Tax and Marriage? Do they go together like a horse and carriage?

I hadn’t thought I was going to post anything this side of Christmas now, but the story on the BBC website (here) detailing a new Conservative green paper on encouraging marriage has roused me from my stupor!

My first question is this: is this not the kind of government interference usually eschewed by those of a Conservative bent? Government has no business compiling huge databases, should not interfere in the markets and definitely ought to steer clear of child-raising, they usually cry. So why do they care what my or anyone else’s domestic arrangements are, and why are they planning on offering a tax break to encourage marriage?

The answer is obvious; children raised in stable households turn out as better human beings. This is very difficult to argue with and frankly, I am not going to, as I happen to agree with it. What I don’t agree with is the assertion that you have to be married to provide a stable environment for kids. And I certainly don’t agree that people should be incentivised to remain married, when sometimes the best for all parties is divorce!

Numerous reports have shown stability is vital to a child’s development but a recent report from Cornell University showed that one group of kids performed worse than those from ‘broken, unstable homes.’ This group consisted of children from families who had remained together for the monetary benefits, but probably would have been served by separating.

The Tory proposals lead onto to further, obvious questions; what about children raised by same-sex couples? Will they get the tax break? And what about widows and widowers? They are not single out of choice, nor are they any less ‘stable’ environments just for their misfortune.

It is not government’s job to encourage marriage or any other domestic arrangement. A stable environment for children can be provided for in any number of ways, it is just a question of finding the right option for the individuals in question. No matter what David Cameron might say, these proposals do create a system whereby some family set-ups are deemed second-class. For once, I agree with Ed Balls!

P