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

stingyjames

Is anyone here missing the point? Statistics that show children from married parents have lower unemplyoment must be at least 15 years out of date for them to know. Over time attitudes and cultures change, and we have little idea of whether the statistic will be similar for those growing up now or in the last five years.

A stable couple is just the same as marriage. If your relationship is strong enough as it is, I don't see the need to marry (either for proving it to yourself or others).

Considering divorce rates are soaring, I don't think any support should be put behind this mentality that being married makes better children or a better society....

Maybe the kind of people who marry are the poeple who would bring up children properly anyway?

DLK_2

Maybe be some tax break for couples where one parent doesn't work because you have young children and wish to stay at home with them. There appears to be benefits available to help parents back to work and pay childcare costs, where is the break for parents looking after their own children?

Paul_Herring

DLK wrote: »

Maybe be some tax break for couples where one parent doesn't work because you have young children and wish to stay at home with them. There appears to be benefits available to help parents back to work and pay childcare costs, where is the break for parents looking after their own children?

The government doesn't want to encourage stay-at-home parents, (especially if they're single parents.) Messes with the employment figures apparently.

keith26

I cant see why married couples should benefit from an allowance in this day and age, its cheaper for 2 to live together than a single wage earner, as for it being a bedrock, what utter tosh, Ive been there and paid for a very expensive divorce because of my wives infidelities and now quite happily live with my not so new partner and children with no intention of ever getting married. I dont see why I should be penalised, as for the break down leading to a poor society, I dont agree, all my kids are doing fine and have never been in bother, people with low moral standards are people with low moral standards whether they are married or not Dave101t!

matchmade

Married people are currently penalised by the tax system, because you cannot claim two sets of Principal Private Residence allowances if you own more than one house. In other words, an unmarried couple can each claim to be single, so if each owns a property in their own right, neither will pay capital gains tax when the properties are sold. If you marry, however, you are only allowed one house between the two of you, so the other property is now exposed to CGT.

Myself, I think marriage should be encouraged in the tax system and in wider society. I have no spiritual or moral axe to grind here - I'm a practising atheist and humanist, and pragmatic. Survey after survey shows that unmarried couples are less stable and more prone to breakup than married couples. Marriage is not just a piece of paper, as people say: it's a social and psychological contract that says to the social world and each other that you're serious about sticking together..It also still has a few legal benefits that offer protection and security - guaranteed inheritance when one partner dies, for example, and guaranteed insurance and pension payments on death, and a presumption of the right to deed of attorney. These are not impossible to obtain if you are partners, but they are harder, and I think correctly so, because whatever partners themselves claim, it's clear from the evidence and from common sense that most people who remain long-term partners and don't get married do so because they secretly want a get-out clause. They don't believe in the benefits of marriage, they don't want the burden of the responsibilities, and they want the convenience of switching partners or going single when it suits them.

I'm not saying married people are saints, or that all partners are fickle, but the evidence shows that on balance, marriage is better for social stability, psychological health, and bringing up children within extended families and peer networks. Government is not just about revenue raising and spending: it also makes judgements about social priorities and cultural balance. The prevailing rhetoric is all about "vulnerable" people and "protecting the child", but no-one ever talks about ways to support ordinary adults, to encourage them to be better people without the heavy-handed social engineering that the current exhausted and played-out Government unfortunately indulges in. Based on the evidence and longstanding social norms, to me it makes sense to do more to encourage marriage, including use of the tax system.

Terry_D

matchmade wrote: »

Married people are currently penalised by the tax system, because you cannot claim two sets of Principal Private Residence allowances if you own more than one house. In other words, an unmarried couple can each claim to be single, so if each owns a property in their own right, neither will pay capital gains tax when the properties are sold. If you marry, however, you are only allowed one house between the two of you, so the other property is now exposed to CGT.

Myself, I think marriage should be encouraged in the tax system and in wider society. I have no spiritual or moral axe to grind here - I'm a practising atheist and humanist, and pragmatic. Survey after survey shows that unmarried couples are less stable and more prone to breakup than married couples. Marriage is not just a piece of paper, as people say: it's a social and psychological contract that says to the social world and each other that you're serious about sticking together..It also still has a few legal benefits that offer protection and security - guaranteed inheritance when one partner dies, for example, and guaranteed insurance and pension payments on death, and a presumption of the right to deed of attorney. These are not impossible to obtain if you are partners, but they are harder, and I think correctly so, because whatever partners themselves claim, it's clear from the evidence and from common sense that most people who remain long-term partners and don't get married do so because they secretly want a get-out clause. They don't believe in the benefits of marriage, they don't want the burden of the responsibilities, and they want the convenience of switching partners or going single when it suits them.

I'm not saying married people are saints, or that all partners are fickle, but the evidence shows that on balance, marriage is better for social stability, psychological health, and bringing up children within extended families and peer networks. Government is not just about revenue raising and spending: it also makes judgements about social priorities and cultural balance. The prevailing rhetoric is all about "vulnerable" people and "protecting the child", but no-one ever talks about ways to support ordinary adults, to encourage them to be better people without the heavy-handed social engineering that the current exhausted and played-out Government unfortunately indulges in. Based on the evidence and longstanding social norms, to me it makes sense to do more to encourage marriage, including use of the tax system.

Spot on Matchmade - I'm with you! (just coming up to 31 years married - 2nd time around for both of us):T

taralampy

Surely everyone should be treated as an individual for both their tax and benefits. It shouldn’t make any difference if you are married, in a relationship or single you should contribute equally and receive equally from the “central pot of money”.

I’m finding it hard to understand how people are justifying they deserve more than others solely due to their relationship status.

StarF15h_2

I think the tax and benefit systems are unfair and unbalanced. For example, I'm taxed as an individual, so all my income is assessed and taxed on what I earn. I pay my own National Insurance and I pay my own income tax.

However, should I fall on hard times and need some state benefit, then it is immediately tested in the context of what my partner earns. This to me seems unfair.

In terms of the married allowance, I can see this is a complex problem.

The question is what behaviour is the tax hoping to promote? I would suggest marriage (or at least living as a family unit) - which is quite ironic since the government seems to be saying one thing and acting a different way....

The emotional aspects of this tax seem to the inequality in which is infer between different types of family units and their matrimonial state.

I wonder what the reaction would be if you took the emotion and inference out of it…

Having said that I’ve just tried to come up with a name of a new allowance and find that I either discriminate against single parent families or allow people sharing a house to benefit….

Rock and hard place me thinks…

jrawle

Gavin83 wrote: »

Why are you sick at seeing this exactly?

Because they are being financially rewarded for good luck, as if having a much happier life wasn't already reward enough.

Saetana wrote: »

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).

No, not everyone who isn't married chooses to be unmarried. You are assuming everyone is either (1) in an unmarried partnership or (2) married. What about the people who are single, not through choice, but becasue they haven't met the right person? They don't even have the option of marrying.

Also, state benefits are intended to support people who are really stuck, hard up and in poverty. Too many people just see benefits as money they are entitled to as a reward for being unemployed, rather than emergency money to keep them going if, and only if, they need it. If your partner brings in enough money to see you through periods of unemployment, you don't need money from the state, which should be a last resort. People with savings face the same situation. If two people earn the same for years and A spends it down the pub every Friday while B saves it all, when they are both made redundant, A will get means-tested Jobseeker's Allowance and B won't. So how about an extra tax break for savers (it's high time tax on savings was abolished, but that's for another thread...)

rogerobh

I would agree with the view that marriage should play no part in the tax system but for one fact. If you want it that way why do married people get less old age pension?