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

[Malthus]

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.

That depends on what other support network the single parent may have.  If grandparents, aunts or uncles are involved in raising the child then there may well be plenty of opportunities for breaks.  The child-raising situation is not necessarily parent(s) + children.

Talking of the average person here.

Most folks here in the West do not live in true 'extended-family' situations (that is, different generations of the same family/siblings living together permanently). Those that do are more likely to be particularly traditional in any event (extended type families being more common in traditional non-Westen backgrounds) and frown on single-parentdom.

Having the ability to park the kids at granny's house, or or with Uncle, is not the same as having granny or uncle actually living in your house and tending them. The reality for the vast majority of single folks is that being single increases hardship when it comes to raising kids, for lack of two full-time committed adult caretakers able to spell each other on a day-in, day-out basis.

Very young children can't be left alone for extended periods, not ever. This makes doing even the most mundane of daily tasks a complex chore for new parents, even when there are two. I shudder to think of how tough it would be for just one.

[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?

The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.

That is my point.  Tax returns should make people declare whether they are cohabitating or not and treat all such couples the same.  Saying that people wont answer honestly is no answer to that being the correct policy.  It is a matter of enforcement.  Surely in this age of information accessability it should be a simple matter to determine if someone is giving a false address.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The address may not be false though. The man (for example) could move back and forth according to the family's situation in order to maximise benefits or minimise tax losses. Which is why I think that marriages/civil unions should be the determinant in these matters. As it stands the situation favours instability in cohabitation which is detrimental to the well-being of any children involved.

[crazy canuck]

The address may not be false though. The man (for example) could move back and forth according to the family's situation in order to maximise benefits or minimise tax losses. Which is why I think that marriages/civil unions should be the determinant in these matters. As it stands the situation favours instability in cohabitation which is detrimental to the well-being of any children involved.

Move back and forth to where?  Generally when people live together they have one place of residence.  I am not talking about people who sleep over once in a while.

[Martinus]

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.

Pretty much. If you want people to have kids, abolish pension schemes.

[Martinus]

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.

Don't forget most marriages had significant age difference between the man and the woman, even in living memory, not to mention times like the 16th century. The modern day concept of two star-struck youths marrying each other was pretty alien to the renaissance mindset - that's why it was so scandalous and featured mainly in poetry and ballads.

A typical man married his first wife when he was in late 20s/early 30s, and the wife was usually in her mid-to-late teens at the time - and don't forget that most men remarried since child birth mortality of women was pretty high. I'm fairly sure most of them didn't marry out of love.

[Martinus]

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? I am asking how is this particular bit of social engineering supposed to work - because I don't see the causal link. How does that have anything to do with believing in social engineering or not?

What's interesting is that your only "contribution" to this thread is that of a retard unable to read.

[Caliga]

A typical man married his first wife when he was in late 20s/early 30s, and the wife was usually in her mid-to-late teens at the time - and don't forget that most men remarried since child birth mortality of women was pretty high. I'm fairly sure most of them didn't marry out of love.

Interestingly, Princesca's grandparents got married when he was about 29 and she was 17.  She had her first child (Princesca's mom) less than six months after they were married.

[Martinus]

A typical man married his first wife when he was in late 20s/early 30s, and the wife was usually in her mid-to-late teens at the time - and don't forget that most men remarried since child birth mortality of women was pretty high. I'm fairly sure most of them didn't marry out of love.

Interestingly, Princesca's grandparents got married when he was about 29 and she was 17.  She had her first child (Princesca's mom) less than six months after they were married.

There is a 10 year difference between my parents, even though they married relatively late in life. There was more than that between my grandparents, too. The little-age-difference marriages are a relatively recent phenomenon.

[Caliga]

Princesca is 19 months older than I am.  Did I: screw up.

[Brazen]

Princesca is 19 months older than I am.  Did I: screw up.

My swain is six years younger than me. It give Princesca and I the option of having a partner till the fields to keep us in our old age

[Martinus]

Actually since the average life expectancy of men is now lower than that of women, it makes sense for women to find younger partners. 

[Neil]

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.

You'd be more cynical if you joined the seduction community.

[Sheilbh]

My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41.  Age differences don't matter.

[Caliga]

My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41.  Age differences don't matter.

That's hot.