Marriage Tax Breaks

[Barry Fish]

Government want to bring in a very small tax break for married couples as a tip of the hat towards marriage being a good thing. Is this is a good or bad thing ?

My opinion is...

I am marriage and a small tax break is not going to make a huge difference to if I stay married or got married in the first place. But like most things our society needs to decide what is the best approach and what should be encouraged and the statics behind marriage and families are rock solid.

When I say it wouldn't make a big difference in me getting married it would make some difference. The government laying out it believe this is a good path will have some impact on people choices. Government does help mould ideas, values and choices. Just as your parents, teachers and in some cases, religious leaders do. Government does have a role in this.

I am all for it. Its not enough to make a real financial impact on the family but it is a tip of the hat to you doing something that is more likely, proven statistics, to help your family work...

The flip is of course a whole benefit system that, I believe, actively encourages couples not to commit to marriage. How you solve that though without still helping those who really do need help is beyond me though.

No doubt I will no here about how x,y and z have been together 20 years without getting marriage and spectacularly miss the point The numbers prove married people with children stick together more than none married couples with children.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Barry Fish

[eFestivals]

I am marriage and a small tax break is not going to make a huge difference to if I stay married or got married in the first place.

the amount on offer would only change the mind of a fool.

But like most things our society needs to decide what is the best approach and what should be encouraged and the statics behind marriage and families are rock solid.

but not a jot of that is able to prove that those same stats would apply for any 'extra' marriages that might take place.

Those stats for marriage are as they are because of the commitments the people involved have made and their compatibility.

If more people chose to get married then the stats for those extras might be - are likely to be - wildly different, because the people involved wouldn't suddenly become more committed to each other or become more compatible just thru having a bit of paper or via the expectations that society would put on them because of their marriage.

When I say it wouldn't make a big difference in me getting married it would make some difference. The government laying out it believe this is a good path will have some impact on people choices. Government does help mould ideas, values and choices. Just as your parents, teachers and in some cases, religious leaders do. Government does have a role in this.

I'm all for govts to help shape society - but there's a difference between things that fit into boxes perfectly and things that are forced into boxes that they don't fit within.

The change for society that govts should be trying to implement should be better parenting, better circumstances in which to become parents (which a bit of paper makes zero difference towards), and more equality in law AND PRACTICE for the rights of fathers and mothers towards any children.

If marriage made any difference it would be a false difference, where people might stay together but where the quality of their relationship would not be improved - with all the further consequences that brings (onto any kids involved and the like).

Having a bit of paper does not make someone who was not committed any more committed than they were.

I am all for it. Its not enough to make a real financial impact on the family but it is a tip of the hat to you doing something that is more likely, proven statistics, to help your family work...

PMSL - there is absolutely fuck all statistics that proves that getting married makes your family more likely to work.

All that the stats prove is that those who have made the commitment of marriage are more committed to their relationship than those who have not made that formal commitment.

Those stats say nothing about whether the commitment levels are changed if people are 'encouraged' or 'forced' somehow to make a commitment they would prefer to not make via their free choice.

The flip is of course a whole benefit system that, I believe, actively encourages couples not to commit to marriage.

when there is no difference in the benefits paid to a married couple compared to a living-together couple, this is exposed as the utter tosh it is.

No doubt I will no here about how x,y and z have been together 20 years without getting marriage and spectacularly miss the point The numbers prove married people with children stick together more than none married couples with children.

Which proves absolutely fuck all towards what might happen with those who might be 'encouraged' or 'forced' into marriage.

Congratulations for adding up two and two and getting five.

[lost]

if I was going to get divorced id be more worried what the csa and divorce courts were going to do to me than loosing my marriage allowance.. equally if I was the type to get married because of a tax break there must be some doubt there, hence you'd also have to consider any benefit being easily cancelled out if it ended in divorce

[eFestivals]

Its probably why a good marriage works in good and bad times.

and that's why trying to 'encourage' or 'force' people into marriage won't make a blind bit of difference to the success of a relationship in a marriage compared to the relationship outside of marriage.

[eFestivals]

Oh as always you ignore the many couples who don't get married, claim as if they are a single parent, while the reality is much difference...

But you don't want to talk about this sort of stuff... or dismiss it as fantasy...

It's about as financially insignificant as you think a tax break would be.

Try a bit of consistency in your considerations, instead of warping every scenario to suit your pre-decided ideas. Using your method, haven't you realised how weird it is that you always prove your pre-decided ideas as right?

[eFestivals]

WOW... You have no idea do you... Families scared to look for work, move into together etc because they will lose a lot of money from benefits, is in your opinion, financially insignificant. Out of touch.

I'm out of date with the amounts of benefit payments, yup ..... but all the same there won't be a huge difference (that ends up in one of those people's pockets) between a couple claiming separately compared to together, and the amount of financial benefit they'd be from the suggested tax break.

If the tax break isn't enough to swing things in any direction (and it's not) then the same applies with benefits too. FFS, join up the dots.

BTW, how up to date are you about benefits for these sorts of things? Or is it that yuou're falling for the standard propaganda bollocks that's spouted about benefit claimants?

Pot meet kettle...

PMSL ..... for that to be true, I'd have to be following thru from my political/social view of things into believing that everything fits into place with the twaddle that Dave Moron likes to believe, as you have in the main.

My political/social view of what would be good is at odds with the suggested solutions, unlike with you. My views are consistent across all aspects - for example, with how finance doesn't change how things operate - while yours are not.

[eFestivals]

I can't be arsed having the same old discussion about fucking facts... Its not stereotypes, its realities Neil...

it is - precisely about the reality and not the stereotype.

The amount of possibly money,

so please do tell us the reality of this amount that you think causes in reality a vast number of people to not get married that otherwise would. Can you tell me that reality?

And are you able to compare and contrast that reality with the proposed tax break that you've said will make no difference to people's choices in reality?

And then can you tell me what reality is working differently, so that about the same amount of money has huge impact and no impact all at the same time?

[eFestivals]

Surprisingly no... My only claim is the fact that it is reality for some people.... Nothing more nothing less...

the only reality you can point to is that some people fiddle their benefits.

There is nothing of that which gives the reality you claim that benefits stops people getting married.

And that marriage is a good thing and statically results in more families sticking together, and I think its good if that is recongnised by the government. Something you clearly hold no value in.

For me to put value in that you'd first have to prove the reality that what you say is true.

It's certainly true that those who are married stay together for longer than those who are not.

There is nothing you can present to prove that marriage is a good thing. It's entirely subjective.

And there is nothing further you've presented as yet, such as whether 'encouraging' or 'forcing' more people to get married will cause the same result for those extra marriages as there is in existing marriages.

So all you are actually succeeding in saying with any substance is that those people who have demonstrated their commitment to each other by getting married then show that commitment to each other by staying together.

No shit sherlock.

Nothing of that demonstrates the slightest bit whether marriage is holding them together or whether their commitment to each other is holding them together.

You're not succeeding in showing marriage as a good thing one jot.

[eFestivals]

So marriage keeps people together longer...

Children benefit from a stable environment...

So unless you think most marriages are a train wreck then its kind of simple 2+2 to work out marriage is positive for children...

Thats the general feeling the government have come to. The reality on the ground I see in my friends and family seem to support this as well.

I am sure efestivals logic beats any of that though

What are you finding so damned hard to grasp abut this?

The *only* thing those stats say is that marriage works well on average for those people who are currently married.

It says absolutely NOTHING about how well it might work for 'extra' people that might be encouraged/coerced/forced to marry because the govt or society believes marriage to be a good thing.

And actually, there more substance to the idea that it won't work well than there is in support of it. The only evidence around this is from a time when people felt forced by society to marry more-so than they do now - a time which caused those marriage stats to be down on what they are today and so show marriage to be a less good thing than the marriage stats for today show.

The only thing the marriage stats get to prove is that marriage is more successful when people enter it of their own free choice than it is when they feel pressured by society to get married against their better judgement.

[Steve P]

I remember discussing this with you ages ago. My feeling is still just the same - that it's an utter waste of tax payers money. When our public finances are so right royally f~cked, I just cannot see any justification for doing this. There are millions in this country that are struggling to put food on the table that this money should be going to, not a handout to many that don't need it.

There are so many things that are "proven by statistics" to make family life better - are we going to reward parents that read to their kids every night?

[eFestivals]

http://www.telegraph...tics-finds.html

Care to show me how those stats prove marriage to be a good thing?

If you think you can, you won't be doing what you think you are. All you'll be proving is that you don't understand what stats can tell you.

[eFestivals]

I don't buy most broken relationships are good for children

and they're generally not - but there's zilch which proves them by default as worse for children all the same.

It's the quality of the parenting that is important. The marriage status of the people involved is an irrelevance.

[Steve P]

Its not a hand out... Its just taking a little less..

[eFestivals]

Its not a hand out... Its just taking a little less..

But you are welcome to your view...

So you don't understand stats and you don't understand economics.

Is there anything else you'd like to prove that you don't understand today?

