The married tax break is illiberal, misguided and dangerous.

‘Married tax break at last!’ crows The Daily Mail’s triumphant headline. Finally, something the Great British public can rejoice about! After weeks of bad news concerning stagnant economic growth and lobbying scandals, we can be happy in the knowledge that we will be £150 a year better off. Well, at least, the married couples among us can.

But, isn’t this is exactly what Britain needs? Good, conservative policies to combat this liberal disease in our society? Or, at the very least, isn’t it a harmless welcome boon to families?

Well, it is my opinion that it’s not. I very rarely have cause to agree with Nick Clegg, but every so often he comes out with a genuinely thoughtful and liberal viewpoint; yesterday was one of those days. I quote from this PoliticsHome article, ‘This desire in the Conservative party to hand pick couples through the tax system who conform to their image of the way you should conduct your life – I don’t think it’s fair’. Nick is, of course, exactly right. Whatever your views on the role of marriage as an institution in society, it cannot be denied that this is a very illiberal tax break. For a party that all the more surrounds itself in the imagery and rhetoric of freedom, individual liberty and low tax, this policy runs as a complete counter to such claims. For a government to seek to manipulate how people choose their partners and lifestyles through tweaking the tax system in such a way should cause warning bells to sound to anyone on the Right who considers themself to hold ‘libertarian’ values.

As with so much of the bile which comes from social conservative circles, this is yet another policy rooted in ‘traditional’ ideas rooted in nostalgia and bigotry. The idea that marriage holds more value than any other relationship simply by existing as a marriage is, quite frankly, rubbish. While I do not wish to disparage on any marriage, indeed, I myself have been raised by happily-married parents, this is 2013. Many people choose to live in secular partnerships solely because they regard marriage as a religious institution which means nothing to them. Ricky Gervais and his girlfriend, Jane Fallon, are a case in point. Having not married for this exact reason, they have still been in a relationship for 30 years. Under the eyes of the Conservatives, this is not a valid enough relationship to qualify for a tax break. It is also of note that the main proponent of this bill was Tim Loughton, who was also one of the main opponents to Same Sex Marriage. I would be interested to know if Tim would have wanted his generosity to extend to civil partnerships, should the SSM bill had not passed. .

At the heart of this policy is the idea that marriages provide a better environment for children to be raised in and therefore they should be encouraged. While you can argue about the truth in this, I believe that making this incentive financial is potentially dangerous.

The first reason for this concerns the type of people who may be tempted to marry due to this tax. It is unlikely a middle-class, professional couple are likely to be tempted to marry by the prospect of having an extra 150 quid. Likewise, it is doubtful many older people who may have suffered divorce in the past are likely to rush into another marriage at this incentive. No, the people who are most likely to be lured in by this are younger, financially insecure couples. For a working-class, uneducated couple in low-paid work, £150 more a year to get married may seem a very tempting carrot. Without wishing to sound cynical, relationships started at 18 years old do not often stand the test of time, and a financial incentive which attracts people into possibly unhappy and unfulfilling relationships could well lead to marital infidelity, breakup and possible abuse. If this couple chooses to have children, this is not the ideal environment for them to be raised in.

Which brings me to my most important point. Tim Loughton mentioned that this may only be the start, and he can envisage the tax break bringing larger savings in the long-term. Indeed, some Tories are already calling for it to be £2,000. As we know, domestic violence is a real problem in our society, and can be hard enough for a person to break away from already. It would be calamitous if this tax break made it genuinely financially unviable for a person to break from an abusive partner. There are already problems with shame, fear and financial insecurity as it is, but to add to this would be foolhardy, dangerous and completely unconducive to the stable, happy family home this policy seeks to create.

While this tax break may have good, if naive, intentions, it is my view that the married tax break is illiberal, misguided and dangerous, and should not be passed in this, or any consecutive, parliament.