The Staggers 10 April 2010 The Times attacks “worryingly confused” Tory marriage tax plan Is this a tax cut too far for the Conservatives? Print HTML 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. › Election 2010 Lookahead: Saturday 10 April Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. From only £1 per week Subscribe More Related articles The Fire Brigades Union reaffiliates to Labour - what does it mean? John Gray on the future of the state on the NS Podcast Could Labour lose the Oldham by-election?