Ah right, so we can have same-sex marriage and all it will cost is £800m so they can give each married person an extra £150 per year. But it will come off ONE of their unused TAX allowance, so it will really be where there is a man, or women, who has a reasonably well-paid job where his/her other half stays at home, or has a very low-paid part-time job, such that they don’t use all of their own personal allowance.
It’s really not going to apply to most gay couples in Civil Partnerships, since they are most likely to both go out to work and thus they will use their personal allowance and not be able to transfer any unused amount.
I don’t think Cameron should do this, it’s a waste of £800m, and £5 per week each isn’t going to keep people together. The only reason they are so desperate to do this is because they’ve promised it to the religious right. In fact, they promised this to the religious right BEFORE the last election.
I don’t like this – I don’t like this at all. This can too easily spun by people to blame any tax cuts the Tories force through on the back of this as being our fault. We’ve been scapegoats for far too much for far too long – I don’t want, next year, people (even on the left) saying that more regressive taxes are the fault of gay people or the price of our rights.
Especially since it’s Tory PR – with The Tories who DO support, backed by the Lib Dems and Labour who support in much higher numbers, it should pass (unless the vast majority of the Tories are opposed). However, if it only passes because of overwhelming support from the Lib Dems and Labour, Cameron is going to have a hard time claiming it as a Tory victory or proof that the Tories are no longer the nasty homophobic party
I agree. Its going to get passed anyway. Let the Tories who don’t support it stick their hands up and oppose it and we can then sit back with our wedding rings on our fingers over the next few years watching Cameron destroy their careers. I have no doubt that he will. He has doggedly pursued this issue since being elected and he isn’t going to let the old party dinosaurs try to ruin it and get off scot-free.
Horse trading for our rights with tax cuts is distasteful. Let the legislation stand on its merits and MPs can vote for it or against it. Otherwise are they voting for equality of voting for tax cuts?
I for one want to see very clearly who believes what on all sides of the House.
You’d think, from the report, that Mr Howarth would be prepared to vote for marriage equality. He won’t, and nor will his fellow bigots. There’s no point in offering any concessions.
Sir Gerald Howarth told The Times: “What quid pro quo is there for us?
So he is openly admitting he can be bought then? What a man of conscience.
Yeah right, Gerald Howarth will vote for equal marriage if they give a tax break to married couples!
Chris Grayling is down on the C4EM support website as supporting equal marriage, what’s made him change his mind? Tax break promises seems to have had the opposite effect on him!!!
I love how the media has a spin on everything. Tax breaks has been an ongoing issue in the right of the party a long time before equal marriage and now the media has decided to make a link between the 2 issues…
Can someone find out about Chris Grayling..why has he changed his mind – In 02/12 he said
And can I just ask .. a coalition of groups are going to put across their point, that they believe the government is pushing forward with the idea of redefining marriage……
Well there is obviously going to be a lively debate about this because there are strong views on both sides of the argument and no doubt when it actually comes before parliament there will be a free vote. I am actually supportive of gay marriage, I think that we should champion and support long term relationships, we should all have that stability in our society and we should recognise relationships and support relationships that are long lasting. Actually society suffers when we are too short term in our relationships.”
I have spoken with Chris G over the years about the trans marriage problem (the need to divorce before one can obtain a gender recognition certificate) and he has been very supportive and helped me pass information on to appropriate members of government on this topic (before he became responsible for the Gender Recognition Act as the Minister of Justice). My impression was that he supports equal marriage but we will see next week at the Second Reading.
Tax breaks for married people are nothing more than discrimination against single people. Indeed, given that married people tend to have significantly lower living costs (because they share resources, where single people have to pay for one of everything), the sensible thing to do would be to give tax breaks to those who are NOT in a partnership, because we’re the ones who are worse off financially.
Also, bribing people to get married will make marriage less desirable. If you wanted to make it an institution for people who are strongly committed to it and its ideals, you’d penalise marriage. People who would still do it in spite of the disadvantages would be the people who value and respect it the most. If an extra £2.80 a week is going to sway you then you’re really not in this for the long haul…
Besides which, some of us are simply too repulsive, undesirable and socially awkward to ever dream of getting into a relationship – let alone marriage – even if we wanted to. Why should we be punished financially for our inadequacies, to go with the psychological pressure they bring naturally?
It might not be the most ‘sensible’ thing to give tax breaks to single people..
You would inevitably get some married couples out there who would calculate that they would be better off financially if they continue to cohabit, but get a divorce~
It would be criticised to fever pitch for ‘destroying the fabric of society’.
I think that the benefits in making the people who need most help better off and simultaneously exposing the farcical belief that marriage actually makes society better (rather than being something that people who ALREADY work well together tend to do) would more than outweigh the outrage of the blue-rinse, Daily Mail brigade.
Indeed, anything that pisses those people off is probably a jolly good thing to do, given their pathological knee-jerk reaction to all things progressive and considerate.
It’s disgusting to use marriage rights as a bargaining chip to get special tax breaks. And the Religious Right accuses us of wanting special privelges. This is just sour grapes from the loser side.
They have to get it through Parliament somehow and the first result will be a bodge, a good old British compromise.
Then in years to come it’ll all be sorted out; more or less.
That’s the way it happens in a democratic country.
Howarth still doesn’t seem to understand that the Conservative Party did not win the 2010 election. Even if Cameron said yes there’s no way it would pass without Lib Dem support, and they’ve clearly said they don’t want it.
So, Mr. Howarth, what’s the point eh?
You don’t need to even contemplate this Dave.
As long as the Tory opposition to this remains under the 50% mark you’re safe in your job, and the total parliamentary support for it is looking to be around 60%, without caveats attached.
Even if the tax breaks were granted, how do we know those in opposition to equal marriage would suddenly vote yes? I don’t trust any of them, especially bigots, the majority of whom appear to be Tories in this debate.
It will go through anyway. Only about 150 MPs at the most oppose it. Compared with 500 who support it.
A tax cut for married couples basically says to single people, unmarried couples and widows and widowers – ‘you’re inferior, second class citizens or subordinates’. It says an unmarried couple’s relationship is worth less than a married couples. I thought the Tories keep telling us there’s no money left? Yet they can fund another tax cut for Alan Sugar, but the poor, disabled, sick and unemployed get their money taken away.
Dont be fooled by this Tory con. They’re just trying to justify their discriminatory tax cuts for married people by saying it’s necessary for equal marriage to happen. The fact same-sex couples get it is no selling point. They’d have to get it anyway or it’s discrimination.
So we’d have tax cuts for millionaires, tax dodging companies and now this. How can it possibly be right that some ppl get a tax cut for living a certain lifestyle? #toriesout