Anne, what makes you assume that "stable" couples are so common, or that encouraging married couples is necessarily a better solution for society's woes? There are plenty of deeply unhappy couples who stay together for bad reasons, bring misery to their children, and do more to disrupt society than everything else. Each side cheats on the other, and this hypocrisy and guilt simply makes matters worse. Promoting "marriage" is not and never has been a way to fix society. We need a more realistic model for communities, more opportunities for people to escape boredom, and a better educational/vocational training system. As for the old conservative myth about "broken homes" = "violent crime/drunkenness", this really has little basis in any reliable statistics, and is a convenient way to avoid making real social and economic policy - which is why free-market conservatives adopt it rather than doing some real thinking about society.

Nick, London, UK

Dan's idea is a bit daft. Unless of course there's 5 grand in the offing for all currently married couples, in which case it's a wonderful idea, and a sure fire vote winner in our house.

Seriously though. Marriage is great. You don't know what you're missing.

Martin , Rochdale,

I can't fathom the animosity to giving money to people to adopt the most successful method of briging up families. Seems common sense to me.

Nick London says ' Instead, ask yourselves why we have an increasingly alcoholic and violent underclass. Just don't kid yourself that you can bribe people away from addictions, whether to alcohol or violence. Come with some real policy ideas"
.......very helpful Nick, I note you have no suggestions yourself.

The violent underclass is partly a product of broken homes, no father or male role model and people living off benefits without any attempt to imrpove their situation or that of their children.

At present single parents on benefits are better off on their own - seems sensible to counteract that with an incentive to become part of a stable couple.

Anne, Beijing, China

It costs over £360 to hire a registrar for an approx. 30min civil ceremony and an additional £60 (£30 each) to register intention to marry. Removing these extortionate fees would be a start.

Emma , Worthing, West Sussex

And when does the single tax payer benefit in all this? You know the one who costs the govt. next to nowt yearly. The one who needs no schools to educate his/her no children, the one who never uses public services, and the one who under the current system can work twice as hard as those married for the same income.

Example one: Thirtysomething single bloke earning £100,000 a year, paying the chancellor aorund £35,000 year in income taxes alone. Works 80+ hours/ weekly to acheive this.

Example two: His married thirtysomething contemporaries, who decide to work less than half his hours each, but close to his total together, yet pay tax at a lower rate on the amount they do. So for less than half the individual effort each, they earn more money as a whole! Oh, and the state pays for their children's education! And for mortgages their incomes count together!

Married people get a great deal as it is, why should the deliberately single pay to make their deal even better?

John, Windsor, U.K.

Nick of London. “No sane voter will see this as anything but a crude and heavy-handed attempt at social engineering”.
Well, of course it is. That’s what all government is about. That is precisely what the Feminism, the CRE, ‘ministers for women’, ‘Equal opportunities commission’ and a host of other organisations are about. A means of forcing people to act in a way that goes counter to their instinct. It does at least make sense to apply such an incentive to something that is likely to bring about more stability (rather than less) to a society tht is plagued by social unrest. But you go right ahead. Keep telling people they can have their cake and eat it. That they do not need any thoughts of commitment and obligation outside furthering their own greed and “rights”. See how much worse society gets as a result. This proposal may not be the best way of achieving social cohesion, but at least it aims for the most likely causes of the problems

Bob Finbow, HAverhill, England

I see Mr Finkelstein used to be an adviser to John Major and William Hague. And now more top advice for Cameron. Keep up the good work, Danny boy, and let's see just how long we can keep the Tories out of office.

Graham, St Albans, Herts

It is not possible to be a 'party for all' while at the same time being the 'party that will mend a broken society'. Either there is nothing seriously wrong (in which case labour are doing fine and the conservatives can all redirect their efforts to something worthwhile) or there's something seriously wrong (in which case some people need to change their behaviour). In a 'free' democratic society the people who need to change won't vote for change, so if you believe something is wrong then logically you can't be part of a 'party for all'. That said, the third way, as Blair reminded us, is to recognise that logic has no impact on politics. In which case Daniel Finkelstein should redirect his efforts to something worthwhile!

