Love and marriage

Fergus Pickering

My daughter will marry if it is financially worth her while. Otherwise, until she has children, why on earth should she? I'm not sure who you think the middle classes are. I'd say she was middle class and so am I but we're probably not rich enough.

ndm

And, as this graph illustrates, marriage’s decline inaugurated a single parent and co-habiting parent baby boom.

I thought the graph indicates that the steep rise in UK births outside marriage coincided with the Thatcherite revolution.

Vulture

Not only should marriage be financially 'incentivised' ( a typically ugly nu-Liebour neologism btw - what's wrong with 'rewarded'? ) - but mothers who give birth to british children should be lavishly rewarded for each successive child ( as the French used to do) - to counter the current demographics that will see us bred out of our own country in our lifetimes.

The attack on the family - like forced immigration - is part of the ongoing Marxist NL assault on us which must be resisted and reversed.

David Blackburn

That's a good observation ndm. Though I suspect the coming of age of the post-war generation has more to do with it.

Tankus

Buy one off the internet from Lithuania, and charge it to the next conservative government.?

Cool ..make mine a blond with big tits please

2trueblue

Who are the middle class? The commitment of people to their children is what makes a society better. What is wrong with incentivising strong unions to create a stable and committed unit? It is arrogant, prejudical, and insulting to say that such a move will only benefit the middle class. Marriage or some legal committment is what benefits society as people have given it more thought.

The idea that you should make it worthwhile for people to live 'apart' to increase the states input to their weekly budget, or to reward multiple births with no stable committment is mad.

If people are responsible then neither viewpoint should offend. We have 5-6months of chatter to live through. Won't it be fun?

Paul D

So, David, you want the stick but not the carrot?

If all the evidence, as you admit, points to the societal benefits of marriage why not encourage it?

DavidDP

The figures you quote are, without further context, a correlation, not a causation. It could be that the lack of a marriage is a symptom of another cause, rather than the cause itself.

As to Fergus, I'd have thought your daughter would marry for love rather than money. That's what I plan to do.

Dave B

If the Conservatives just stop penalising marriage (in the tax/benefit system) it would be a start.

Snowman

marriage as such no, marriage with kids yes through a tax allowance that increases each year until the child reaches 18.

Pat

I'm a bit concerned we're putting the cart before the horse here. I've not the slightest doubt that the more committed parents are to their children and each other the better parents they make, and that their children do better. I've also no doubt that committed parents are far more likely to marry than uncommitted ones. I don't see any system of sticks or carrots that get uncommitted couples to marry will make any difference overall- though of course it will result in more bad outcomes for married couples as these would come to include uncommitted couples as well as committed ones.
An old fashioned approach I know- but if single mothers received less from the state and had to look to their partners for support they would either forego motherhood or more likely insist on a man who can commit to them. If the ladies lost interest in jack the lad- he would have an incentive to reform.
Irresponsible people make bad parents, with or without a marriage certificate- we need to encourage parenthood amongst the responsible and discourage it amongst the irresponsible- and not by giving the irresponsable an incentive to game whatever system we put in place.

seb

I agree with Dave B. It would be something close to miraculous if marriage was at least not penalised by the morally insane ogre that our government has become. We live in times in which it is taken for granted that the state can and should micro-manage all sorts of trivial aspects of citizens' private behaviour. But dare to suggest that children - human beings at their most vulnerable - should be looked after by two parents who love them and not abandoned, as huge numbers are, by fathers, and - look! - the nation's smartasses pipe up to say that marriage should not be 'financially incentivised'. Yes. Morally insane. I was going to amend these words, but I was spot on the first time.

Alan Phillips

The IDS idea of combining tax allowances would be a start. Its not a bad idea to have a policy that rewards a stay at home parent and allows a jobless person to take their place.

Its this type of thinking that will the GE, how many families are affected by having 1 of the couple made redundant? It they can be persuaded to not take JSA but subscribe to tax sharing then this will allow the national debt to be reduced too.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Fergus Pickering: Why does your daughter need money to marry? Surely she doesn't want to waste money on a reception where everybody drinks and eats too much, clothes are bought which will never be worn again, and most people will find a waste of time attending, a great big yawn.

Beer Moth

Come on David, it's not just about the money. There are other incentives.

You get all your washing and ironing done and when she's got a little practice in, the food is good too.

Fergus Pickering

Anna Wotana Kaye, my daughter doesn't need any money to marry but she doesn't see any point in it. If there was a tax advantage then she would do it. Perhaps it doesn't matter one way or the other but I think there are many people of her age like her. If the old folk want the young to marry then they must make it advantageous for them tpo do so AS IT USEDF TO BE. Or rather NOT being married was bad news. I'm not talking about morals here. Im talking about the way things are. You could get to the same place by puitting back the social stigma on living in sin and raising bastards. I have no opinion on this. Whatever my daughter decides to do is fine by me.

oldtimer

You say "... I doubt tax changes behaviour markedly."

If this comment is intended to relate specifically and only to marriage, then it will depend on the extent of the tax differences between getting married and not getting married. At the moment the incentives are against marriage. The tax benefit needs to be skewed in favour of marriage.

