"Pro-marital" taxation - how does it work?

[Martinus]

I read recently an interview with David Cameron where he announced the tories will restore/increase tax benefits for married couples. His position seemed to be that by extending tax benefits previously available to married couples to single parents, the labour has caused the increase in divorces and single parenting.

I'm curious - how does this argument work.

I mean, I can see perfectly that having pro-children tax systems (i.e. giving tax benefits to people who have children), some people may be persuaded to have children or it may be made easier for them to raise children.

However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.

[Tamas]

Yeah its bullshit, like general "OMG in the past marriages lasteded!!!!" sure they did, there were several legal and/or social reprecussions for divorcing. Those went away, divorces popped up. Big fucking surprise.

[Sheilbh]

I mean, I can see perfectly that having pro-children tax systems (i.e. giving tax benefits to people who have children), some people may be persuaded to have children or it may be made easier for them to raise children.

However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.

The centre of the Tory critique of marriage policy is that basically the deepest forms of poverty are also shaped by relationship structure, especially around children.  Reihan Salem and Ross Douthat have a similar argument when they say that Democrats view the 1950s as a sort of economic golden age, because industry hadn't hollowed out, everyone had a job, people's economic and social positions were improving while Republicans see it as a golden age because of its family values.  Salem and Douthat suggest that the two are linked and go on from there.

Now marriage is a social good.  Cohabiting couples with children are more likely to split up than married couples (the former split up in 43% of cases before the child's 5th birthday, married couples only 8% of the time).  Marriage is also more stable, especially for children and regardless of income.  Marriage or rather family breakdown is a significant factor in studies about the success children have at school and even things like addiction.

The Tory critique isn't really aimed at middle class couples, indeed it's shaped by a fear that marriage could become a middle class preserve.  It's also part of a larger worry that our tax and benefit system discourage work and so on.  There's something to this.  For example a single mother who is on benefits but takes a part-time job and earns £80 a week loses £60 of her benefits, which are reduced to £20 a week.  Once you add on the costs of childcare and transport that are required for work it's quite possible that she could be financially better off without a job.

They also disagree with the social implications of current policy.  So for example our benefit system pays less to a married couple with kids than to two single parents or to a cohabiting couple, our benefit system penalises people with savings (you're not eligible if you have over a certain, rather low, amount) and I believe ours is one of the only systems in Europe that doesn't offer our housing benefit to people with a mortgage.  So in effect you've got all of these social goods marriage, saving, buying your own home that are punished when people become unemployed.

Now the Tories won't have the solution to those problems because we're in a recession and a the fiscal shit so we're expecting swingeing cuts.  Though the Centre for Social Justice which is the big think-tank on the right for this sort of thing does have a number of costed proposals for addressing what I think are serious issues.  In practice the Tories 'pro-family' policies are quite simple (because they're cheap) so, for example, grandparents are given more rights when being considered for custody in an extreme case, schools have to send school reports to both parents in the case of divorce, fathers should be able to receive the tax credits if they look after the children more (are househusbands), they want to establish a relationship guidance before civil unions and civil marriage (based on what Vicars do prior to a marriage), I believe there's a scheme in Bristol they want to take nationwide.

But the Tories have said that changing the tax or benefit system probably won't happen in the first budget because we're fucked.  All the parties are talking about 'aspirations' rather than pledges now because no-one can really pledge anything that'll cost any money.

Edit:  It should be said that David Cameron's gone out of his way to basically say that every family's important in terms of Tory policy but that he wants to recognise that marriage/civil unions are special and different and should be encouraged.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Ok, I know the answer to this one and it is down to a misunderstanding of statistics.

The stats show that children who come from households where the parents are married do better than those that don't. This includes households where the parents co-habit long-term but don't marry.

So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.

Hope that isn't too garbled, dashing off out with my family to enjoy the snow.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Sheilbh, you annoying person, making a coherent post in the same time it take me to make a short gibber 

[Brazen]

  You're a political/social studies God, Sheilbh.

[Martinus]

Guys, I do not dispute any of what you said - I just don't see the casual link between making marriage more tax-friendly and preventing people from divorcing each other or making single parents to marry. Unlike child rearing (where economic incentives could play a role), I don't think economic benefits figure highly in people's decisions to marry someone they don't want to marry or to stay in the marriage with someone they would rather divorce (I am not talking about situations where it is more beneficial to actually stay unmarried and living together than to be married - such situations should be corrected, of course, but I don't think most people divorce to get a better taxation scheme, either).