Rob Wilard, Reading, UK

Just when India has made it a criminal offence!

Aleya Pillai, Belper, Derbyshire, UK

Daniel, repeat after me: correlation is not causation. I'd like to believe that just marrying people will cure all the worlds ills, too, but I doubt if it's that simple.

People marry for all sorts of reasons. Some of those reasons are the cause of the benefits of marriage, not the marriage per se. If you give people another, external reason to marry - your dowry - you'll find that those who marry for the sake of the money will erode the statistical advantage that marriage has over being unmarried.

You also have to accept that those who remain unmarried might actually know what they're doing better than you, and that marriage might - for these people - make things worse.

William McIlhagga, Ilkley,

Wait for all the newspaper stories about the money being spent on booze.ups, betting and holidays in Benidorm.

james gallagher, london, U K

"There are, of course, technical details to be worked out", says the article. Yes, starting with: who is going to pay for all this? As a single, childless person I would end up subsidising these handouts for married couples, many of whom have no dependent children and, with two incomes for one household, are wealthier than me. I don't have a problem with tax breaks for married couples who are currently raising children. However, the 'dual income, no kids' couples can easily look after themselves without subsidy from the state.

Simon Hill, Exmouth, UK

The Conservatives are becoming a laughing stock. They readily ditch selective education - a substantial policy initiative that might help mend society. They could have shown some real creativity by creating good schools for the less academic, as well as the academic. Comprehensives for the most part realise no-one's potential and have led to a frustrated generation.
So they should introduce a £5,000 bribe to those who get married instead? It just gets funnier and funnier.

Philip Oakes, London, UK

Since all singles will be discriminated against, whether or not they contribute vital strengths to the community like looking after aging parents, can I have a tax refund to pay for internet dating?

Ann, Edinburgh,

"At the moment the state positively discriminates *against* marraige or stable relationships."

I'm afraid that's an urban myth. Single parents (unless they're one-legged teenage drug addicts) are no better off than married parents. On the contrary.

starling, Lancaster,

Is this a joke? Incentives are purely and simply going to change behaviour to fulfil the criterion required to acheive the stated reward. So the number of people getting married would almost certainly increase overnight, but there is no reason why those marriages would work better, or indeed be between loving couples in the first place!

Fixing a problem by throwing money at it without first investigating the root causes, or possible solutions to those factors, seems a failed tactic of New Labour that it would be better to repeal than repeat.

Oliver, London,

Do I detect humour in the suggestion of a dowry? Of course, any mreaningful financial incentive will not keep people together. How long must one stay married before the sentence has been served and it's ok to break the relationship? Two, five or ten years?

I have two methods for keeping relationships stable:
1. a mortgage
2. children

If you want a mortgage on a reasonable property it really helps to be in a relationship - and that's a meaningful financial incentive. And of course, if you do have children, you think twice about divorce.

So dowries, tax incentives, it's just punishing voters for deciding not to spend £20 000 on a one-day party for no benefit

Richard, Brussels, Belgium

Supporting marriage is an indirect way of dealing with the problems created by dysfunctional families. They produce children who do worse at school, are more involved in crime and, ultimately, who produce another dysfunctional generation. Breaking the cycle is not easy and requires draconian steps. We cannot set standards for parenthood but a simple discriminator is age. While there are many good, young (say under 23) parents, they do not become any worse by waiting to start a family. Why not ban anyone from starting a family before they are 23 - unless they can show they have a stable emotional and financial environment? Under age women who become pregnant, who lack a long term partner or the ability to support themselves and their child without additional financial help from the state, would give up the child for adoption. Harsh, but society pays the price for these dysfunctional families so we are entitled to set some basic rules. Parenthood is a privilege not a right.

Kevin, Kent,

We live in a society that puts the sexual preferences of the adult world above the welfare of children. This more than 'global warming' is a threat to future generations.

