[Acrylic-bob]

I think this is more about reducing the Welfare burden than anything else. Statistically, it is true that children with a stable family background cost the state so much less over the course of their lives than children of single parent and no parent backgrounds.Raising children is an expensive undertaking and one that the state would rather not have to fund. This burden is bourne not only by the DSS but also by the NHS, Education, Local Government and The Justice System.

Against a weakening global economic situation in general and also in the wake of last summer's riots you may expect that there will be more from the government to encourage, not only the feckless and the workshy, but all of us, to take on an increasing share of the responsibility and costs for the way we choose to run our lives.

And quite right too. Liberty and freedom are vitally important elements in any society. We must take care that these elements are sufficiently guarded that they do not manifest their darker sides. Liberty is not Licence and Freedom, no matter how much the liberal left may whine and squeal, has never meant Irresponsibility.

As a single person, business taxpayer and employer. I think that if allowing a married family to keep hold of a little more of what they earn meant that there was a corresponding decrease in calls on the state for assistance and intervention then that would be something that we all would benefit from in the long run.