Why marital status should have nothing to do with tax
David Cameron has said the tax break will happen in the lifetime of his government so unless he has a crystal ball and has seen the outcome of the next election, we have to assume it will be put in place by 2015.
The married person's allowance will only be worth £150 a year so it's not going to boost the household balance sheet all that much.
Under the plan spouses who do not work would be allowed to transfer £150 of their tax-free income allowance to their partner, meaning they pay slightly less tax.
It's a good way of providing a tax break but isn't it ridiculous that you have to be married in order to receive it?
I'm getting married later this year so could benefit from this but I don't see why my marital status should define the way I'm taxed.
The Tories argue that it's about the breakdown of the family unit and the impact it has on society and children's behaviour but I think there's a better way to reward families: give them more money for childcare.
The Tories argue that families are struggling and yes they are. Many are struggling under the weight of the prohibitive costs of childcare and how their finances are affected because a parent chooses to stay at home to look after their children - many people who would like to stay at home cannot afford to.
Why not provide more help for families, regardless or marriage or the relationship set up. Surely allowing parents, married or not, to spend more time with their children and not be a slave to the wage would do more for society than giving a married couple a few quid every year?
I'm sure there are lots of families for whom £150 a year would be a very welcome bonus which would allow them to take their children for a day out and spend quality time with them.
Getting married doesn't make you a better person or a better parent and whether you wear a ring on your finger should certainly not determine tax policy.