Howard, Edinburgh, UK

Would you have to return the 5000 quid when you divorce the person you didn't really want to marry, but 5000 quid is always good, innit?

starling, Lancaster,

The idea of tax relief is not just to promote marraige but to allow one partner to stay at home or to facilitate good quality day care if that is not possible. Aditonal tax allowances for married couples is a much more efficient use of my tax money ( in terms of promoting quality childcare) than payng single mothers to stay at home or to facilitate the (on average) shorter term relatrionships of non married coples. Tax policy is all about the averages.

Derek, York, UK

Seems quite a good idea. However, Daniel Finkelstein talks of "a public statement of faith in the institution of marriage." But civil partnership is not marriage, any more than cohabiting is. It appears to be the present government's policy to gradually blur the distinction between marriage, cohabiting and civil partnership, so that all will get equal rights and benefits, and the idea of marriage as a distinct institution disappears.

Dave, Wrexham,

An awful lot of people who hardly knew each other would get married,split the $5000 between them and then part ,never to meet again! What a waste of money that would be !
A better idea would be to vastly increase child allowances to continental levels (France for example) payable to both mother and father if living together ,and to only one parent if only one is caring for their offspring.
Foster parents get paid up to £500 per week per child (£400 per week in Slough for example) yet parents get a pittance ,less than 10% of these sums through family allowances or benefits when logically there should be very little difference between them.

ian josephs, monte carlo, monaco

"... paying money makes sense. It might provide that incentive, that little extra push, at the margin and help to establish the norm".

£5,000 is hardly marginal to most people. It may be that this payment would be the principal reason for some couples to get married. A sham marriage, obviously, by normal standards, but how are HMRC to know that?

Consider the case of a non-EU woman in this country working as a cleaning lady and paying the Border and Immigration Agency £500 p.a. or whatever it is to stay here legally. She will be on the lookout for someone to marry.

Before your legislation comes in, that marriage would save her £500 p.a. After it comes in, it will save her £500 p.a. and give her whatever share she can negotiate of £5,000.

Your legislation would increase the incentive to enter an arranged/sham marriage for people who do not find £5,000 marginal.

David Moss, London, UK

I like the sound of this Daniel! But I must declare an interest - I'm in the process of planning my wedding and £5,000 would pay nicely for the reception dinner.

The comments above sound like those of diehard co-habitors to me. They both follow the 'keep out of my private business' line. I never understand these arguments about 'social engineering'. The purpose of the Government is to devise and manage policy in the interests of a societal co-ordination and progress. Or put another way, to engineer society. We can argue until the bells ring what is public versus what is private, but its a tired debate. If the remit of Government is to consider social issues, 'public' and 'private' are just two sides of the same coin. As soon as you look at one, you are concurrently inculcating the other.

I think the contract of marriage should have a signing fee for the married couple, maybe a 5, 10, 20 year congratulatory fee and a penalty for breaking the life-long contract terms.

Dr M, Cardiff,

This will have no effect on the situation other than to provide yet another example of politicians' inability to identify and deal with the causes of social dysfunctionality.
We have become a society which adheres to 3 mantras:-
1. I want it for me.
2. I want it now.
3. I won't get it unless I directly and actively seek it for myself.
Every development in our social organisation is made to encourage and to facilitate this outlook on life. Immediate, consequence-free self-gratification, to which any contribution by others is something acquired rather than something given.
Marriage hasn't got a chance in these circumstances, relying as it does on contribution, deferred pleasure and faith in the goodwill of others. The dowry idea is pointless. Address the real problem, stop glorifying and supporting the cult of the individual, take away the rewards for selfishness. Make the outlook more social and the problem of declining marriage will disappear of its own accord.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Hopefully the money will be recovered when people divorce???? No? I did not thnk so....ooooh and prey tell, who is to pay for it? Us? Oh you mean you plan to raise our taxes on one hand and give it away on another? Hmmm.... flipping ridiculous.

