This seems a very confused article to me. Perhaps because of the difficulties of reporting on a very confused concept.
Why are the Tories so unsure of the differences between 'marriage', 'family' and 'children'? I cannot see any reason whatsoever why my taxes should go to supporting marriage. In fact, quite to the contrary. Don't misunderstand me - if people want to marry, all well and good, and I don't have a problem with that. But why should there be tax allowances for lifestyle choices? At my expense.
This article highlights the intellectual fog about what a family is. I actively hate the word 'family'. It is an abused word, distorted for the purposes of right wing propaganda and low quality marketing. 'Family' and 'children' are not synonymous. Anything that says 'Family...' as in '...entertainment', '...facilities' makes me scream mentally.
It's about time that certain people understand that family means a helluva lot more than spoilt children. Family covers a few more generations than that. I know plenty of people who have strong family relationships that involve their adult children, ageing parents, siblings etc.
Yes, I certainly support the idea of making sure that the tax and benefit system helps people with children, but this article suggests that the vile Iain Duncan-Smith wants to tax me more highly in order to support two people, each of whom may earn more than me, who make a choice to go through a ceremony. The more people talk about the need to support marriage the less attractive I find the idea of me being married.
I would be very happy to pay more taxes to support the many and varied people I see around me who are struggling financially to support their children. I'm not interested in whether or not they are married, or whether they are the deserving or undeserving poor. I don't care whether they are married or not, a couple or not, both natural parents or one a step-parent. I don't care if they're the child's grandparent, or aunt, or much older sibling.
I condemn the people who have multiple children by serial partners without accepting responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I detest the dreadful woman down the road who condemns me for being childless, whilst she claims benefit in order to look after her grandson whilst the boy's fifteen year old mother truants from school.
Because I despair of such people, that's why I want more money invested in those children, just to give them a chance of not repeating the parasitical cycle of their parents. But I'm not paying taxes to encourage people to rush into marriage in order to flaunt their imagined moral superiority.