More generally, there is no question that taxation affects behaviour. It has happened since time immemorial - for starters just look at the history of beer. The only reason Guinness is the dominant stout is Lloyd Georges taxation of it in WW1. For another example look at the history of purchase tax and the influence that it has had on economic activity in the post WW2 years. You need to be careful with sweeping statements.

THX1138

With plenty of evidence suggesting that Lesbian couples make the best parents, will Dave be interviewed in The Guardian next week touting tax breaks for gay couples?

J H Holloway

What about the system in Germany?

Google Kinderfreibetrag

One website says this

'The 90 % facility [?] will apply to your partner automatically if you are married or your partnership has been registered with the Register Office. You do not meet the conditions if you have been living together without being married and without your partnership being registered with the Register Office.

When applying the 90 % facility we do not take your unmarried partner’s income and tax deductible items into consideration. Your unmarried partner is not entitled to the general tax credit.'

It looks as if tax credits (where your tax-free income seems to be increased by £2000 per child) only come with marriage or registered partnership.

If you are neither, you don't seem to get the same advantages. It also suggests that you only benefit if you go to work.

Anybody out there able to explain the German system of rewarding those who marry/officially partner and have children in more detail?

In any case can you imagine such a system happening here?

TomTom

So why do Government forms not mention marriage ? Should taxpayers be using the benefits system to reward non-marriage ?

Should Child Benefit or Tax Credits be available for more than 2 children ?

Why are the poor and non-working given financial incentives to have large families without costs of education or housing to limit their family size ?

HJ

Marriage should not be financially incentivised - the state should take a neutral stance and avoid social engineering.

However, at present, the tax system and, to a far greater extent, the benefits system discriminate against marriage. Remove these disincentives and the natural economic advantages of marriage will prevail.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Fergus P: Sometimes, as grandparent, I think the old ways (days) were easier and we've made rods for our own backs. In the end, what matters is that the children are healthy, happy and lead good lives.

Philip Walker

It shouldn't be about incentives to marry: it's about government intervention. Currently, the government intervenes by making it financially easier for families which break up. This is madness.

The Tory solution is to redress the balance by putting money in the pockets of families which stay together. I want to know why we're rewarding families which dissolve? Why don't we just stop intervening altogether?

Fergus Pickering

Anna W K. Too right.It was easier before. However, I'm sure my daughters will manage. They don't believe a word anyone tells them, including me. At least I managed to teach them that. Or perhaps it's in the genes.

Numberplate, are there ENOUGH lesian couples to make this judgment? I must say, speaking only for myself, if I had two mothers and no father I would a. find this embarrassing b. never be able to get a word in edgeways. And my wife would have TWO mothers-in-law. It doesn't bear thinking about.

Beer Moth

THX 1138

Your 'plenty of evidence' is an article in a gay newspaper, one of the two ultimate sources of which, turn out to be a San Francisco study project led by one Dr Nanette Gartrell who lives with her 'spouse' Diane Mossbacher.

You don't think there might be a chance of a little bias here?

THX1138

Gay parents - How about The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6574238/Lesbians-make-better-parents-says-senior-parenting-official.html

"Research at Birkbeck College, part of London University, and Clark University in Massachusetts suggests that same-sex couples make good parents because children cannot be conceived accidentally - parents must make an active decision to adopt or find a sperm donor."

I know two sets of gay parents and they are both doing a fantastic job.

Norman Dee

In the present state of the economy, and with Afghanistan, Europe and all the other world problems going on this is a distraction, Cameron should be making greater efforts in those areas. This is an end of first term brightener for work in a second term. He won't get into office off the back of this, so bring back the referendum, threaten to pull out of Europe, deal with Obama, he (Obama) will need all the friends he can get before too long

Beer Moth

The 'government advisor' Stephen Scott, substantiated his claim through two statements only. According to him, children brought up by lesbian couples:

"tended to have higher aspirations and were more likely to champion social justice." and
“were more likely to aspire to traditionally male professions than those raised by straight couples.”

Quite apart from the mention that aspiration is not quite the same as attainment, these qualities are far from being a comprehensive package of what constitutes the well brought-up child,

I wonder also, at precisely how a child's propensity to 'champion social justice' might be measured?

In all, this which is given as some kind of scientifically proven breakthrough, appears to be nothing more than a cheap propoganda move, intended to make homosexuals feel good about their condition, regardless of whether the error of its 'findings' harms children or not.

THX1138

Beer Moth - Do have a problem with Gay couples having/adopting children?

Verity

Philip Walker writes: "I want to know why we're rewarding families which dissolve?"

You haven't figured it out over the last 12 years? Because it accelerates the destruction of a cohesive society and a cohesive identity.

Beer Moth

THX

I don't have a problem at all, I have a view. I hold to the perhaps radical belief that the best environment for children to have, is a home in which they live with both of their biological parents.

As this is not a perfect world this cannot always be provided and we must do our best with what is given us.

However, to accommodate anomoly is not to go as far as the subversion of nature. To wilfully subject children to an upbringing by homosexuals, puts those children very much at a disadvantage and those who advocate such arrangements should not be persuaded so readily by vested interest socio-scientists. Especially when such so-called 'evidence' as they provide, is the result of a casual trawl through the pages of 'Pink News'.

THX1138

Beer Moth What evidence do you have that children brought up by gay couples are in anyway disadvantaged. As I say I know two gay couples bringing up children and both are doing a fantastic job. The kids are a delight to be with and I have no doubt they will live interesting and successful live just like their parents.

Beer Moth

Look mate I've given you more than enough hard fact to respond to in my 12:18, from which you duly avert your eyes.

They are disadvantaged in so many ways, the first of which is that they are denied (not robbed by fate but denied by design) of a role model of either male or female, whichever sex the 'couple' are.

And just because you know gay couples (and why did we know to expect that gem) who 'are doing a fantastic job', how does that constitute any worthwhile assurance in the grand scheme of things?

Marcher Baron

Given that research finds that children from families where the parents are married are less disadvantaged in many ways than those in single parent homes and that more married than cohabiting couples stay together after having children, I should have thought that at least not PENALISING marriage (the current system for benefits, for example, means people are better off apart than together) and preferably not incentivising single parenthood would be a good thing. It would lead to less demand for housing and social services, plus better prospects for the offspring for a start. Such outcomes have a cost benefit, too, surely?

Lucy Jones

I don't know about rewarding marriage - although am not against the idea. But I do know that it is time that fecklessness stopped being rewarded and that we got away from the "entitlement" culture of benefits. When a working couple have more children, they don't suddenly get a payrise to cover the extra costs. No-one offers them a larger house to accommodate their progeny. Contrast this with benefit dependent families, who will not only receive extra benefit payments, but may also be given a larger house. I heard on the radio yesterday of a family with 7 children who were "entitled" to a 7-bedroom house in Wsetminster at a cost of £1400 per week. This is a lifestyle that would be beyond the wildest dreams of around 95% of the population. The modern benefit culture with its ethos of "entitlement" does nothing to encourage or reward personal responsibility.

By the way, I know two sets of parents, where the mother is called Sue, the father Peter. Their kids are happy and doing doing really well. This is obviously evidence that all parents called Sue and Peter are excellent parents.

THX1138

Beer Moth you provide no evidence beyond your prejudices. The evidence is that children are not robbed of anything, but rather that they have two loving parents who in many cases gone to the ends of the Earth to have them. And Probably the reason so many gay couples end up in my part of LDN is exactly because of the out dated opinions of people like you in the sticks.

Beer Moth

Lucy Jones

Brilliant on Sue and Peter. And I'd bet they manage it all without the help of 'parenting practitioners'.

THX

We all have our prejudices fellah. They come in handy, in fact we would be ill advised to get out of bed in the morning without their facility. I'm prepared to debate openly to examine the soundness or otherwise of mine, to have them tested. You once again, display to all, that you are not.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Lucy Jones: The family with the big house, paid for by us UK citizens, has been given to a Somali mother and her 7 children. The father is living in another property with another child. Did You think this government would dish out for a native UK family?

Anne Wotana Kaye

Lucy, sorry if I called you Linda!

Snowman

THX1138 @ 12.44:

It’s not my problem, thanks God. It may be the children’s though. What if, when they grow up, they don’t appreciate the fact they were brought up by a homosexual couple. What then ?

Pie

Seriously, the solution is to stop benefits for new single mothers and to deny the ex-wife any money from the ex-husband in the case of divorce. The state is currently funding mass divorce out of the taxpayer's pocket. Also the state puts the husband in the ludicrous situation of funding his "ex" wife. If a wife wants to leave the marriage, she can pay her own way. There is an emotional argument put forward about the husband contributing to his children's upkeep, but this is a false argument which perpetuates divorce. Clearly, the real solution to this problem will cost nothing to the taxpayer.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Re my posting at 4:11. This link shows how family minded Nu Labour is, as long as the family isn't a UK bord one!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/143185/Asylum-family-given-1-8m-flat-and-83k-a-year-benefits

Beer Moth

AWK.

You'll like this.

I sort out council property when it is 'deserted' usually left in a mess and in need of refurbishment for the next tenants.
Earlier this year, a children's home on our patch, with about 9 bedrooms, was closed due to cutbacks.
We went in and did our stuff. Next thing in moves a family from some African country: man, wife and..... sixteen children.

Great innit?

Anne Wotana Kaye

Beer Moth: I wrote to Slime Ball Straw asking why Hook Hand abu-Hamsa has still not been deported, and why his breeder of a wife and criminal sons are living in a west London mansion at our expense. No answer. Surprise!!

Greg Lattson

You know there is no surprise that such things are happening now. We are living in the so called modern world and marriage is not important for our kids anymore. However I can understand them. Just remember that Tiger Wood's story with the porn star. He have ruined his family and there were nothing good about it. However I think that I wouldn't resist to sleep with a porn star too. For example with Alexis Texas or other ones. What does it mean? It means that we are living in the world where there are many things that we want to try. It is hard to live in the marriage because you can't try everything you want. That's why people avoid to do that and make kids without marriage. However it is only my own opinion here. Thanks for the great article and nice statistics here.