Chantel, UK,

John from China, on the contrary - government should absolutely encourage marriage with practical material help, whether that be lump sums, tax incentives or anything else, as well as non-material encouragement. Marriage has been proven over thousands of years to be the bedrock of a stable and healthy society, and liberalism and political correctness be damned. It is any government's responsibility to wholly support this most critical of instituitions amongst it's populace. It is a fundamental weakness of Westernised societies that we kow-tow to poliitical correctness and are afraid to admit openly the proven truth - that a society with less marriage, and more marriage breakdown is one with more children's lives blighted, and more violence, unhappiness, crime and disorder in society. We must ignore the loud voices of the liberal politically correct minority who only heed their own personal "freedoms" (which anyway the dowry policy does not impede at all).

Alex Kerr, London, UK

You'll often hear the following complaint when this topic is brought up: "It's no good paying people to get married when according to statistics 1 in 3 (or more) marriages end in divorce." Maybe if we gave people financial incentives to stay married, not so many marriages WOULD end in divorce. I think a dowry is a great idea - to pay off student debt, for instance, or to start a pension, or to start off funding a house deposit.

Joanna, Oxford,

Another rubbish idea from the Tories - if the country really is broken, it's because of indiscriminate taxes and benefits like this that favour the usual chosen ones. It would be a better idea to elimainate family benefits entirely so people think more carefully before having children.

Tony, Kent,

Surely a less discriminatroy version of this policy would be to recognise households which care for children (whether headed by a married couple, same sex couple or civil partners or maybe even a brother and sister caring for one or the other's children) and permit the transfer of tax allowances within those households? The objective being a stable household rather than specifically a stable marriage.

Duncan, London,

At one level, this seems a good idea, based on the ancient custom of dowries from relatives to set the newlyweds on their way and at least ensure that their first days are financially stress-free. But critics are going to inevitably argue about who the money is for. Daniel Finkelstein mentions civil partnerships so I assume that children are not necessarily a deciding factor. For instance, what about couples who marry at a later age (much later in some cases) with no intention of having children? Are they entitled to the 'dowry' as well? In which case, the original reasoning for this idea (ensuring children get a stable start in a two-parent family) gets stretched somewhat. I would reckon that if this idea was ever brought in, various parties would bring in so many caveats to payment that in effect it would be seen as nothing but a nice but impractical idea. A lot of politicians would like to find (to them) more useful ways of spending our money than doling out £5,000 to others.

Bob, Gloucester UK,

I'm with you in principle, but I'm not convinced by the dowry idea. For anything like this to work you need to win hearts and minds to the proposition that marriage is good for kids. It's not a big help towards achieving that if your delivery mechanism takes no account of children at all. I could collect my 5k by entering a civil partnership, or by marrying a woman old enough to be my great-grandmother: how are you going to explain to the voters what public interest this serves?

Alan, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

"Money can't buy me postdecision dissonance", as the Beatles so memorably sang.
This all goes back to Oliver Letwin*, doesn't it? He wants to "establish frameworks that will lead people and organisations to act of their own volition in ways that will improve society by increasing general wellbeing".
It smacks of brainwashing.
It smacks of centralised control -- who determines what incentives should be offered for what social attitudes?
It is a socialist approach.
And it is inhuman. The project is cloaked in the language of marketing -- anchoring, framing, postdecision dissonance, ... This treats society as no more than a crowd, a crowd to be manipulated, manipulated to buy a product. There are no people in the equation, no moral agents, personally responsible for their own choices.
That is a source of some discomfort.

David Moss, London, UK

Sounds good, but this is really quite a daft idea.
Cameron may want to promote marriage, but even more, he wants the votes of married people - and this idea won't deliver that.
And what about the practical diffiulties, fraud and so on?

