Tax breaks for married couples

[Tastycles]

According to David Cameron, this is going to be in the Tory manifesto for the next General Election. Most people who are criticising it are doing so from the morally archaic attitude it presents - what about gays, what about loners, what about religious divorcees, etc. etc. While I think that is probably valid criticism, I couldn't help but feel drawn to a more obvious problem with it.

The idea of this is obviously to promote the Conservative idea of the sanctity of marriage. While I'm not sure that really has a place in the modern world personally, and that is what the aforementioned issues are with, each to their own, I suppose. However, to me, this policy seems like it will do the opposite of what it is inteded to promote. Rather than marriages being the bedrock of society, they will become matters of convenience. I have no intention of marrying my girlfriend in the near future, but if it was going to save me money to do so, we cohabitate anyway, then maybe I'd rush into it. Not much of a problem for me, because I'm not rash, but I imagine that a lot of people will now get married earlier than they would, or when they probably wouldn't and the incidences of divorce, sham marriages and the like will increase, not to mention peoplethat will stay in unhappy marriages to save a few quid. I reckon this plan is bullshit, what say you?

 

[BladeRunner]

This is about government doing what's in it's own best interests.

To the government, it's beneficial to make sure that kids grow up in a secure way, which means emphasizing marriage. Why? Well because of the tax money the children are going to be eventually paying. So emphasizing marriage makes it so that the government stabilizes a source of income.

Also, it's in the government's best interest for people to marry because they'll probably be more apt to not do crazy things like break laws. Or quit their jobs. Because they have to stay stable for their families. And quitting their jobs means no tax money.

Government's rarely do things "for the people". It just so happens to be that the stability that comes from marriage is in the government's best interest.

----------------------------------------------

Also, personally, I think that marriage is good for people too. People that have good secure loving families are more apt to have a happy life. Broken homes, absent fathers, these things tear people apart and from the suffering societal problems become more prevalent. Because unhappy people tend to create unhappy situations.

-----------------------------------------------

But like I said, the government's going to do what's in IT'S best interest, regardless of what the people want. Luckily, this is one thing that just so happens to benefit some of the people.

And you can't really use "the government is being bias" argument. Because the government already is biased. It taxes the rich more. It gives certain minorities privledges that others don't have. It gives special interest groups our tax money to do with as they please.

Where there is nothing but bias all you can really hope for is that one of those particular biases might benefit you.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Maybe we should end tax breaks for everyone? No more earned income tax credit to help feed the children of middle and low class families. No more tax breaks for the poor or disabled, because it's them who use the government services the most. In fact, maybe we should just tax everyone an even 20% of their income, so there is no reason to cry foul. In fact, there should be no taxes, therefore, nothing to complain about.

Marriage is a legal union, and like when business partners become incorporated, that union counts as one entity. In America, married couples have the right to file jointly or separately. This allows couples to get the maximum refund or minimum payout so that earned money can benefit the family. I don't see how this is archaic or prejudiced. You ask why it's fair to exclude people, but I counter that with asking why it's OK to penalize others? What need is there to change to tax code? Just to be nicer and more tolerant? That's bullshit. Married people are more likely to have kids. Kids are expensive. I say that rewarding a stable home by helping them raise stable kids to be stable future tax payers is far more beneficial to the union than preventing a few hurt feelings.

 

[Razor]

I can't help but see that type of criticism levied against tax breaks for children as well. "Oh well, gay people can't have children. That's obviously prejudiced against gays."

No. No it isn't. It's meant to give people who have children a way to pay for those children to eat and be clothed. If you want a child as a gay couple, adopt. I'm sorry that some in America regard gay adoption as evil and find the need to doctor entirely non-scientific surveys that claim children adopted by gays are more prone to suicide or mental issues, but Britain doesn't think so. Germany doesn't. France doesn't. Move there, adopt, then move back. I promise you that the United States can't take your child away or refuse you the tax break. If they do, then you can then sue them for billions because you were obviously prejudiced against for being gay. Congratulations, you just got billions of dollars.

Just as tax breaks for children aren't prejudiced, neither are tax breaks for the married. It just means they now have more money. That money can go into what you'd like. But it isn't prejudiced to give it to them. It'd be prejudiced to give a "White, Natural Born Briton Tax Break." I'll give you that.

The only problem I see with this tax break is the one that Tasty presented himself. Marriages are already rushed into or treated with a lot less serious discussion than before. Now it'll just speed up the marriage rate, while forcing people to live angrily with their spouses that they don't like. Why? For the extra 200 pounds they'll get every tax cycle.

 

[Tastycles]

You ask why it's fair to exclude people, but I counter that with asking why it's OK to penalize others? What need is there to change to tax code? Just to be nicer and more tolerant? That's bullshit. Married people are more likely to have kids. Kids are expensive. I say that rewarding a stable home by helping them raise stable kids to be stable future tax payers is far more beneficial to the union than preventing a few hurt feelings.

That's the point though, this isn't about child tax credits, which have existed forever, and which I totally agree with your reasoning over, this is about married couples being given preference over non-married couples. While I don't feel hard done by really, there are plenty of morons out there who will think "gee, I've been with my girlfriend three weeks now, but if I marry her, I'll save £20 a week on income tax", which isn't really doing much for the sanctity of marriage, is it?

As I said, most of the criticism is the kind of thing that you have shut down in your post. While I don't really agree with you, that isn't my issue with it.