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

El_Stevo

qetu1357 wrote: »

Also I couldn't find anything for causation and Oscar Wilde.....

Forget Oscar Wilde. Look up correlation and causation.

I'll sum it up: correlation does NOT imply causation. If there is one thing in the field of statistics you should learn it is this. It is a very important point.

VeeW

Flickering_Ember wrote: »

I voted for C. Not everyone wants to get married; some people are in lifelong relationships without wanting to marry; why should they be penalised?

I also agree with the poster who says that this government have discriminated against married couples anyway, such as with benefits where the amount one person can get is related to their partner's income.

And Martin, thanks for sharing. Can't have been so easy.

I voted C but think that B & C may split the vote. I was previously married (very early age) for 7 years. I have been with my partner for 24 years & despite now being "allowed" to "marry" have chosen not to

BigBelly

queenbeeno1 wrote: »

Tax breaks for families is a better idea not just because you are married ( and yes I am married) The time when you need extra help is when you have young children - especially kids under 5 ( and I don't fall in this group either mine are older). Because this is when your income is most restricted.

Having kids isn't compulsory. There are numerous alternatives, such as abstinence, (free) contraception, (free) abortion and ultimately adoption. If you don't want to pay for kids, don't have them.

VeeW

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.

Presuming civil partnerships are likewise kept track of in our society of putting everyone on lists or in little boxes

adwat

edgex wrote: »

...

& whats it going to cost everyone else?
there will be an amount of lost tax revenue, as well as the costs of running such a system

That's the rub - someone somewhere has calculated the bottom line is benefited if these allowances are given, i.e. they are beneficial to the economy overall.

VeeW

poppyoscar wrote: »

Single people have one income and pay the mortgage and bills on their own. they probably work as hard as married people. why should they be penalised (or not rewarded?)

Agree completely. If tax breaks are available they should be available to everyone. No one group of people should be rewarded or penalised

edgex

adwat wrote: »

That's the rub - someone somewhere has calculated the bottom line is benefited if these allowances are given, i.e. they are beneficial to the economy overall.

yet how can the economy benefit?

if they are going to tax married couples £100 less a year (say)
thats £100 less per year in tax revenue

at the same time, there will be the costs of running the system to give out these extra tax allowances
lets say thats £10 a year


so not only is HMG already £100 worse off, but they also have to spend £10 to be worse off
so the state loses £110

where does that money come from?
its got to come from either increased taxes elsewhere, or from cuts in government spending

VeeW

claire5005 wrote: »

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

I was a married teenage Mum to 2 boys before my wife battering, screw around left. Not being !!!!less I got on with it until I met someone else

robthemanager

I think we are missing some common sense in politics...if people co-habiting, partners, a couple, whatever, are treated as one unit for benefit purposes then obviously that should be reflected for tax purposes. If a couple get less than 2 individuals surely they should be paying less...if a couple cost us (public finances) less surely they should contribute less.

I think the question is more about the traditional role of marrage in society...an honest question...is marrage a good thing, does it benefit our society, do we want to encourage (support) it? Whatever your definition, a commited relationship certainly makes a difference...sharing and mutually supporting through good times and bad.

So sad that marrage has such a bad press...(like religion and politics) its failings are obvious but its successes are quietly living in a neighbourhood near you. Couples that stay together through thick and thin and still manage to keep that spark alive are an inspiration. The question is...should we pop round and say well done, good on you, thanks for making this a better place for all of us.

qetu1357

El_Stevo wrote: »

Forget Oscar Wilde. Look up correlation and causation.

I'll sum it up: correlation does NOT imply causation. If there is one thing in the field of statistics you should learn it is this. It is a very important point.

Anyone ever called you patronising?

I fully understand statistics; I actually have qualifications in both statistics are mathematics and it is a large part of my job.

A good book to help anyone understand when statistics are misused is Bad Science by Ben Goldacre which believe it or not I have read and understand.

Whilst those who get married are a self selecting group to a certain degree, I still believe that marriage makes relationships more stable and therefore is good for children and society.