'Should married couples get a tax break?' poll discussion

Paul_Herring

coco1980 wrote: »

claire5005 wrote:

Sorry but I think that teenage single mums are the !!!!less ones

do you think all teenage single mums chose to be that way,

Not all of them, no.

tryingtoruletheworld

Taxes are to pay for services in place for the whole of society, and therefore how much you pay should not be determined by your lifestyle choice, regarding marriage or otherwise. Neither should they be used to mould society (eg put up tax on alcohol because the government believe people to be drinking too much). Tax is not there to manipulate the population or the way they live their lives, but to provide services, therefore they should not be used to encourage/discourage certain ways of living and other life choices.

coco1980

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Not all of them, no.

sorry to go away from subject but i was given a council flat when i was 18, i had no children at this point. i fell pregnant at 19 and partner left so i moved back in with my parents, when i then reapplied for a council house i could not get one.

I am a single parent, my partner moved in with me and ds last year. we were much better off when we lived apart, choosing to live together means we are about 500.00 worse off each month. even if we chose to we could not afford to get married. if we are treated as a couple for tax credit purposes then surely we should be for tax

jrawle

Trunk_z wrote: »

I've heard statistics thrown around here, at Uni, the news etc... That children are more likely to be more "useful" to society from a married family.

You're quite right, the statistics don't prove a causal link. People from better-off, middle class families are more likely to be married, and their kids do better. It's probably nothing to do with the fact their parents were married.

jrawle

I notice that almost all the posts here are commenting that children are brought up better by married couples. Other people can disagree or agree with that, but isn't the proposed tax break for married couples, not just married parents? Isn't what people here want an increase in child benefit for married parents, or something like that?

I'm quite sick of seeing young, professional couples who pay less council tax, save loads of money by living together, yet have no children and no more responsibilities than a single person. Why should they receive yet another benefit simply for being lucky enough to meet the person they want to marry?

By all means reward good parents. The exact way to identify good parents is up for debate. What we don't need is a tax break for married couples, as that's unfair and discriminates against single people.

boliston

I'd have said that it's single people who need the tax breaks as they have to bear more costs as they can't share bills. Also these days more and more people are choosing to be single rather than part of a couple. In a vastly overpopulated world this can only be a good thing as couples are more likely to have kids and add to the problem.

Gavin83

jrawle wrote: »

I'm quite sick of seeing young, professional couples who pay less council tax, save loads of money by living together, yet have no children and no more responsibilities than a single person.

Why are you sick at seeing this exactly?

I agree with your post in principle though, no where did the original post state that these tax breaks would involve children. Should a married couple who don't wish to have children be entitled to the same as those who do, or even unmarried couples with children?

It's open to too many problems and instances of abuse too. If the benefits were too great it could lead people into getting married before they are ready and this could lead to higher divorce rates in the future. It could also lead to seperated couples remaining married until wanting to marry a new partner just to stay within the allowances.

I don't agree with using taxs to reward lifestyle choices anyway, how people choose to live their life is up to them.

Paul_Herring

Gavin83 wrote: »

Should a married couple who don't wish to have children be entitled to the same as those who do, or even unmarried couples with children?

People with children already get other benefits because they have children. They don't have to be married (or even have a partner) to get some of them.

Saetana

anilah wrote: »

I would humbly suggest
1. Married couple should get a tax break
2. Cohabitation is difficult if not impossible to prove. Giving tax breaks for cohabitation will encourage some (many!) to claim dishonestly. Marriage on the other hand is a legal status and easy to prove.
3. The most important issue is to urge the current government to stop encouraging single parenthood! (Today's news item: 14 year olds will be taught how to be good parents!!)

Agreed, although for me "married couple" should cover civil partnerships as well (not my personal situation but its only fair). How much effect has the fact that these days couples lose out rather than benefit from marriage had on the institution? I have been happily married for 20 years and hardly any of our peer group are married to this day, never mind at the time.

As regards money for married couples, well we have no children and I am not overfond of my taxes going to subsidise other people's offspring so I do not see why married couples should not have a share.

I don't get the point about atheists - I am an atheist and had a registry office wedding, civil partnerships are also non-religious.

Those who choose not to get married, well that is your choice the same as it was the choice of some of us to get married knowing they could be worse off potentially (benefits particularly in times of unemployment/illness).

To summarise, I voted A of course, lol!

harryhound

Gavin83 wrote: »

I don't agree with using taxs to reward lifestyle choices anyway, how people choose to live their life is up to them.

As long as they don't expect the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of their self centred choice.