[eFestivals]

I think you can mix statistics, common sense and your own experience to come to a view.

... to come to a view FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WISH TO GET MARRIED.

Everything else is your fantasy, without supporting evidence.

The only evidence that there is around this shows (but doesn't prove) that encouraging people to get married that weren't considering it via their own free will is more negative than positive, from the time 2, 3 or 4 decades ago when people felt a pressure from society to get married.

You wish to re-create that pressure from society. The evidence is against you and not for you.

[Steve P]

The way I see it...

You have people out there who are making commitments to each other, working together for their families and paying their way...

You have people out there who are opening their legs, spreading their seed and not really giving any thought to anything...

And everything in between...

The real cost to us all are the ones closer to the second group and not the first group. Yet the focus of disgust on this site is so often aimed at the first group with little acceptance of the second group who cost us far more.

If marriage can help some see a better path, give it all more thought, I support it.

I know where my opinions lie.

[eFestivals]

You now use the word pressure...

Sometimes while discussing with you, you want to force my opinion into a much tougher stance than I really believe. I like the promotion of marriage, not the forcing of it.

Is any person's commitment to marriage (or even their children) changed by throwing them £150 a year? I can't see how it can be. People choose to get married, or not.

Those who choose to get married are those who are most likely to have the beneficial commitment to each other and their children. Those who don't have the commitment won't suddenly acquire it by getting married along with acquiring the hundred and fifty quid.

[kaosmark2]

If marriage made any difference it would be a false difference, where people might stay together but where the quality of their relationship would not be improved - with all the further consequences that brings (onto any kids involved and the like).

Having a bit of paper does not make someone who was not committed any more committed than they were.

[kaosmark2]

I think it helps promote it... (A very small financial benefit does promote it)

I think it shows the government recognises as a useful tool...

Its about promotion... I think more young couples should consider it and the commitments its ask of you before pushing ahead with having children. I don't think people consider the need of a child needing a stable family life before having them. Marriage, or at least the consideration of marriage can help with this.

[kaosmark2]

I view marriage and civil partnership as being only different by name... Isn't that the way the law views it on these matters ?

I would imagine this applies to civil partnerships...

[eFestivals]

I think we have all agreed that a £150 tax break is not going to force ANYONE into marriage. Its more about the promotion of marriage all this.

Neil you are blowing this WAY up to more than what it is...

By promoting marriage as "a good thing", will that cause more people to enter marriage and to have them enter marriage with a greater commitment to that marriage than they would otherwise do?

I can't see how it would. Why do you think it would?

[kaosmark2]

I think asking people to consider marriage would encourage greater commitment...

Obviously your cousin considered it and went a different path that came back to it for good reasoning. Although I would point out that getting married does not have to cost a fortune. But thats a side point.

What I would say, is if someone looks at marriage and says, making a life commitment to my partner is uncomfortable, but creating a life form that will need a stable environment until they are adults feel comfortable, then I would question the reasons behind all that.

If it just makes people think and justify themselves a bit more. It will do no harm, and may well do a lot of good.

[eFestivals]

I think it helps promote it... (A very small financial benefit does promote it)

I think it shows the government recognises as a useful tool...

it might promote the idea of marriage, yup, and so cause more people to get married (even tho the numbers effected will IMO be too tiny to measure with the amount of money involved).

But what it doesn't do is promote the commitment involved with that marriage.

It's the commitment to a marriage which decides whether that marriage is a success or not. It's not simply the act of getting married which makes it a success or not.

I don't think people consider the need of a child needing a stable family life before having them.

I agree with that entirely. But the act of marriage is not any part in providing that stability or not.

Marriage, or at least the consideration of marriage can help with this.

How? What evidence is there for what you think?

The only evidence around this idea shows things the opposite to that you presume on the basis of no evidence.

[eFestivals]

Why not, if society views it as a positive action, then why not reward ?

but society - and the facts - only views it as positive if the marriage is successful.

The facts get to show that a marriage is only successful if it's going to be successful, and that financial inducements don't increase its chances of success (from when there were previously financial inducements).

It feels natural to me to reward actions we deem to be positive...

but by that reward you make it less successful, because more 'unsuitable' marriages will take place.

Financial rewards do not make people more committed to marriage.

[eFestivals]

Making a life time commitment to your partner. If you can't do that, should you be making a life time commitment to a child. A child who every expert says will thrive in a stable family environment.

If a person is making a lifetime commitment to the child but (as a life-partner) not its mother, then there is no loss of commitment or stable family environment for the child.

There's more evidence to back up that idea than the spurious moral but not fact-based idea you're pushing.