The Times attacks “worryingly confused” Tory marriage tax plan

Is this a tax cut too far for the Conservatives?

Following three days when National Insurance dominated this economy-laden election campaign, attention now switches to the Tories' marriage tax allowance. Details of the plan have emerged this morning and boil down to this:

  • Four million married couples and those in civil partnerships would qualify for the tax break
  • An eligible couple would be able to transfer £750 in tax allowance from the higher-earning partner to the lower-earning partner
  • The maximum benefit will be £150 a year -- or just under £3 a week
  • The tax break would fall sharply in a marriage where the higher earner is on more than £42,500
  • It will be funded by a tax levied on wholesale lending in the City

The Times, for one, doesn't like it. Here are some choice cuts from this morning's leader:

The Tories propose to recognise marriage in the tax system, paid for by a levy on the banks. This is bad social policy advanced by an arbitrary means.

This is surely no time to be giving money away so that people can just carry on doing what they are already doing, namely being married.

In a long philosophical journey in opposition, the Tories appear to have alighted on moral authoritarianism advanced by economic interventionism. These are the wrong answers.

This policy is worryingly confused. At a time when the main message of the Conservative campaign is that there is no money, it is odd indeed to be offering handouts.

Remember, this is the delivery of a promise made by David Cameron when he was running for the leadership of the party five years ago. For one of the country's most influential -- and broadly politically non-aligned -- newspapers to be so vehemently opposed to a policy so closely associated with the party leader has to be a concern.

Meanwhile, over on the Next Left blog, Sunder Katwala argues that by trying to counter criticism that the tax break would be regressive, the Tories have landed themselves with a confused policy. Katwala notes:

The policy doesn't send a simple "pro-marriage signal" any more.

The core distinction is no longer between the married and the not married.

Instead, the policy now signals that some marriages are valued while others are not.

Some good news for the Conservatives comes in a Harris opinion poll for the Daily Mail. Asking a one-off question, the pollster found that 65 per cent of respondents believe the next government should support marriage by raising tax allowances for married couples, with 35 per cent disagreeing.

But as Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report notes, "It's one of those questions that depend a lot on how it's asked."

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.



Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

Show Hide image

For the first time in my life I have a sworn enemy – and I don’t even know her name

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

Last month, I made an enemy. I do not say this lightly, and I certainly don’t say it with pride, as a more aggressive male might. Throughout my life I have avoided confrontation with a scrupulousness that an unkind observer would call out-and-out cowardice. A waiter could bring the wrong order, cold and crawling with maggots, and in response to “How is everything?” I’d still manage a grin and a “lovely, thanks”.

On the Underground, I’m so wary of being a bad citizen that I often give up my seat to people who aren’t pregnant, aren’t significantly older than me, and in some cases are far better equipped to stand than I am. If there’s one thing I am not, it’s any sort of provocateur. And yet now this: a feud.

And I don’t even know my enemy’s name.

She was on a bike when I accidentally entered her life. I was pushing a buggy and I wandered – rashly, in her view – into her path. There’s little doubt that I was to blame: walking on the road while in charge of a minor is not something encouraged by the Highway Code. In my defence, it was a quiet, suburban street; the cyclist was the only vehicle of any kind; and I was half a street’s length away from physically colliding with her. It was the misjudgment of a sleep-deprived parent rather than an act of malice.

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

I was stung by what someone on The Apprentice might refer to as her negative feedback, and walked on with a redoubled sense of the parental inadequacy that is my default state even at the best of times.

A sad little incident, but a one-off, you would think. Only a week later, though, I was walking in a different part of town, this time without the toddler and engrossed in my phone. Again, I accept my culpability in crossing the road without paying due attention; again, I have to point out that it was only a “close shave” in the sense that meteorites are sometimes reported to have “narrowly missed crashing into the Earth” by 50,000 miles. It might have merited, at worst, a reproving ting of the bell. Instead came a familiar voice. “IT’S YOU AGAIN!” she yelled, wrathfully.

This time the shock brought a retort out of me, probably the harshest thing I have ever shouted at a stranger: “WHY ARE YOU SO UNPLEASANT?”

None of this is X-rated stuff, but it adds up to what I can only call a vendetta – something I never expected to pick up on the way to Waitrose. So I am writing this, as much as anything, in the spirit of rapprochement. I really believe that our third meeting, whenever it comes, can be a much happier affair. People can change. Who knows: maybe I’ll even be walking on the pavement

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood