Cameron supports tax breaks for same sex partnerships

David Cameron, just interviewed by Jon Snow for Channel 4 News, has said that any tax break for married couples that the Tories introduce will also benefit gay couples within civil partnerships.

C4's Cathy Newman reported that John Bercow and Tim Yeo are likely to lead any backbench opposition to the plan and that both Oliver Letwin and George Osborne have doubts about the cost of any tax breaks.  The danger for David Cameron of long delaying any announcement on tax breaks for marriage is that Bercow and others may begin to build a block of opposition to the idea.

In his interview Mr Cameron said that Iraq had been "a foreign policy disaster" but the Tories did not support an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal that would only give terrorist insurgents something to shoot at.

11pm: Tomorrow's Times is reporting that some in the shadow cabinet have doubts about the marriage policy although Cornerstone are strongly in support.

Comments

[Edison Smith]

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

No doubt the hard right are going to start a salivation over this, but the fact is it's 2007.

Editor, you're article isn't completely clear. Are you saying Tim Yeo etc would rebel against the policy if it applied to civil partnerships, or because of the cost of the tax breaks idea in general?

[steppenwolff]

I think the whole tax break for being married is a stupid idea. Level the playing field for tax credits and benefits certainly. But a £20 a week thank-you for being married strikes me as a bit strange.

[Ali cat]

I agree completely that any and all tax breaks for married couples MUST also mean civil partnership couples. They usually pay more in tax than hetrosexual couples with two usually in employment. Their marriage is just the same as any other marriage and should not be deferentiated against. This would be a retrograde step in any new legislation.

[Andrew Woodman]

The point of this talked about Tax Break is surely to help out married parents where one parent stays at home to look after the kids, and so their tax allowance is transferred. I don't really see the point of it in any other circumstance than that.

[Chris Palmer]

I agree with Andrew. The tax break should be to help married parents with children, not just married parents.

[Andrew Lilico]

It's unclear what the rationale is intended to be for providing tax breaks for homosexual couples (I mean unclear literally - that's not some rhetorical way of saying that it's obviously a bad idea).

The 1997 Conservative proposal for a transferable tax allowance was to go to anyone with a caring role - people supporting children, or the elderly, and so on. The rationale for this is pretty straightforward.

The IDS proposal appears to have two elements - that divorce leads to poverty for the parties involved, and that children are better raised by two parents. Cameron focused on the latter rationale in his discussions, and thereby seemed to undermine a case for providing the relief to homosexual couples. If the former is to be emphasized, so that the idea of the tax relief is to combat household fission in general (and not merely amongst parents), then, ok, but why then would it not apply to everyone cohabiting? Is the idea to encourage promise-making and thereby encourage staying together. I'm becoming a little hazy where Cameron is going with this, and I think he needs to do some hard thinking pdq, otherwise the whole concept is likely to unravel.

I would recommend that we go for the 1997 scheme - a transferable tax allowance for any officially-sanctioned couple where one of them had a caring role. We might also consider having some additional arrangement for stay-at-home partners, which we would have to argue for separately.

[Ali cat]

I have just read through the 'May survey stats' comments which I missed due to holidays etc. The final comment was from GraemeArcher June 09 at 16.30 in which he asks for views of right wing conservatives - christian- who have attended a civil partnership. In view of the comments above I would like to state in capital letters:- I am (I thought) a traditional tory; 62 years old/young; married/widowed/partnership female; church goer; live in the country; have never been anything all my life but tory; and this year was invited to a civil partnership wedding. It was a very moving experience!!
So for all of you out there who think only married hetrosexual couples are due any benefits (tax breaks) or any other monetry gain I say THINK AGAIN. Every person on this planet needs love to just survive, no love then a meaningless existance in my opinion. All Hail to Civil Partnerships they are marriage just the same but with a different name.

[Karl]

Having read these comments from Mr Cameron i was initially very pleased that he wanted to include same sex civil partnerships in this married couples tax break, as a gay tory myself it struck a note. Having read the comments here i realise that i had got carried away with the spin and i agree with remarks here that it is nothing to do with sexuality. Either it is a tax break for all Couples or for couples who have children, a tax break just for married couples doesn't seem to make sense. It does need to be made absolutely clear who this tax break is for and exactly why.

[RodS]

"Their marriage is just the same as any other marriage and should not be deferentiated against."

This is the crux of the argument , It IS NOT the same - it could not be more different.
Whatever justifications are produced for what is an aberration from the natural order of relationships - it is self-evidently, NOT THE SAME.

[Anglo-Welsh Dragon]

While I can understand why gay couples want to make a public commitment to each other and support them in that the issue of tax breaks is about supporting the best arrangement for bringing up children which is heterosexual marriage. That is not old fashioned bigotry it is statistical fact.

[TomTom]

Cameron handled the interview well and exposed Snow as a shaggy dog....I burst out laughing when I heard Bercow's name mentioned....a man in a permanent state of hesitant defection to Labour.

As for Tim Yeo - the less he says about single parents the better.

All in all Cameron seemed to have a policy at last...one he could justifiably stand on and expand to embrace many of the disasters of Labour years.....he might remind Harriet Harman who it was that had to cut single-parent benefits to meet Treasury targets...so obviously she felt there was inequitable treatment

[TomTom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/36045.stm

Of the 35 per cent of fathers who never lived with the mother, one-third pay nothing towards the child's upkeep, compared with 10 per cent of divorced fathers. It is claimed that regular payment of maintenance encourages single parents to get jobs. Compared with France (82 per cent) and the USA (60 per cent), the UK has one of the lowest employment rates for single parents: 40 per cent of mothers (compared with 65 per cent of married mothers). So 1.1 million (over 70 per cent) with 1.9 million children rely on Income Support, while 330,000 (with 540,000 children) claim Family Credit; most prefer the latter, even though they may still experience hardship.

Over 70 per cent of divorces are initiated by women, and single parent families may be regarded as one of the results of women's lib. In 1975, one-third of all divorces cited adultery; by 1994, it was down to a quarter, nearly twice as many men (37 per cent) as women (22 per cent). On average, one in ten husbands have had an affair in the past five years and one in 20 wives; one in eight upper-class men compared with one in 40 manual workers, possibly through having more opportunities. Mothers are less likely to have affairs; having children does not seem to act as a deterrent on men. But over three- quarters of married men (80 per cent) and women (86 per cent) more or less agree that sex outside marriage is mostly wrong.

Book

[KentishTory]

So Yeo and Berk-ow are to lead some opposition.

Whatever.

[Sasha]

Would be interested to see how the modernising and compassionate Bercow will argue against these ideas.

[Chris Palmer]

I have just realised I should have said: 'The tax break should be to help married parents with children, not just married couples.'

[Peter]

If tax breaks are to be introduced for married couples then I see no good reason to suggest that same sex civil partnerships should be excluded from this and as such applaud DC's announcement. The fact is that such partnerships are still a union between two people, a relationship that the tax break policy is designed to encourage, and given this they should be included in it. An "abberation from the natural order of relationships" should not come into the argument.
I am in agreement with Andrew Woodman; it would be more preferable to see a tax break that benefits parents with children where one parents remains at home given the increased social stability that such a policy would hopefully encourage.
Finally, is the article saying that Tim Yeo and John Bercow are opposed to the tax breaks policy in general or only if it includes same sex civil partnerships?

[Blue Boy]

The thing is, there is something of a moral dimension in this and I am amazed no-one has picked up on it.

Since 1967 in England and Wales, the state has effectively supported gay sex but held up a red flag to long term committed and loving gay relationships. Being gay is not just about sex and it is about time the state recognises and supports this. For too long it has pigeon holed gay people and made what should be a morally acceptable situation difficult and inconvenient. It is about time that the state showed its support for all committed and loving relationships.

[david]

Ah well that's Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchins, Simon Heffer, frothing at the mouth I can hear!

[reality check]

So a widowed mum, working to support 3 kids, will pay more tax than a childless gay couple where 2 works with a toyboy at home? Or a smug married like IDS with Betsy at home?

Who needs help more?

Are we really saying that if peter mandelson had a civil partnership with ronaldo, and only 1 worked, he should pay less tax than a widowed mum in the same job raising 3 kids and paying for childcare?

I am not sure which i find sadder - the self-interest of the middle class 2.2 kids brigade who not only want there breakfast made by their stay at home wife, but want a tax break on top of free child care - or the fact the gay/lesian lobby has such a pc grip on the tory party that the party seems to put pc crap ahead of helping widowed and abandoned mums.

[Peter Coe]

reality check - I'm not sure what your point is.

Surely the philosophical point is that you either believe that all couples, or that no couples, should receive tax advantages from the State. Or, that all families or that no families should receive tax advantages from the State.

I personally favour no State intervention in the former, and State intervention in the latter - it's really nothing to do with gay lobbies or middle class lobbies: no lobbies have invented this current system - it's just where we've ended up. So let's sort it out, and stop blaming fictitious lobbies for your own prejudices.

[Londoner]

If same sex civil partners (they are not married - the law does not call it a marriage as a marriage can only be between a man and a woman and its purpose - in terms of anthropology, sociology and religion is, crudely, to breed) legally adopt children, then they should have the transferable allowance. But giving it to civil partners where one does not work (or to transfer income from higher rate to basic rate tax if one earns more than the other) merely demonstrates the absurdity of allowing this concession to childless married couples.

The simple compromise should be that you can transfer tax allowances between spouses or civil partners if the marriage/partnership has the care of (a) a child or children under 18; (b) a disabled person (strictly defined as one needing a great deal of care) living with them or (c) an elderly person over the age of, say, 75 living with them.

Anything other than that opens a Pandora's box and will unite those who dislike the promotion of marriage for its own sake (rather than for the sake of children) and those who might think that childless gays have enough natural financial advantages as it is. I may be unusual in being in both categories but there are a great number in one or the other.

I still need to read the full report, but where is the evidence that it is of any advantage to the State or society generally for a childless couple to be married?

[Pisaboy]

Wasn;t the whole report based on evidence on 'traditional' married parents? To tag on civil partnerships like this is a bit risky isn't it? There's a lot of evidence to show that children naturally need a male and female parent in their lives, isn't that being explored or is it taboo?

I'd rather a kid was brought up by a stable gay couple than go to a care home etc but why is there no debate on this?

[Afleitch]

A sound extension of the original proposals. I believe that it is right to encourage gay couples to undertake a commitment to stay together and provide for each other and the stability that brings, even though raising children may not be an option for them.

To be blunt, the proposal is simply to encourage gay people to settle down with other gay people with whom they are in love. The genuine love and devotion aspect of a long term gay relationship and the economic hardships that often brought when one partner died or fell ill was one of the reasons for bringing in civil partnerships. That bill was discrete, sensible and dignified and this proposal will be too.

[David]

"the party seems to put pc crap ahead of helping widowed and abandoned mums"

The phrase 'hysterical hyperbole' doesn't even begin......

[reality check]

Peter - what plant do you inhabit?

Do you really think a widowed mum, working to raise 3 kids and paying childcare costs should pay more tax than a childless gay couple where 1 works in the same job? Or a heterosexual couple where 1 works and the other provides childcare? Do you hate widows and abandoned mums? This is section 28 for single mums.

If you think there is no gay lobby you are also smoking Cameron blend as the whole proposal is justified on raising families - so why extend it to childless (as most but not all are) gay couples - because we are too beholden to pc crap to think it through.

[Pete]

Just accept the EU decides what can and can't be done in this area.

[reality check]

"Surely the philosophical point is that you either believe that all couples, or that no couples, should receive tax advantages from the State. Or, that all families or that no families should receive tax advantages from the State."

I want to help families with kids - be the parent(s) single, married, or in a civil partnership.

I don't want to give a tax break just for being married and lucky enough not to be idowed or abandoned.

[ak23566]

As a gay man in a stable long-term relationship I am quite frankly baffled by this policy.

I simply do not see why I should receive a tax break (the amount involved is irrelevant) based on my lifestyle choice. I do not see why any other person (whether single, divorced or simply co-habiting) should subsidise the fact I live with my partner and have undertaken a civil partnership arrangement.

My partner and I are relatively well off. Between us we earn over 80k pa. Due to the fact we co-habit we are able to sub-let one of our properties which adds to our cash-flow and capital. The thought of other people (many less financially secure than us) having to subsidise our already comfortable and somewhat decadent lifestyle, I found quite wrong.

I understand this policy will cost upwards of £6 billion. I would personally rather see this money used to increase thresholds. Such a policy would take hundreds of thousands of low earners out of tax completely and would do far more to alleviate poverty.

[reality check]

"the party seems to put pc crap ahead of helping widowed and abandoned mums"

The phrase 'hysterical hyperbole' doesn't even begin......"

..and your point is?

We are saying we will extend a tax break justified for raising kids to childless gay couples but not widowed mums?

Please explain where the hysteria is?

[Will]

Reality check has made a good argument across a couple of threads, but how do we discourage single mums who choose to have a baby as a career choice while not disadvantaging those like Reality's sister or the widowed mum above?

[Afleitch]

But ak23566,

The primary issue of concern in your instance is not your relationship, but the fact that you earn a solid and high wage and so in your mind shouldn't benefit which has merit. However many gay couples are not well off, many are pensioner couples or one partner does not work.

