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

[DisturbedPervert]

They should be giving tax breaks to people who don't have children

[Richard Hakluyt]

Love? Marriage is an economic arrangement for bringing up children.

Or, at least, that should be the state's interest in the matter.

[Drakken]

Love? Marriage is an economic arrangement for bringing up children.

Or, at least, that should be the state's interest in the matter.

I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.

99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.

[MadImmortalMan]

You'd be surprised just how often marriage actually was done for primarily economic or other non-love reasons.

[Malthus]

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

Where did you get that from? 

From the OP:

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.

Emphasis added.

Strikes me that the contrast under discussion is between "married couples" (presumably could be common-law, i.e., lengthy co-habiting) and "single parents".

When did it morph into a discussion of the distinction between formally married couples and cohabiting couples?

[Eddie Teach]

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.

I love how this place makes me realize how cynical I'm not.

[crazy canuck]

Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?

Why shouldn't they be treated equally?

[Brazen]

I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.

99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.

No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.

[Drakken]

I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.

99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.

No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.

Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?

Like all families were walking calculators. Marriage was also because of social convenience. Because like today, boys and girls did fool around and do stupid things, and no one wanted to raise a bastard grandchild. Hell, this reason was enough here for weddings in Quebec as far as the seventies.

And yes, cynical as I am, some boys and girls got married because they loved each other and wanted to have babies together, and their parents consented. If Shakespeare wrote about in the 16th century, it was because he didn't invent it.

Let's not apply Roman patriarcal values here either, where every parent coldly decided which child married whose child, without any consideration for their opinion, in exchange for a goat or other property. In the 15th century most boys, at least, were individuals enough to court their own chicks by themselves - and sometimes have fun with her without the parents knowing.

[Richard Hakluyt]

My apologies Malthus, I didn't read the OP of course (at least not properly), so swiftly moved on to a slightly different aspect of Tory policy.

[Pat]

It used to be human emotions actually had real practical uses, but now we've changed our habitats so much that the only thing natural about them is the nature of the humans living in them, so instead of calibrating our emotional faculties in the struggle for survival we spend our time playing the game of human emotion. Progress sucks, but I suppose it still beats the alternative.


edit: as brilliantly exemplified by the above discussion of whether people did it for reasons of utility, or for reasons of emotion - as if the two couldn't be the same --- it's a sad testament to human nature that once we received the ability to shape our surroundings to our liking we did in a fashion making us unhappy (as exemplified by ever-increasing rates of depressions and suicide in much of the western world). Solution? Other habitats, or other human nature (through genetic engineering)?

[Richard Hakluyt]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

[The Brain]

I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.

99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.

No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.

Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?

Like all families were walking calculators. Marriage was also because of social convenience. Because like today, boys and girls did fool around and do stupid things, and no one wanted to raise a bastard.

Let's not apply Roman patriarcal values here either, when parents decided which child married  that child, without any consideration for their feelings, in exchange for a goat.

Just like today priority 1 was making sure you are guaranteed food and shelter. In a premodern society with very little welfare you wouldn't want to not maximize your chances. Today the difference is that we live at a material level where we essentially do not have to worry about getting food and shelter regardless of how we marry (or not). But it's still the top priority.

[derspiess]

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.

Yet you're a staunch believer in social engineering otherwise.  Interesting.

[Drakken]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

Does that percentage include children who were infanticided, abandoned, given in adoption, or raised by a parent other that the biological father, like cuckolds or grandparents?

Not being cheeky here, I find that percentage surprising.