Should I marry just for the tax breaks?
Dear Wilhemina My partner and I have been cohabiting for 15 years and we have a five-year-old daughter. I’ve always supported him through the quiet times in his business, but now, with the promise of tax breaks from David Cameron, he wants us to get married, saying that we could pop down to the council, pay £200 and save thousands. How romantic! We vote Lib Dem or Green and frankly I’d rather be a few quid worse off than be swayed by Tory policy. Should I just bite the bullet and go with it, or stick to my guns? Pissed off from Croxley Green
Dear Pissed Off from Croxley Green This sort of argument has been taking place in more than one household recently. Political sentiment aside, ask yourself whether you’d like to get married. If not, then don’t. The Cameron deal, even in the wildest Tory dreams, isn’t designed to push people into marriage who don’t want to be there. It’s a “nudge”—not a shove. Whether this nudge is a good idea is beyond the scope of this column. But I will say this: while I’m not sure taxpayers’ money should be used to privilege social institutions like marriage, accusations of social engineering are a bit rich coming from a Labour government that has made social engineering policy an art form—albeit often with good reason. This is what the left does: engineer change rather than just holding its breath.
No one wants to say “we got married for cash” or “because David Cameron told us to.” But saying “we got married because life would be easier and better for our family as a result” isn’t nearly so nuts. After all, getting married can be about improving on life together, making it more comfortable, sweeter, safer. In fact, it’s estimated that only about 6 per cent of couples would be better off married under the Cameron plan (and mainly those with a single wage-earner, which isn’t your case). Of those, the majority have children under three. The “thousands” that your partner refers to are unlikely to materialise. As these paltry gains have been covered widely in the media, I wonder whether marriage is just something he wants, and doesn’t know how else to bring it up? Wilhemina
My colleague is a fraud
Dear Wilhemina The company I work for has been contracting out a lot of its PR and “thought leadership” to a gifted but expensive individual. Her take on work and life in general is very generous, open, network-based and non-hierarchical. Yet in reality she is anything but: she’s stingy with her time, petulant, and seems to value money over interest when it comes to the work she does (she’s a walking advert for Gucci). Her agent handles all her projects and makes outrageous requirements on her behalf. I don’t begrudge her her success, but I’m puzzled by the gap between what she preaches and how she behaves. She’s a fraud. Should I blow the whistle? MW
Dear MW It doesn’t seem you have much to blow that whistle about. Your desire to expose this woman sounds more like exasperation than a crusade for more authentic work practices. People who manage this sort of trick (making a ton of money by preaching a message they don’t live by) are highly irritating. But is this having adverse effects on the work she’s doing for you? In professional terms, if she’s effective and her message is having a positive impact on your organisation, then she’s doing her job. If and when her behaviour detracts from this, she will reap the consequences.
Who hasn’t been around someone brilliant that you wouldn’t want to have dinner with? Life in the limelight may demand impeccable behaviour, but she isn’t Amy Winehouse singing about teetotalism. She sells a message that others buy. She’s not a fraud, just a disappointment. The only grown-up way to address this is personally and in a private conversation—and if you want to do that I suggest waiting until she’s no longer consulting for you. Wilhemina
My son’s a genius, but impossible to live with
Dear Wilhemina My youngest son is eight and very gifted; his teachers agree. As a result, he’s bored at school (and demanding at home) and increasingly disruptive. My wife and I try hard, but neither of us has enough time or experience to give him what he needs. I want to send him to a school for gifted children; she is adamant we should not rob him of a “normal childhood.” Am I being competitive and narrow-minded or could a transfer really best serve his interests? Mick P
Dear Mick P This is a little similar to the dilemma faced by parents trying to choose between state and private education: the quality vs diversity debate. It’s clear that learning to cope in an environment of children with different abilities and backgrounds gives us some of the skills we need as adults later on. And a “normal childhood” might be one in which there is not undue pressure to perform in ways that exclude balanced development. There’s also the worry that a child might turn into an over-confident brat if they are led to think that they’re somehow extraordinary.
