemy within had the brains to keep quiet.

Fri, 2011-01-21 03:32 — hyde_park_floozy (not verified)

don't know much about divorce because i don't intend to ever get married, but the new picture is superb laurie!!

i love the way it shows the light on one side of the face, lifting people out of poverty and giving them hope, but there is also darkness on the other side turning away, ready to combat the conservative forces of the capitalist establishment.

who is the jacket made by? is the fabric angora velour?? i want start dressing like laurie! ^__^

Fri, 2011-01-21 05:09 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@hyde_park: The jacket is made from illegally shot panda mixed with cute white baby seal, and designed by the Klu Klux Klan (notice the invisible white hood). Her hair is cut by a renowned Lesbian hairdresser who thinks all women should have shortish hair so as to give the impression of unavailable womanhood.

The most remarkable part of her outfit is the low cut nature of the jacket. One wonders what was going through Laurie's mind when she agreed to wear a jacket that revealed her lacy black undergarments.

Fri, 2011-01-21 21:17 — Terry, Norfolk (not verified)

A genuine volunteer based marriage councelling service would be of enormous value to couples. Relate is little more than a joke, and when they quibble about finding you/ stuffing you in to a Friday slot at 4pm.(Hello-goodbye-give me £40) You know who's there with integrity and who is there for the cash. Confirmed
by not so much a 60 second follow up teleohone call.Can someone shut their fund off totally, and let the WRVS have a go.

Sun, 2011-01-23 03:32 — stuart (not verified)

what you need is a sense of humour bypass seaman t.what is wrong with a bit of fun now and again added to serious politacal debate on the issues that affect us all,,shall we all be misery guts and poe faced,,i enjoy a bit of banter with mr divine and other priggs now and again who come in this blog,,do you all want us to be constantly depressed on prozac seaman t..get a life man.

Tue, 2011-01-18 22:49 — stuart (not verified)

women love me ehtch tee and belive me as a liberatarian i am at the forefront of equality for women and feminist rights,,but what i have stated is the reality of life unless your living of the planet uranus..

Tue, 2011-01-18 23:03 — stuart (not verified)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXsmyLtpxlA,,,a song for happily married lovers.

Fri, 2011-07-08 18:10 — Mr Danger

"which includes a de facto large tax break for bankers"

Does it?

Mon, 2011-01-17 18:28 — Oliver (not verified)

medical model: "save those with severe disabilities."

social model: "save those severely disabled people."

Mon, 2011-01-17 17:28 — George (not verified)

I don't quite follow your point here Laurie.

If the government plan to charge for the CSA's services this means more separating couples will choose to come to their own arrangements which will keep more money in the couple and lose less to the Treasury. From memory only 2% of the money collected by the CSA is passed to women, the rest goes back to the Treasury in the form of compensated benefit reduction.

You're right to say couples staying together reduce strain on public services. Maybe they are due a few quid back for that, but let's expand that to all couples, married, cohabiting, gay, straight, whatever.

There used to be a Married Man's Tax Allowance. Norman Lamont abolished it.

I don't see why you think this is financial intimidation of women. It is men who are financially worse off after divorce, often working to support their ex who stays at home for life. Divorce should be a clean break with no commitments on either party unless there are children to consider. Then women can be treated as equals.

Fri, 2011-01-21 11:27 — Seaman T

Compassion is great, but so is personal accountability.
Fair judgement involves both.
Why should the celibate taxpayer have to pay for the sexual prevarications of every fickle f....r?

Mon, 2011-01-17 18:03 — Des Demona (not verified)

What next from this shower of idiots? A fee to HMRC to process your tax or VAT returns?
Any money the CSa recovers is knocked off the benefits paid - that is tax enough.

Sun, 2011-01-23 12:27 — v wharton (not verified)

If you want relationships to work, then men need to weed themselves off looking at violent porn and start interacting with their families in a more healthy way. A large proportion of men can't really put into an institution that they spend a large part of their leisure time looking at material that is all about abusing other members of that same institution. Address that hypocrisy and they might have some chance of becoming an integrated part of the team.

Mon, 2011-01-17 18:55 — Lou (not verified)

It is emotional terrorism and so is the change in legal aid.

