Mr Brown Says He's Strongly in Favour of Marriage. So Why Won't He Lower Taxes for Married Couples?

Daily Mail › July 13, 2007

Linked as:

Summary

HERE is a brainteaser. Gordon Brown is strongly in favour of marriage, and thinks it is better for couples living together to be married than not. He said as much yesterday on Radio Four's Today Programme, when he also mentioned that he supports the family. How could he not, you may ask? He was brought up in a close and affectionate family. He married not very long ago, and has a loving wife and two children. David Cameron asserts that his family has been the most important thing in his life, and Mr Brown would surely say the same. Why, then, can Mr Brown not embrace the Tories' proposals for giving tax advantages or, rather, reversing the tax disadvantages for married couples? One answer, which Mr Brown gave yesterday, is that there are already breaks for the married. He said that 'the idea that marriage is not recognised in the tax system is completely wrong'. He cited capital gains tax and inheritance tax, which he said favour married couples over unmarried ones. He is right. Married partners can pass large inheritances to one another, or transfer capital gains from one to the other, without attracting tax. Unmarried partners cannot. The trouble is that these taxes affect only a small minority of people. In effect, Mr Brown is saying that tax breaks for married couples are desirable, but that they should apply only to the rich. This is a rather surprising argument to hear from a Labour Prime Minister who has insisted that he wants to help the less well-off. Why tax breaks for the married rich but not for the married poor?

ON TUESDAY, the Tories produced proposals, almost certain to form part of their next election manifesto, which aim to give ordinary married couples tax advantages on their income. At the moment, as soon as two people tie the knot, they lose all kinds of benefits which they could continue to enjoy as cohabiting individuals. The Tories are proposing reforms in the tax and benefit system which might lead to some married couples being 3,000 a year better off.