Adnan, London,

As a single, childless person I am happy for a proportion of my taxes to contribute towards raising and educating the next generation of adults. However, Daniel Finkelstein seems to be arguing for a lump sum payment to all newly-wed couples, even if they have no dependent children. This would cause a lot of resentment from single people, who would quite rightly object to their taxes subsidising "dual income, no kids'" married couples who often enjoy a better standard of living than people who live alone. Newly-weds can look after themselves without any subsidy from the state, at least until they decide to have children.

Simon Hill, Exmouth, UK

The problem is not whether couples are married or not. Children need both parents in the same home irrespective of their maritial status.

No, the problem is young women who choose to have babies as a career option (council flat plus income). State benefits are actually cut if the father moves in, actively discouraging him from supporting his own family, encouraging the mother to rely on the state and denying the children a father. Insane.

Perhaps young unmarried mothers should be encouraged to stay at home with their own parents who as grandparents can help and fill the gap . . .

ann, London,

Sir,

People who marry are those prepared to make a public committment and are likely to want to raise children in a stable home. Paying people money to marry will do nothing to foster that commitment.

It is equivalent to noting that few men in top hats commit robbery and forcing all men between 16-24 to wear top hats to cut the robbery rate.

Zac Smith, London,

Oh dear, oh dear. What a depressingly awful idea. It would result in a flood of bogus marriages simply to claim the substantial booty. More importantly, and as a previous poster indicated, if you're going to champion the idea of marriage as social panacea, then you must address one issue above all others head on: correlation versus causation. Perhaps I've missed some contributions, but there seems shockingly little discussion of this in the current public debate, when it must be at the absolute centre of how we interpret the supposedly convincing stats on the social utility of marriage.

David Harris, London,

If ever there was a reason to vote Labour - this is it. Cameron is a real (married of course) liability to the Tories.

Margaret, Portsmouth, Hants,

"Instead, ask yourselves why we have an increasingly alcoholic and violent underclass. Just don't kid yourself that you can bribe people away from addictions, whether to alcohol or violence."

Marriage, as described in the article, gives a strengthened sense of social responsibility, a feeling of being part of an old and respected institution. It is undeniable that this "underclass" you describe is due, at least in part, to a rejection (or fear) of this responsibility. Adding money to the equation helps in that it entices potential wedders but at the same time challenges them to do well by it, almost as if they are indebted to the concept of marriage and can only repay it by honouring their commitment.

Alex, Isle of Man,

The current system discriminates against couples to the extent that a single parent entering into a relationship stands to lose a substantial degree of income as soon as they admit to it (and I suspect many don't for exactly that reason).

How is any Government supposed to fix this problem (of Govt making) without the fix inherently "discriminating" against those single parents that stay single?

(And if you can't, then the obvious solution is to make the removal of the problem one of small but steady steps - £20 may not be much, but it's a start, and once you've started it's then easier to keep going.)

Phil, Sevenoaks,

I agree with John from China. I think Daniel Finkelstein is absolutely barking. Giving money away will result in hasty marriages and even hastier divorces. Anyone basing their choice on whether to get married or not on money is in for a big fall. Not only emotionally but financially in the divorce courts too.

Chris, Banbury,

Like so many people you've missed the point.

At the moment the state positively discriminates *against* marraige or stable relationships.

Personally I'd like to see married couples get a transferable tax allowance so that one partner can raise children rather than trying to force everyone to shunt kids into long hours creches while they both work (one of them just to cover the childcare costs).

Mat, london,

Why should being married (and I am) involve a tax break?

What we want is a tax system that's simpler not more complex. The LibDems were on the right lines last week although instead of cutting the basic rate they raise the tax free allowance.

Less taxes and less tax breaks is what we want.

Andy, Glos, UK

Jamie Gilmour of Bolton, UK, quite right. There must be some disposition which causes the couple to get married, otherwise the correlation is uninteresting.

Uninteresting to you and me, that is, but not to the marketing persons, for whom disposition is old hat. For them, we live in a situationist world. Imagine a situationist wife (SW) talking to her situationist husband (SH).

