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

El_Stevo

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.

The trouble with this is that children who aren't brought up in marriages can be brought up in a wide number of ways; as well as being brought up by non-married couples, they could be brought up by single parents, by their grandparents, in foster homes, in orphanages, etc. Therefore you can't infer with this information that marriages are any better than other types of long-term relationships.

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

That sentence is a little ambiguous. Are you saying marriages with children last longer on average than marriages without children? I don't see what that has to do with this issue.

Or are you saying couples with children stay together longer on average if they're married? For this to support your point you have to assume that it was the right thing for those married couples to stay together, which isn't necessarily true.

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

You're comparing married men to the entire field of non-married men, which includes both men in relationships and single men, so you, as above, can't make any inferences about the quality of marriage compared to other types of long-term relationships with this information. It seems more likely that men in relationships in general are less likely to commit suicide than single men, though of course you can't state this as fact without performing research.

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.

Your conclusion is not logically supported by the research you've referred to.

All of this is of course assuming that the research is unbiased and of good quality. Quality of research is what is important, not quantity. "Research after research" is of very little worth if it's bad research. (I can't comment on the quality of the research in this case, because I haven't seen it.)

lazer

I agree that the system is wrong.
A single parent can stay at home and look after their children and get benefits for doing so.
However if one member of a couple chooses to stay at home to look after their child - do they get any additional beneifts?
Answer - no because the other parent is working.

The simple answer is to change the benefit system, so that instead of paying benefits per couple - pay them per Individual so that the same benefits are available to all!

Currently - my parents who have both worked all their lives, my Dad is over 60 and reently made unemployed so claiming pension credit - which is assessed on a couple basis. My Mum is only working part time hours, and is in effect working for nothing, they will no extra money whenever she retires.
If they were assessed individually - they would have more money.

So why when they are assessed for benefits as a couple should a married couple not also be taxed as a couple (or at least only pay National insurance to a lower limit)?

moggylover

Personally, I don't see the point unless it comes to the stage where there are children involved and one parent would like the opportunity to stay at home and parent them. Two people, pooled resources, two incomes - shouldn't need any further incentive (except love of course:D).

My own thoughts are that our personal allowances should then be fully transferable (i.e. if Dad decides to stay at home [being pc here:D]) then his tax allowance is transferred to his partner completely, or if one earns less than the tax allowance by working part-time then the balance should also be transferable to the partner. National Insurance payments would need to take into account the fact that they are for two people not one in this situation though - i.e. double so that full "stamp" is still payed by both.

This would, to my mind, mean that no-one needed "extra" incentives to be in a stable relationship. It would also do away with much of the need for the hugely messy WTC system and it would make it easier for people to make a really free choice on the family unit (which I believe has been destroyed more by the pressure to both work than it has by any other single change in our lifestyles).

This could also be helpful with situations where relationships do fail and there are children involved because the tax allowance of the absent partner could then be either paid to the parent with care if they are involved in the care of small children or transferred (wholly or partially depending upon the circumstances) if the parent with care was working.
I'm sure that this would be very much easier to deal with than the current CSA nightmare - and a bit less easy for absent parents to hide income and avoid payments.

Tannoyman

:jYes they should. Currently the tax and benefit system discriminates against married people. This needs to be addressed not simply because the current system is unfair but also because the role of government should be to support behaviour which makes a positive contribution to society. Children brought up in stable two parent households are more likely to go on to become useful and valuable members of society.

El_Stevo

qetu1357 wrote: »

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.

It's very nice that you believe that, but the evidence you supplied to support your belief isn't sufficient.

trying_to_save_4

sar011279 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, me and OH been together for 12 years, have 3 kids, mortgage etc etc. Why should married people get tax breaks and not us?? - maybe a cheap trip to the local registry office is in order!

I also agree, this type of argument winds me up every time it is presented in the media. Why should people get married just because the government think they should. Why are my children considered less well off because their parents are not married, and why is it that people who marry after only knowing each other for a short period of time have more validity than couples who have been together for over a decade?
My fear of the tories is this antiquated attitude and their lack of acknowledment of the diverse and modern society we inhabit.
Anyway well aware have strayed from the point, but no I do not think that people who are married should get a tax break!!!

qetu1357

El_Stevo wrote: »

It's very nice that you believe that, but the evidence you supplied to support your belief isn't sufficient.

So be it.

I also believe to a certain degree we are arguing the toss as I don't think the Tories will actually give all married couples a tax allowance. It would prove too expensive in the current climate. They may restrict it to parents of very young children in the first instance.

El_Stevo

Tannoyman wrote: »

:jYes they should. Currently the tax and benefit system discriminates against married people. This needs to be addressed not simply because the current system is unfair but also because the role of government should be to support behaviour which makes a positive contribution to society. Children brought up in stable two parent households are more likely to go on to become useful and valuable members of society.

There are better ways of removing the discrimination against married couples, as people have described in this thread. Also, the proposed tax break says nothing about children. It will be for all married couples, whether they have or plan to have children or not. And, as has also been said in this thread, there are other types of stable two-parent households than marriages.

ja9living

I think the main problem is that if you are a couple (married/civil partnership/ or living together) then you are treated as such for benefits but for tax you are treated as individuals. To me this just isnt fair, the government has it both ways. My husband is disabled, I shouldnt have to support him when he worked for 20 years before we met and paid taxes and NI. His support from the state should be based on his circumstances alone, which would also give him more dignity, he hates asking me for money. I dont think financial incentives keep people together but inequality and dependance can sure drive some couples apart. Because of my wages he gets no help with our extra heating costs although he is home all day and no help with his prescription costs either for example. He is ill (through no fault of his own) yet I have to pay for his essential drugs - why? But when the taxman comes I cant use any of his unused tax allowance to offset against my tax bill. So yes, I voted for help for married couples as we and others in our position need it, but I think I'd rather vote for individual treatment in the benefit system as that would be fairer for all and easier to administer.

lawrenceelwell

Absolutly!

Marriage is the best way to rear and support children.