Azara Blog: Married people somehow considered worthy of tax breaks

Blog home page | Blog archive

Google   Bookmark and Share
 

Date published: 2005/12/06

The BBC says:

Marriage is being "downgraded" by government policies, a former High Court judge has warned.

In a speech on Monday, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said the loss of tax perks meant there was no financial incentive to marry or stay married.

She said the lack of financial help was "a wasted opportunity" to support an "undervalued" section of the public.

Her comments came as religious groups warned civil partnerships, which became law on Monday, may undermine marriage.

Until her retirement in April, Dame Elizabeth was in charge of the High Court's Family Division where she oversaw some of the UK's most high-profile divorce cases.

Delivering the Bar Council lecture in central London on Monday, she said growing divorce levels should concern the whole of society because they could affect the wider community and even the economy.

"This outcome which contributes to the downgrading of the status of marriage is particularly sad since the statistics show that marriage remains the most stable of all relationships between men and women, even with the incidence of divorce," Dame Elizabeth said.

The advantages of marriage were now "not sufficiently trumpeted", she added.

Statistics released in August showed the total number of divorces in the UK during 2004 increased slightly compared to 2003 to reach just over 167,000.

Dame Elizabeth also criticised the exclusion of heterosexual couples from civil partnerships ceremonies which give legal recognition to the relationships of homosexual couples.

"There are many cohabiting couples who have no idea of the legal pitfalls if they separate acrimoniously or die without making proper provision for the other partner," she said.

Unbelievable that a judge (former or not) could utter such drivel. Is she suggesting that people should get married because of financial incentives? Aren't there supposed to be better reasons than that? Married people still have tax perks (e.g. there is no inheritance tax and capital gains tax allowances can be shared). And what does such a tax perk mean? It is simply saying that non-married people should for some obscure reason be subsidising married people. Why? Are married people somehow inherently more moral or worthy citizens? And her quotation of statistics is a classic confusion of correlation and causation. But why would anybody expect a judge to understand that important distinction after a lifetime in the legal profession? You have to wonder about her rulings if this is how she thinks. And her final complaint rings very hollow. It is exactly people like her who have made sure that cohabiting couples have less rights than married people. If she is so concerned about them then tell government and married people to grow up and give non-married people equal rights (especially equal tax rights) instead of trying to make the inbalance worse.

_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com. For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com (replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").