[DGuller]

Ok, I know the answer to this one and it is down to a misunderstanding of statistics.

The stats show that children who come from households where the parents are married do better than those that don't. This includes households where the parents co-habit long-term but don't marry.

So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.

Hope that isn't too garbled, dashing off out with my family to enjoy the snow.

I was going to say the same thing.  Marriage may be an indicator rather than a cause.  Causing cohabitating couples to marry may simply drive up the divorce rate.

[Neil]

Why not just impose a 100% income tax on people who are not married by a certain age?  And then ban gay marriage.

[Sheilbh]

Guys, I do not dispute any of what you said - I just don't see the casual link between making marriage more tax-friendly and preventing people from divorcing each other or making single parents to marry. Unlike child rearing (where economic incentives could play a role), I don't think economic benefits figure highly in people's decisions to marry someone they don't want to marry or to stay in the marriage with someone they would rather divorce (I am not talking about situations where it is more beneficial to actually stay unmarried and living together than to be married - such situations should be corrected, of course, but I don't think most people divorce to get a better taxation scheme, either).

I think economic situation, especially for people on low incomes, is a huge issue in deciding whether or not to get married - why would you get married to raise your child when you'd lose your tax credit or your benefits?  But I also think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.  The Tories aren't, to the best of my understanding, terribly interested in discouraging divorce or people marrying who don't want to get married.  But that sort of thing could be an unintended consequence of their policies.

There have been reports in the media of couples who wanted to get married but would have their benefits cut and they decided not to because they need the money.  It's not that it'll stop people getting divorced but that people who are married are less likely to divorce than cohabiting couples are to split up - regardless of children or income.  Now given the effect that a family breakdown has on many aspects of a child's life I think it's worthwhile to make marriage a more viable option (ie. people won't necessarily lose money when they get married).

I've personal experience over the past few months and a number of friends who've also been through it and I have to say I agree that our benefit system is just a bit fucked.  I mean you lose your benefits the day you start a new job which means that in a salary situation you've got no money for living expenses, rent or tax.  My friends and I are lucky.  We've got families who are able to support us for our first month of work but if you've not got that sort of support network.  If you don't you're waiting a month for your first paycheck during which you've got to cover your rent, living expenses, utilities, tax and transport for a month (far less childcare) without any support from the state (that would pay for most of that while you're unemployed).  I think it's absurd and does discourage work.

[Brazen]

I thimnk it's actually to encourage more new marriages than prevent divorces. Newlyweds need the cash most - and once they're hitched it's more difficult to split up.

[Sheilbh]

So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.

I mean my worry is that a lot of the statistics are socially self-selecting.  This sounds harsh, though I don't mean it in that way, but do children in a married family do better because they're married or because, as marriage is more common in the middle classes, because they're bourgeois?

[Malthus]

So, the Tories have concluded that it is the getting married that strengthens the family; whereas I believe that strong families are often composed of people who believe in the institution.

I mean my worry is that a lot of the statistics are socially self-selecting.  This sounds harsh, though I don't mean it in that way, but do children in a married family do better because they're married or because, as marriage is more common in the middle classes, because they're bourgeois?

I believe there is something in the notion that being married is on average a social good for children regardless of class.

Obviously there are exceptions, where the relationship or one partner is so disfunctional that the kids would be better off without him or her - but anyone who has kids knows that raising kids is above all else hard, constant work. Two sets of hands are simply better than one. A single parent never gets a break in their day to day handling of the kids - sure they can have babysitters, daycare and grandparents, but it is not really the same thing.

This affects kids, it can't help but do so. On average at least. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, but it is married couple versus co-habiting couple that is being considered here malthus 

@sheilbh....yes, just so. The problem is that a lot of the research is almost tautological...........almost like "new research shows that winners are doing better than losers". It was not a problem for the architects of the welfare state back in 1945, because people's problems were so obvious; the difficulty now is why do we still have losers when so many opportunities are thrust into people's paths?

[Drakken]

Yeah its bullshit, like general "OMG in the past marriages lasteded!!!!" sure they did, there were several legal and/or social reprecussions for divorcing. Those went away, divorces popped up. Big fucking surprise.

Also, believing in ever-lasting love made sense when life expectancy was lower than 50 years. Believing in eternal love now, when life expectancy for both males and females is nigh-on 80 years old, is plain kooky.