Bring back Victorian values, says key Tory | Politics | The Observer
In fairness, the Tories have moved on a smidgen and are beginning to recognise that having large numbers of the population living in poverty is not good for society or the economy. Well, duh, one is tempted to say.
So, their solution: bring back Victorian values.
Hmm, I would say, first get facts straight.
My housemate did her Social Administration dissertation on something to do with poverty in single parent families. One of her stunning pieces of research that there were far more single parent families in Victorian times than in the 1980s. As this was an undergraduate dissertation I am certain this was not an original discovery. Any casual perusal of history, literature etc will reveal many flaws in the Victorian method of bringing children up.
Again they bang on about tax-breaks for married couples. No,no, and again no. This is a dangerous assumption that all married couples have dependent children and that all longterm stable couples with dependent children are married. The focus should not be on the adult relationship but on the children (and also importantly other dependent adults such as those with learning disabilities and the elderly infirm). I am the opposite of an expert on the loopholes and traps of the unintended consequences of the tax-and-benefit system.
The report backs tax breaks for married couples, arguing the present tax credits system makes some couples better off apart.I find this difficult to believe. I will accept that the take-home pay of two people living separately is higher than if they were together, but I need a great deal of persuading that this is so distorted that it makes sense for a happy couple to incur the costs of maintaining two separate households simply for the tax-benefit advantages. Otherwise, thousands of happy couples would be maintaining two households next door to each other, which to my knowledge just isn't happening.
They have confused chicken with egg or cause with effect. They argue that more co-habiting than married parents split. I have no doubt that this is true. But. And it's a big but. Even nowadays, a great number of people still go through the routine of deciding to get married and then deciding to start a family, having already built a relationship with a fair chance of enduring...hey, I only need to look at my blogroll.
A great many more people find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, before their relationship has established itself as 'together forever' and, accepting their responsibilities, try to establish a sustainable relationship, where carrying out a wedding ceremony takes a lower priority than the pregnancy or founding a home together. If they split, it's not because they weren't married, but because they were ultimately not suited. They would have split, or lived unhappily together forever, if they had been forced or tax-break-bribed into a marriage.
But can anybody justify a tax system that would make Jimmy and me better off simply by dint of strolling down to Lambeth Town Hall, dragging two random strangers in from the bus stop to act as witnesses, and calling ourselves married? Would that tax break be equally ludicrously applied to Mike and K? If not, is that because they are same-sex? Where would that leave same-sex coupled parents - exempted on the grounds that one is not the 'biological parent'. Would there be similar exemptions for numerous committed straight step-parents - eg from the blogroll Elle and Himself. It's bonkers and bears no relationship to actual real functioning families that exist in reality today, but to an outdated religious-inspired ideal that many people may aspire to but few achieve.
They also talk about tackling poverty. The easy way to do that is by throwing cash money at the problem. And it does make a difference. People still claim that they lose money if they go out to work rather than claim benefits (rent/housing benefit is the big obstacle). I am not entirely convinced, but if this is the case, there is a need for a relook at the system, and it is a persuasive argument for continuing to raise the minimum wage, ensuring that the working tax credit is fair, simple and accessible, and guaranteeing that housing benefit tapers properly not to act as a disincentive.
But poverty is also tackled as society. This article also discusses anti-social behaviour and petty crime, of which poor people are disproportionately the victims. Much of this is blamed, rightly and wrongly, on 'disaffected youth'. I was at a lecture the other week hosted by my Professional Institute about 'Respect', where the Government's Respect Co-ordinator argued persuasively that aggressive intervention in the poor or non-existent parenting skills of a hardcore tiny minority would be as big a social achievement for our generation as building sewers was for the Victorians.
There is a body of evidence that proves consistently that seemingly expensive programmes, from intensive reading to sports and arts, that force children and young people to participate as full members of society reap dividends in a range of social objectives, including economic activity, tackling poverty and anomie, crime prevention, and health improvement that benefit wider society perhaps more than even the targeted individuals.
Tinkering with the tax system may make some households who are comfortable but struggling marginally better off, probably at the expense of people like me. I would willingly pay higher taxes to fund properly social integration and anti-poverty programmes. If I had a straight choice between paying 'x' more a month in tax or 'x' more in interest rates, it's a no-brainer. And - here's the political bit - under a Labour Government I have paid a lot less in mortgage interest and a bit more in tax. Long may this continue.
Comments