[reality check]

ak23566 - thank you! A voice of reason.

My wife and I are very well off, with 1 kid. His godfather, who happens to be gay, hasn't met the right person, yet, but I hope e will.

My sister has 3 kids, and was abandoned by her husband.

I know who deserves any tax breaks going!

[reality check]

Will - thank you. I normally make trite comments, but when you see an injustice first hand, as i do with my sister, i try to argue my point.

Let's shape this proposal to help raise kids in stable environments and not either benefit the undeserving (as my wife and i would be) or the unlucky!

[Editor]

Edison Smith (20:14): "Editor, you're article isn't completely clear. Are you saying Tim Yeo etc would rebel against the policy if it applied to civil partnerships, or because of the cost of the tax breaks idea in general?"

I'm sorry Edison my words weren't that clear. Bercow and Yeo are opposed to the general idea of support for marriage rather than the proposed inclusion of gay couples in the plan.

[Ted]

You are missing the basic point, it's about rewarding socially responsible behaviour. People in committed relationships - and real commitment means signing the contract - deliver more social benefit. They cost society less. They are not undeserving; for example they will look after each other in sickness though they will on the whole be healthier. Overall statistics show people in marriage do better than singles. Lets reward that.

I've been scanning in old photos and last weekend scanned a few of family/friends weddings in the early 50's. Of all those couples only one divorced. Some had hard times; some overcame alcoholism and in one case imprisonment as a result of gambling and drink; some dealt with long and painful illnesses; some with disabled or errant kids. The one divorce followed the harrowing death of a child which the parents couldn't deal with together. It wasn't tax breaks that made their marriages strong but societies view of marriage as a lifelong task which was valued - treating marriage as something of no value destroys that social good.

Much of our social spending is to an extent about rewarding (or not punishing) bad behaviour. So the black kid in Peckham who doesn't do drugs or hang around in gangs gets less attention and support than his peers who do. Governments think up wheezes like free gym memberships for those who "reform".

Reality check examples a women with 3 children deserted by her husband. First point: where does it say she will lose money because of this proposal - it's about supporting marriage not social policy towards children of broken homes. Second point: where is the husband, why isn't he paying maintenance?

[reality check]

"Reality check examples a women with 3 children deserted by her husband. First point: where does it say she will lose money because of this proposal"

It doesn't. The tooth fairy wil pick up the £6 billion bill. No really.

I despair....

Can we have a new rule for this thread that posters have to engage their brain before posting.

[reality check]

"You are missing the basic point, it's about rewarding socially responsible behaviour."

like not having your husband die/leave you.

pratt!

[Will]

"People in committed relationships - and real commitment means signing the contract - deliver more social benefit."

That's true Ted but we are talking about paying £1000 a year to bribe people to get married. These are people who didn't have the commitment to get married before but we think if we give the £1000 a year they will have the same stable relationship as those who marry for love not money.

Marriage rates would go up but so would divorce rates. Children would be no better off.

As a married father of two - I don't need a tax break. I would sooner the money is spent elsewhere.

[Robert McIlveen]

A lot of commentators are assuming that civil partnerships will never be part of a family unit with children. This is not the case - many people come out later in life when they have had children, and it's less unusual that you would think for children to grow up with a mum and a step-mum. So if we were restricting tax breaks to couples with children (rightly so in my opinion; my boyfriend and I have no claim on them in my opinion) that would include same-sex couples with children.

[reality check]

So if we were restricting tax breaks to couples with children (rightly so in my opinion; my boyfriend and I have no claim on them in my opinion) that would include same-sex couples with children.

I completley agree. and let's ensure the parent left. literally, holding the baby if their spouse dies or abandoms them isn't also penalised in the tax system.

[IRJMilne]

What is the point of this married couples tax allowance then? I thought it was to encourage marriage...I thought it was part of a culture thing. If it's just a bit of bribery then I'm against it.

I'm not convinced that Iraq is a foreign policy disaster either. I think it was a bad thing, but not a disaster, and I see no reason the Tory leader should play up to the anti-Americans.

I am not impressed.

[Jules]

So marriage is not that special after all then Dave? For nearly 24 hours you had me thinking you'd grown a pair. Obviously not.

If it happens it will have taken us a mere forty years to move from homosexuality being illegal to homosexuality being subsidised by the state.

Isn't it a good job that we're much wiser and morally superior to the countless generations who preceded us?

Seriously, this is just the beginning of the dilution of the policy announced yesterday.

Jules.

