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

jrawle

irishwench69 wrote: »

Interesting debate so far! Looking at this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6992961.ece

The original discussion was based on tax breaks for all married couples. This new idea would be slightly less objectionable - a sort of extra child benefit for married couples.

irishwench69 wrote: »

There is a lot of evidence out there to suggest that marriage is important when raising children, even more so than those in a committed relationship. Old fashioned? Maybe, but it does seem to be true!

Would you provide a reference to the research that provides this "evidence"?

irishwench69 wrote: »

I would ideally like to see this bought in for all marriages,

Why? You've just stated your argument based on the premise that "marriage is important when raising children". So why give the same tax break to childless couples, who may never have children? Why give those people such an unfair advantage over single people, who don't even have the choice of marrying?

hiwaar

I beleieve yes, although it is a controvesial issue and subject to political debates

anjak-j

No, I don't agree with tax breaks for married couples. Marriage is a lifestyle choice, as is coupling without marrying, getting a civil union, or staying single. Why should marriage be elevated to greater validity than any other choice? And why should a unit that has two incomes to share the costs of running a home get the help? Even if you're a low income couple, somewhere out there is a single person struggling on the lowest of the two wages. So they aren't entitled to help, which they actually need more?

If the idea is to promote family, then maybe the breaks should go to families - those with children, regardless of the amount of parents involved in them or their marital arrangements - or lack thereof.

Oh yeah, we have that already - it's called Child Tax Credit.

jrawle

anjak-j wrote: »

No, I don't agree with tax breaks for married couples. Marriage is a lifestyle choice, as is coupling without marrying, getting a civil union, or staying single.

Largely agree with what you said, which all makes good sense. Just one point on which I have to pick you up. For many people, being single is not a lifestyle choice, as no choice has presented itself. Governments may choose to reward people for certain lifestyle choices as a method of social engineering (something you and I both disagree with) but when it disadvantages a group who don't have a choice, it becomes discrimination, pure and simple.

hethb28

WelshGandalf wrote: »

Would you marry if there was a tax break available?

WelshGandalf - no I wouldn't. I'm not going to do anything in my personal life just to fall in with what a political party wants unless of course it becomes law. I'm in a fortunate position that both my partner and I are educated and have a good job so I'm not going to lose sleep over missing out on a tax break. My point is that I disagree with them discriminating over people who chose, or are forced, to live their lives unmarried.