Legal aid for custody battles is an essential where suitability for access and custody needs to be ascertained. It seems this government doesn't believe in the right of a parent to protect their child from abuse, be it emotional, mental, physical or sexual, through legal measures in a family court.

Any money they save through their legal aid changes will be swallowed up in the costs of police and social services involvement regarding children at risk. The price paid by the child or the parent though may be too much to bear.

Thu, 2011-01-20 14:43 — Happily Married (not verified)

Yes AI it is "THEIR" relationship so why should "I" have to pay for them to end it.

and Stuart you are simply wrong most marriages dont end up in divorvces - fact

Thu, 2011-01-20 14:49 — Jamie1

@Happily Married

You might be happily married yourself, I assume, but most marriages do in fact end in divorce. Around 2/3's in fact, hence the reason for the government to insist on this laughably naive tax.

Wed, 2011-01-19 03:28 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@stuart: So you say 'women love you'! Are they queuing up at your door banging away and shouting, 'oh stuart I love you'. I'm surprised that your front door isn't shredded to bits from women tearing their nails on it in desperation. 'Must get my hands on stuart' is the next rallying cry from deepest Hackney.

Mon, 2011-01-17 19:06 — Al (not verified)

George:

"...couples staying together reduce strain on public services. Maybe they are due a few quid back for that..."

Or maybe they're due some basic human dignity instead. You know, like the right to terminate THEIR relationship without being punished for it by the government. I know which I'd prefer.

I'm sick and tired of the whole marriage-fetish thing in policy. If two informed, consenting adults really want to stare at each other's gradually-sagging faces over the cornflakes for the next 20 years, that's their decision. I mean, don't ask me to explain WHY anyone would want to do that, but I respect their right to make the choice. But the state has no business institutionalising itself in anyone's relationships, any more than organised religion does--contract-wise, tax-wise or any other-wise. Far more social problems would be avoided if people weren't pressured towards marriage in the first place.

Mon, 2011-01-17 19:08 — JJJJS (not verified)

Cue eye-bleeding stupidity in 5, 4, 3, 2...

WAAAAAAH MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!

Wed, 2011-01-19 06:13 — john (not verified)

"This month, expected plans by the Tories to charge separating couples to use the Child Support Agency - essentially a divorce tax for parents"

Why shouldn't they pay for it ?
They are quite happy to pay for their lawyers and all the court fees.

"the removal of legal aid services that allow women to leave abusive husbands without threatening their children's safety"

Thousands of men are refused legal aid and end up in gaol, while women get to clog up the court system with endless frivolous claims and counter-claims in divorce cases.
But that's okay, isn't it, because they're "only men" ?

Thu, 2011-01-20 15:25 — Happily Married (not verified)

@jamie - yes I am and in fact they dont , indeed the rate is declining, is at a 21 year low

Tue, 2011-01-25 19:05 — In_Negative (not verified)

"decades of research has failed to prove any causative, rather than correlative, link between parents staying married and children growing up happy. "

Say, like in the case of the causal link between page 3 and violence?

*coughs*

...Just saying...

And what the hell's happenin' with the photo?! I turn my back for 5 minutes and you've become a "professional"!

Wed, 2011-01-19 07:43 — Luddite (not verified)

'moral manipulation' The left know all about 'moral manipulation' where do you find these words? Why should the state pay for squabbling couples? The institution of marriage is the bed rock of a stable society and should be defended.

'The sheer hypocrisy of withdrawing welfare only to shrink the state small enough to fit into people's bedrooms, and the cruelty of playing on women's guilty fear of being bad parents in order to force them to swallow Thatcherite benefit cuts have nothing to do with child welfare'. Strange..

Mon, 2011-01-17 19:51 — Jaz (not verified)

JJJJS? Hahahhahaha! Awesome! much live!

Mon, 2011-01-17 20:24 — Naomi (not verified)

I just cannot believe this latest attack on vulnerable women. The funny thing is that anyone who has had to deal with the CSA knows they are the most hopeless, inefficient 'service' ever devised. Any sane person goes out of their way to avoid them so charging for the privilege is insane.

I know a lot of women who have stayed in unhappy relationships largely due to fear of what the coalition might have in store for single mothers. Any man bleating about how hard he works so he can throw a few crumbs to the woman who bore his kids and lazes about raising them can fuck off.