[Martin Wright]

It seems quite clear that any tax break should stem from the care of children under 16, not from the state of matrimony or civil partnership.

We have to ask, however whether an allowance of £20 pw is going to induce an unmarried couple with a child into a formal marriage. At the lower end of the income scale the answer is probably yes. Higher up probably not.

If there is evidence that formalised marriges encourage couples to stay together for the good of their children then the tax relief might be worthwhile and save the social costs of broken homes. But that's a big if, given our very high divorce rates.

[reality check]

Martin speaks sense, altough 21 and in education seems a better upper limit.

rgds from a fellow K&C

[Andrew Lilico]

It seems to me that there could be a case for offering tax breaks to any sort of couple officially sanctioned (married or civil partnershipped) living together, in a spirit of promoting community and as a way of encouraging the making of promises. Contrary to a number of commenters here, and to much prevailing wisdom, I do believe that there is likely to be a difference in our behaviour towards each other if we have made explicit promises. (I have some faith in human nature, perhaps.) It could be useful to subsidize doing that.

But, although I can see an argument for doing that, I am far from clear that this is really the argument that Cameron wants to run. I would have thought it would be much more straightforward to argue initially for a transferable allowance for stay-at-home carers, and fly some kites on the wider promise-promoting aspect.

At the moment the policy has an unpleasant whiff of incoherence, as if we had thought - Hey! A tax break for marriage sounds like a way to be communitarian and traditionalist at the same time...[Time passes]...Oh, *bother*! What about the whole being-nice-to-gays thing? Err...well...let's give them the tax break as well!

I don't think that this seems a very robustly analyzed position to be in. (Still, on the other hand, perhaps tomorrow he'll decide that there's a tax break for single people as well! In which case what we're arguing for has a somewhat more old-fashioned name: a "tax cut". Just a thought...)

[Will]

Currently people who chose to marry are more stable parents - no surprise here - people who have a strong commitment to each other make better parents.

IDS proposal - if we give £1000 a year to those who didn't have this commitment to each other it would be the same . £1000 a year = love.

IDS has pinpointed the right issues, but his solutions are sadly very lame.

[reality check]

"I would have thought it would be much more straightforward to argue initially for a transferable allowance for stay-at-home carers"

it's bizarre to think that a couple with a stay at home tax free carer entitles the working spouse to a lower tax rate than a single, not because they didn't make a comittment, but perhaps because their partner died, mother.

how is this fair?

[reality check]

ids wants betsy to stay at home and thinks that on this basis he should pay less tax than a single parent.

how modern.

[Richard Carey]

I’m pleased to see both the SJPG report and the initial responses to it from the Party leadership stimulating debate. That’s exactly what the process was intended to do, and it will help ensure robust policy that does not threaten to disintegrate under opposition fire as it has done in some campaigns in the past.

I think the policy adopted to address the suggestion that the taxation system should recognise marriage should represent the argument (that Letwin expressed on News24 HardTalk this evening) that it aims to eliminate the “couples penalty”. We need a levelling of the playing field to remove disincentives more than we need a tilting of it.

If it happens it will have taken us a mere forty years to move from homosexuality being illegal to homosexuality being subsidised by the state.

Only 40 years, Jules? Out of interest, just how long would you like it to take to develop some kind of parity?

It is interesting how quickly an argument on improving social cohesion and well-being seems to have become an argument on homosexuality. Still, at least nobody has said it’s the EU’s fault yet, so I guess that’s progress…

DC’s signal is a welcome one. I think a lot of this debate is actually about signalling, although I’m very aware that to the families at the bottom end of the income scale who are struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis, any financial boost is very welcome. If we are genuinely saying that we are stronger together than apart, that we improve society when we make a commitment to take responsibility for each other and take care of each other, then I am amazed that any Conservative can take issue with this point on that level.

Looking at the fiscal points, it is clear that we need to prioritise support given from taxpayer’s money. We’re in politics to speak up for those with no voice, and to stand up for those who need it most. That means prioritising in the way we implement policy the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in society above all else when we look at how to target our final response to this report. Families come in all shapes and sizes, often today not of their own initial choice. We should extend to them all the opportunity to make their best choices in life, but they should be supported rather than judged.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

I agree with Richard Carey, which has never happened before, up to his last para where he brings out the waffle iron. Politics may be about speaking up "for those with no voice" Richard, but it is certainly about making judgments.

Well done DC for trying to do the right thing about marriage. Of course he had to count gays in. It doesn't matter. Marriage/civil partnership is the conservative goal.