SW: Darling, I've got some bad news.
SH: What's that, my dear?
SW: We're going to have a 3rd baby, which dilutes the per capita benefit of our £5,000 marriage dispensation to a measly £1,000 at a stroke.
SH: True, but we will get a 3rd baby bond, which somewhat relieves the agony and, of course, we still have separate capital gains tax allowances, even though we're married.
SW: Bit of an old canard, that, after all we only actually derive the benefit if we crystallise a gain.
SH: Hmm
SW: Hmm
SH: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
SW: You bet. I'll go and check the price of babies on eBay right now!

David Moss, London, UK

Studies into divorce will show that there are a variety of reasons for increased divorce rates.....however one factor that seems to come into play nearly every time is money. Money is not everything but it facilitates life and allows people to do what they want.

Maybe well paid doctors and other professionals can sneer at £80 a month, but many who earn the actual median incomes would not. That amount would make a real diffierence for them and would help to alleviate a common factor behind the deterioration of marriage amoung those on a lower (well, a normal) income.

By the way, single parents are not discrimiated against as they already receive benefits through the tax credits system according to their need, and provision could be made for established cohabiting couples, not unlike that made to recognise established relationships when obtaining a visa. I don't see what the problem is with trying to encourage stable relationships in our society.

William, Oxford,

Nick from London seems to be a little confused - Daniel Finkenstein doesn't represent the Conservative Party and this isn't one of their policies.

As for all of his questions - he doesn't seem to be suggesting any answers to alcoholism and violence yet ridicules one solution which has been shown overwhelmingly to help address their root causes - marriage.

Simon Carter, London,

A SMART IDEA! A stable home, with a mother and father who are married and in a committed relationship, is of inestimable value and of tremendous importance to any child. Just ask any child, or adult, who has grown up in a "broken home" and, I am sure, you will get a definite, unequivocal endorsement of that statement. Ask me! The costs to society of illegitimacy.. and/or of children growing up without fathers...of women struggling.. struggling(!) to be both father and mother to one or more children, to keep them fed, clothed and out of trouble...are horrendous! Some women succeed brilliantly...despite the odds, and raise super kids. Too many women try...too many, despite their valiant efforts...fail. The consequencies can be poverty, ill-health, child neglect or abuse, poor education and inadequate preparation for life, poor social skills, crime, etc., ..all of which...YOU eventually pay for! Finke is on target. A smart idea!

Garth Rex, Glendale Heights, USA

As a divorcee (who'se marriage break up was entirely out of my hands), who believes in marriage and is a floating voter I have to say that £20.00 is nothing and would not entice me to stay with someone. You can't put a price in happiness or the things that really matter to people.

Whereas the tax credit system, although it is flawed has enabled me to keep my head above water, to provide the stability for my children the Conservatives want and means I will vote Labour.

As for the £5,000 idea- great, it would help out, but may I suggest that it only goes to divorcees who are not to blame for a marriage break up and that goes for those who are outside a marriage but contribute to it's demise? Th eChurch of England's rules on remarrying in a church seem like a good benchmark.

Julie , Lincolnshire,

"There is no evidence, or theory, that suggests that paying people continual instalments of small sums of money (or taking it off the tax bills of those who pay tax) would increase the longevity of their relationship".

Really?

I can assure you that the "continual instalments of small sums of money" (dividends) has maintained, supported and succoured my relationship with several shares for almost as long as my marriage.

David Moss, London, UK

Yet another stupid idea to waste hard earned taxpayer's money. If people want to get hitched it's entirely their business and If the government REALLY wants to promote marriage it might be better to invest in educating both sexes about gender values and gender issues, so that they can understand themselves and others better, which in it's turn would give couples a better platform of understanding on which to build a good relationship. It's no good paying people to get married when according to statistics 1 in 3 (or more) marriages end in divorce.

T. Bishop, London, UK

Good point maybe they should recognise marriage more no more nonsense!!!

Dave , london, england

Don't you just love the way that CAPITAL LETTERS are such a good substitute for presenting a REAL ARGUMENT?

