One of the early skirmishes of the general election campaign has centred on the Conservative proposals to introduce tax breaks for married couples and gay couples in civil partnerships.
In the midst of all the hullabaloo, you’d be forgiven for not being clear about what the actual content of the Conservative plans are. In short, four million married couples/civil partners are being offered tax breaks worth up to £150 a year; wives, husbands and partners who do not work would be able to transfer part of their allowance to their spouse, though this applies only to low- and middle-income couples earning up to £44,000 a year. The tax break is worth £3 a week.
Is the Conservative plan a good idea or not? Certainly, the evidence of the present government’s own green paper (Support for all: Family and Relationships) is clear that committed relationships are good for children and for society in general. In support of the Tory plan, research shows that by the time children reach their fifth birthday, a third of unmarried parents have separated. The figure for married parents is one in 11. Supporting committed relationships through the tax system appears sensible. In opposition to the Conservative proposal, it can be argued that the tax break will mean cuts to schools, tax credits, and Sure Start schemes. Couples will only be supported to the tune of £3 a week and the proposal will ultimately undermine, not support struggling families.
The detail of the arguments concerning the effectiveness and justice of tax breaks for couples in committed relationships can be left until another time. The really interesting aspect of the debate around the Conservative proposals has been the nature of the critique they have been subjected to.
Children’s Secretary Ed Balls said that the scheme would tell unmarried parents that their children were ‘less worthy of support’. Labour opposes the Conservative plan, he said, on the grounds that it amounts to ‘social engineering’. Nick Clegg’s response was even sharper. The plan, he insisted, is “patronising drivel”. The Independent weighed in to support Mr Clegg in its editorial, arguing that the decision to marry or not is a personal one. ‘It is, and should remain,’ stated the Independent, ‘nothing to do with the tax-man. For the state to reward marriage financially throws up many anomalies and risks restoring social stigmas we hoped had been lost. In
The problem with all of this criticism is that it is disingenuous. The reality is that all social policy represents, to a greater or lesser extent, social engineering. The policies of all political parties have precisely that intent.
The manifestoes of the political parties are based on a particular vision of what is good for society. The specific policies contained within them represent attempts to support the vision underpinning them. Any Government taxes and spends in order to ‘engineer’ (‘shape’, if you prefer) a society that reflects its basic beliefs and values; its view of the good society. It’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. What would be the point of wanting to govern unless you had a vision of the sort of society you wanted to help create?
In drawing attention to this fact, I’m only drawing attention to what Gordon Brown has himself previously acknowledged. In the Red Book accompanying the July 1997 Budget, Mr Brown clearly stated ‘How and what is taxed sends clear signals about the economic activities which Governments believe should be encouraged and discouraged, and the values they wish to entrench in society.’
It's possible to criticise the Conservative tax plans for all sorts of reasons but not on the basis that they amount to 'social engineering'.
The question facing voters on 6 May is not whether governments should or should not practice social engineering but whether the specific social engineering being advocated by the different parties will help create a good and just society.
Paul Woolley is Director of Theos
