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

lyndorset

I strongly believe that married couples (including civil partnerships) should be taxed as ONE UNIT ie tax allowance shared. This would be a much fairer system. :beer:

Mark_A_3

I generally think it's a good idea due to the tax disadvantages which have been previously in place for married couples.

However, one key thing to add to the debate is why that's been: to focus on bringing children out of poverty, who are more often from single parent families / in care. Therefore, to give tax breaks to married couples makes this much harder. If we believe that children should be given life chances regardless of the situation they find themselves in as more important than equity in the system (I'm not saying whether it is or it isn't) then it's probably not the best policy.

I know people will say that incentivising marriage/stable relationships helps provide a stable environment for children to grow up in, however you could also argue from the other side that those who are likely to be better earning / provide a good upbringing for children (because of their own upbringing) are those that are also more likely to get married, and incentivising it makes little difference.

So in conclusion, it's not a straightforward one!

robin_banks

adwat wrote: »

Simply because marriages and divorces are kept track of so it is possible to give the tax break and remove it.

Your relationship is not formally logged by any authority so it is impossible to reward it, otherwise anyone could claim a tax break just by requesting it.

Electoral Register, Council Tax for a start, so it is logged by 'authorities'.

If authorities can use anti-terrorist laws to see where couples live in relation to where thier children go to school then they can verify co-habiting couples easily enough.

Mark_A_3

smala01 wrote: »

What utter rubbish...


Why should I have to subsidise the married and fec.kless? As a society we shouldn`t undertake anything we cannot afford, and hence you shouldn`t need "Tax breaks"

Everyone should pay the same tax.

Smala01

Currently, according to extensive research, married couples with children pay more tax than single people with children - and in comparison with most other european countries are disadvantaged. Hence the policies. However, as I posted above, it's not quite a straightforward as equity.

smala01

Mark_A wrote: »

I generally think it's a good idea due to the tax disadvantages which have been previously in place for married couples.

However, one key thing to add to the debate is why that's been: to focus on bringing children out of poverty, who are more often from single parent families / in care. Therefore, to give tax breaks to married couples makes this much harder. If we believe that children should be given life chances regardless of the situation they find themselves in as more important than equity in the system (I'm not saying whether it is or it isn't) then it's probably not the best policy.

I know people will say that incentivising marriage/stable relationships helps provide a stable environment for children to grow up in, however you could also argue from the other side that those who are likely to be better earning / provide a good upbringing for children (because of their own upbringing) are those that are also more likely to get married, and incentivising it makes little difference.

So in conclusion, it's not a straightforward one!

Agree. In addition;

One of the disadvantages of the benefit spend to relieve child poverty is the dis-incentive for single mothers to go out an work. Whilst many would dearly like to provide for their children they are faced with a net benefit of £30-£40 per week from full time employment. I wouldn`t get out of bed for that and why should they?

Speaking from personal experience, you often need hardship to spur you on to making something of yourself. I'm afraid we may have gone too far on the handouts.

Smala01

P.S. and i also take exception to the relative poverty definition used by the government. I'm not sure someone is actually in poverty because they are relatively less well off than the average. Lack of hot water, and bread is poverty, not the absence of a television and DVD player

claire5005_2

smala01 wrote: »

What utter rubbish...



Why should I have to subsidise the married and fec.kless? As a society we shouldn`t undertake anything we cannot afford, and hence you shouldn`t need "Tax breaks"


Smala01

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

PoorPennilessMe

This kind of thread/discussion really gets my blood boiling... I'm a great believer that anyone wanting to get married should do so for the right reasons and NOT do it to get advantages. What this would mean, as others have said, is that people will get married for the WRONG reasons, leading to more divorces, single parent families, and the alleged 'breakdown of moral values in society' (and before you shout at me - I don't subscribe to that myself... I just quote what others say.)

Same applies for advantages to having children.

I myself have never been married (37 years old) and have no children. I am in a long term relationship, but we have decided that living together (for now at least) and having children is not what we want. In fact, should we not be rewarded by the government for NOT bringing any drains on society, I mean children, into the world?

On a slightly related note, can anyone explain to me why someone I know, when both she and her husband each earn at least double what I do (£150k+ income) get Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit, subsidised by my taxes????

GRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Right, calmer now - rant over....

PoorPennilessMe

qetu1357 wrote: »

Research after research shows that children who are born and brought up in married relationships are less likely to be unemployed, involved in crime, taking drugs etc. than children who are not.

Also research shows that people who marry with children stay together longer than average on those who don't.

No disrespect meant, but do you read the Daily Mail much? I think if you are going to quote research of such enormous standing, the least you could do is provide a link to the source (not to someone else just ranting like I do - I'd hate to be quoted as an authority when all I am doing is saying what I believe... There is a difference!)

robin_banks

PoorPennilessMe wrote: »

This kind of thread/discussion really gets my blood boiling... I'm a great believer that anyone wanting to get married should do so for the right reasons and NOT do it to get advantages. What this would mean, as others have said, is that people will get married for the WRONG reasons, leading to more divorces, single parent families, and the alleged 'breakdown of moral values in society' (and before you shout at me - I don't subscribe to that myself... I just quote what others say.)

Same applies for advantages to having children.

I myself have never been married (37 years old) and have no children. I am in a long term relationship, but we have decided that living together (for now at least) and having children is not what we want. In fact, should we not be rewarded by the government for NOT bringing any drains on society, I mean children, into the world?

On a slightly related note, can anyone explain to me why someone I know, when both she and her husband each earn at least double what I do (£150k+ income) get Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit, subsidised by my taxes????

GRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Right, calmer now - rant over....

How do you know your children wont be valuable members of society?.

Child benefit is a univerdal benefit, though for how much longer I don't know, if this couple earn 150k a year I doubt they'd get CTC.

robin_banks

qetu1357 wrote: »

Research after research shows that children who are born and brought up in married relationships are less likely to be unemployed, involved in crime, taking drugs etc. than children who are not.

Also research shows that people who marry with children stay together longer than average on those who don't.

Also married men are less likely to commit suicide than non-married men.

So it isn't meant to be a criticism of those who choose not to marry but society and goverment should encourage parents to be married for the benefit of the children, the parents and society.

You need to strip out a hell of a lot of variables in your analysis.