Andy, Perth,

A start would be to reform the tax and benefit structures so that they don't actually discriminate against marriage.

Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

The evidence in favour of marriage and the stable family unit that it engenders is so overwhelming that anything that encourages it has to be a good idea. It is painfully clear that the welfare state has encouraged many young women to give birth as soon as possible in order to be housed quicker, and this situation has to be reversed for the long-term health of Great Britain.

Tim, Tunbridge Wells, UK

The whole thing confuses correlation with causation. Choosing to marry rather than cohabit correlates with the length of time a relationship lasts - this is because there is some tendency for people who have attitudes that lead to a lengthy relationships to choose to marry rather than cohabit.

The act of marrying does not cause a relationship to last longer, so enticing people to marry who otherwise would not through a tax or benefit advantage will not increase the length of time their relationship lasts because it does not change the personalities or attitudes of the people involved.

Jamie Gilmour, Bolton, UK

Hey - good idea! It's about time someone stood up for something that will stem the flood of marriage breakdown and crime. As for rights, what about the rights of ordinary people to not have crime on their doorsteps. This isn't a quick fix though, but it is moving in the right direction

Bill, Exeter, UK

Call me Mr Cynical, but maybe some people will see this as 5000 pounds very easily earned.

David Bannen, Oxford, UK

I'm in favour provided that the reward for getting married is backdated by 33 years.

Malcolm Williamson, Welwyn Garden City, UK

Some of the contributors below seem to have mistaken the writer's idea for a policy being offered by the Conservative party. It is not.

Ben, London,

It's an interesting idea, but wouldn't the prospect of it infuriate those who had recently got married and missed out? What are we going to do with all the empty churches and registry offices for two or three years, as the marriage rate plunges while people defer the ceremony in the hope of obtaining the benefit? How will they survive when their fee income dries up? To say nothing of the hit hotels and other venues will take from loss of receptions, honeymoons etc.

I suppose we could pay for it by scrapping Gordon's baby bonds.

Peter Dunford, Bournemouth,

Yes. Please let's give more cash to people. This is the answer to absolutely everything, isn't it? Too much car use - make it more expensive. Not enough marriage - give people a bonus. It's as if everyone's read the first page of an economics textbook and rushed out to use it as a policy tool. Motivations are complex. Solutions are complex.

Besides, this will surely only serve to increase the number of failed marriages. Need a quick couple of grand? Get hitched!

Oh and I like this: "many of the people the Tories wish to influence don’t earn enough to pay tax." Are there that many people really earning under £5225?

Just brilliant.

Paul Carpenter, Leeds,

Why not withhold the payment for five or ten years, until the couple has outlasted the period where divorce is statistically most likely? Giving out £5000 on the wedding day will not encourage people to marry to stay together, or to have children.

Lux, Nancy, France

The answer is simple - don't encourage or discourage marriage. In these days of genetic testing parenthood is no longer deniable, so revise the marrage contract to be automatic and struck between parent and child. Cohabitation of parents is not necessary, but parenthood places a legal requirement of child welfare on the parent with no opt-out clause available.
I'm sure many people will raise many objections, but not those that genuinely commit to the welfare of their own children and are prepared to devote a large part of their lives to bringing them up properly and paying the cost of doing so.

KR, Stockport,

Most adults could keep their families until ther last forty years, Why do they now need benefits? Taxation and indiscriminate benefits. Even poor families pay huge taxes. It would be far better for the poor to pay no tax with a fat personal allowance so that living together would be a lot cheaper and they could have and keep their families independently and with dignity. We should also be far more discriminating about to whom we pay benefits. It is one thing to pay those fallen on hard times and quite another to give a teenager a flat, income, etc. for getting pregnant when she should be in school, or a women who has multiple babies from multiple random men with no intention of working. Minors [under 18] should get no benefits which should be go to their parents and no-one should get more than 3 years benefit [until the child goes to school] and told that the rest of the population should not be forced to keep her just so that she can have babies.