Yet part of a happy childhood is feeling challenged, supported and excited. I’d advise a “taster” programme. Summer schools and/or after-school and mentoring programmes might help him (and you) discover what’s best. Perhaps supplementing his schooling in these ways is enough for now. The final decision is as much about how you cope with him within your family as how he copes with school. Wilhemina
Send your problems—in confidence—to wilhemina@prospect-magazine.co.uk
Dear Wilhemina My partner and I have been cohabiting for 15 years and we have a five-year-old daughter. I’ve always supported him through the quiet times in his business, but now, with the promise of tax breaks from David Cameron, he wants us to get married, saying that we could pop down to the council, pay £200 and save thousands. How romantic! We vote Lib Dem or Green and frankly I’d rather be a few quid worse off than be swayed by Tory policy. Should I just bite the bullet and go with it, or stick to my guns? Pissed off from Croxley Green
Dear Pissed Off from Croxley Green This sort of argument has been taking place in more than one household recently. Political sentiment aside, ask yourself whether you’d like to get married. If not, then don’t. The Cameron deal, even in the wildest Tory dreams, isn’t designed to push people into marriage who don’t want to be there. It’s a “nudge”—not a shove. Whether this nudge is a good idea is beyond the scope of this column. But I will say this: while I’m not sure taxpayers’ money should be used to privilege social institutions like marriage, accusations of social engineering are a bit rich coming from a Labour government that has made social engineering policy an art form—albeit often with good reason. This is what the left does: engineer change rather than just holding its breath.
No one wants to say “we got married for cash” or “because David Cameron told us to.” But saying “we got married because life would be easier and better for our family as a result” isn’t nearly so nuts. After all, getting married can be about improving on life together, making it more comfortable, sweeter, safer. In fact, it’s estimated that only about 6 per cent of couples would be better off married under the Cameron plan (and mainly those with a single wage-earner, which isn’t your case). Of those, the majority have children under three. The “thousands” that your partner refers to are unlikely to materialise. As these paltry gains have been covered widely in the media, I wonder whether marriage is just something he wants, and doesn’t know how else to bring it up? Wilhemina
My colleague is a fraud
Dear Wilhemina The company I work for has been contracting out a lot of its PR and “thought leadership” to a gifted but expensive individual. Her take on work and life in general is very generous, open, network-based and non-hierarchical. Yet in reality she is anything but: she’s stingy with her time, petulant, and seems to value money over interest when it comes to the work she does (she’s a walking advert for Gucci). Her agent handles all her projects and makes outrageous requirements on her behalf. I don’t begrudge her her success, but I’m puzzled by the gap between what she preaches and how she behaves. She’s a fraud. Should I blow the whistle? MW
Dear MW It doesn’t seem you have much to blow that whistle about. Your desire to expose this woman sounds more like exasperation than a crusade for more authentic work practices. People who manage this sort of trick (making a ton of money by preaching a message they don’t live by) are highly irritating. But is this having adverse effects on the work she’s doing for you? In professional terms, if she’s effective and her message is having a positive impact on your organisation, then she’s doing her job. If and when her behaviour detracts from this, she will reap the consequences.
Who hasn’t been around someone brilliant that you wouldn’t want to have dinner with? Life in the limelight may demand impeccable behaviour, but she isn’t Amy Winehouse singing about teetotalism. She sells a message that others buy. She’s not a fraud, just a disappointment. The only grown-up way to address this is personally and in a private conversation—and if you want to do that I suggest waiting until she’s no longer consulting for you. Wilhemina
My son’s a genius, but impossible to live with
Dear Wilhemina My youngest son is eight and very gifted; his teachers agree. As a result, he’s bored at school (and demanding at home) and increasingly disruptive. My wife and I try hard, but neither of us has enough time or experience to give him what he needs. I want to send him to a school for gifted children; she is adamant we should not rob him of a “normal childhood.” Am I being competitive and narrow-minded or could a transfer really best serve his interests? Mick P
Dear Mick P This is a little similar to the dilemma faced by parents trying to choose between state and private education: the quality vs diversity debate. It’s clear that learning to cope in an environment of children with different abilities and backgrounds gives us some of the skills we need as adults later on. And a “normal childhood” might be one in which there is not undue pressure to perform in ways that exclude balanced development. There’s also the worry that a child might turn into an over-confident brat if they are led to think that they’re somehow extraordinary.
Yet part of a happy childhood is feeling challenged, supported and excited. I’d advise a “taster” programme. Summer schools and/or after-school and mentoring programmes might help him (and you) discover what’s best. Perhaps supplementing his schooling in these ways is enough for now. The final decision is as much about how you cope with him within your family as how he copes with school. Wilhemina
Send your problems—in confidence—to wilhemina@prospect-magazine.co.uk