R Mason, London, UK

The reason so many marriages fail is the incorrect time adopted by majority. Most marriages take place when both the partners are struggling in their careers, coming of a child puts further strain on finances, those from well off background manage to coop, in other cases this may lead to a breakup. Before a marriage licence is granted, it would be prudent to see that at least one partner has his feet on ground to support it. If both are in air, than that is were the marriage ends, in air.

John Grandee, London, UK

Would this dowry be refundable, on a pro-rata basis, in the event of divorce? How long would one have to remain married in order to extinguish this liability? Unfortunately, many more people would spend this money betting on dobbin than weight watchers fees. If the government were to commit this money it would be far better to pay it driectly into a superannuation account.

James , Canberra, Australia.

A lump payment is almost exactly the wrong thing! The only fair way to promote marriage is to allow BOTH tax allowances to be set against the total income of the family. Why is this fair, because marriage is a commitment to look after another person (in sickness and in health) and children. Why not extend this to unmarried couples? well because we need a simple way to demonstrate when people are really committed to each other and not cruising for a quick tax advantage, and the idea of this is to help people live together for the long term (with the benefits to the rest of society this brings). Civil marriage (including same sex couples) is a way of people committing in public without all that god business, which is easily recognised by the state and society at large. It is also easy to sell on grounds of fairness that 2 people both working on a salary of 20K each should have the same disposable income as 1person on 40K per year supporting 2 people.

russell Lloyd, LLandudno,

It is ridiculous that a policy which is being developed by a party aiming to demonstrate economically and socially liberal credentials should be to incentivise marriage through the tax code... The problem isn't that people aren't incentivised to marry but that we are punished for living and creating wealth.

Married people are discriminated against in many ways but the answer isn't to give them something with one hand after taking with the other. The answer is to eliminate ALL the ridiculous payments, tax credits, subsidies and other government interventions in the lives of all people - married and otherwise. A truly liberal government would lower taxes dramatically in line with reductions in handouts - trustingg us to make our own decisions about how to live our lives.

Why can't Gordon Brown, David Cameron and all the other interfering nannies just butt out of our lives and focus on administering public goods rather than manipulating behaviours and buying votes!

paul, windsor, UK

This is an interesting twist on the idea of subsidising marriage. But you lose sight of the Tory rationale for subsidising marriage (as do they): that it provides a better environment for children to grow up in. So why pay it to people who don’t have children?

Dave, London,

I think this is actually quite a good idea - better than a tenner a week or whatever the tax break is supposed to mean. I'm engaged and haven't actually got round to organising the marriage yet largely because of how expensive the whole thing is going to be. A lump sum like this might really incentivise people to make the jump (might not *keep* them married but that's another story...)

elemjay, London,

I work in Germany where marriage is recognised by the tax system. My experience is that the problems of social breakdown are far less severe in Germany than in England. It seems clear that in the round, marriage benefits society. So let's cut the crap and give a married tax allowance - it is the way to send a clear message. If some people feel that is discriminatory, then tough - it is the overall well being of society as a whole which matters.

Richard, Kidderminster, England

This policy does discriminate and is in no way liberal as it wastes taxpayers money on an area of life where government should have absolutely no involvement. The idea of giving people a dowry is nonsense, UTTER NONSENSE. Government should spend less of people's hard on money as it simply isn't capable of doing so effectively or efficiently.

John, Guangzhou, China

So, this is the outcome of the Great Conservative Policy Debate? In the name of "fixing society" we shall be offered a not very impressive bribe, which does nothing to change anything of substance. What happens if people marry, divorce, remarry? Will the cash flow? No sane voter will see this as anything but a crude and heavy-handed attempt at social engineering. This will not fix anything of significance. Instead, ask yourselves why we have an increasingly alcoholic and violent underclass. Just don't kid yourself that you can bribe people away from addictions, whether to alcohol or violence. Come with some real policy ideas, and then start talking about being electable. What you currently offer is not policy, rather it is simply corrupting a very small part of a disillusioned society.

Nick, London, UK