Romantic commitments and marriages

[Toni]

Why should the value someone has for another human companion (romantic or friend or otherwise) be any of the government's business though? If 2 platonic friends want to get married, why should that in itself justify them receiving tax benefits?

If it should not justify that, then why should a romantic couple get those benefits? Why is the romantic affection a couple has a game-changer on how much preferential treatment the government rewards them with?

Again, I am all for people being allowed to make civil contracts with each other. They can declare who they want their inheritances to transfer to upon death, they can declare who they want to make life-and-death decisions for them if they are in the ER, etc. Married couples should not receive tax benefits though that are denied to unmarried couples and singles. Having children (or other dependents) would be grounds for that, but not simply being married to each other.

You won't get much of a better answer than that laws are built to incentivize child-rearing, so coupling (whether common-law or marriage) entails benefits, and actually having kids entails more benefits. This is the fundamental purpose of a society - to make it easier to have kids.

But I don't know what benefits a single person even could get that would make sense outside the context of a relationship. So it's not that single people are losing out on anything, they just don't gain anything from not being in a relationship. With that in mind I don't know why you'd want couples to lose out on benefits?

The laws are built to incentivize and protect childrearing. And to protect and provide for the orderly passing along of material wealth, as well as more sentimental items and property. And also in order to establish who makes important decisions if someone is unable to make decisions regarding health care or asset management for themselves.

It is expensive and wasteful when the state does it and often outright theft and fraud when they appoint some companies and 'guardians' to do so when the entire business model is based upon managing/confiscating assets for individuals deemed 'vulnerable.' While necessary and desirable in some circumstances, it is hardly the case for many other individuals and not what most people want.

Marriage is the least expensive, most clear cut way to establish these rights and protections.

 

[Toni]

Why should the value someone has for another human companion (romantic or friend or otherwise) be any of the government's business though? If 2 platonic friends want to get married, why should that in itself justify them receiving tax benefits?

If it should not justify that, then why should a romantic couple get those benefits? Why is the romantic affection a couple has a game-changer on how much preferential treatment the government rewards them with?

Again, I am all for people being allowed to make civil contracts with each other. They can declare who they want their inheritances to transfer to upon death, they can declare who they want to make life-and-death decisions for them if they are in the ER, etc. Married couples should not receive tax benefits though that are denied to unmarried couples and singles. Having children (or other dependents) would be grounds for that, but not simply being married to each other.

You won't get much of a better answer than that laws are built to incentivize child-rearing, so coupling (whether common-law or marriage) entails benefits, and actually having kids entails more benefits. This is the fundamental purpose of a society - to make it easier to have kids.

But I don't know what benefits a single person even could get that would make sense outside the context of a relationship. So it's not that single people are losing out on anything, they just don't gain anything from not being in a relationship. With that in mind I don't know why you'd want couples to lose out on benefits?

Exactly. I have no problem with people deciding that they don't want to marry or just never finding the right person to marry. Whatever makes you happy is fine.

I don't understand why you think you benefit by removing legal marriages with all the rights and responsibilities it confers from those who wish to marry.

I don't like motorcycles. I had a bad experience on one when I was young and I find them loud and dangerous. I will never ride one again. I often wish they were not on the road when I am driving or trying to sleep. Does that mean that I have the right to say that no one should ride motorcycles? Or to try to pass laws outlawing motorcycles?

 

[Toni]

But if I were to die or if we were to divorce, I would hope that my husband might find someone to marry again as I think marriage suits him.

That seems a noble sentiment, your wanting what is best for him.

Recently I was in the company of a husband/wife where the wife was expressing how devastated and miserable she would be if her husband were to suddenly have a fatal accident, and she would not know how to proceed in life. If I was in a relationship where I wanted what was best for my girlfriend/wife, then I would be terrified at listening to those kinds of sentiments. I would rather make sure that she could not only survive the rest of her life, but be very happy in it as well. Even if that meant getting romantically involved with someone else, either after I died or while I was alive but she was not happy in our relationship. That is why I do not think it makes sense to say we will commit to only being romantic with one person for the entire remainder of our lives. The intentions are good, but it is still an error in judgment. We should always be willing to allow for significant changes in our lives, but we still should realize that we change over time and that may include changing how we feel now versus how we felt 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier when we made a commitment.

In the above scenario, if it was not the result of a traumatic and fatal event, but just that she wanted out of the relationship, then she should feel free to go. She should not feel discouraged from leaving leaving because the barrier to do so is very high. If she stays, it should be because she would be able to live independently from me if her life went in that direction, but that she had a strong preference for remaining with me still. The relationship exists because it makes even better what would otherwise still be a good life, not because it prevents a miserable life from becoming even worse.

I have no objection to people divorcing when they want or need to divorce. Including my husband. If he asked for a divorce today or any day, I'd say fine and not stand in his way.

However, there are always legal and financial entanglements that are unavoidable when two people live together as partners long term. Even when couples marry late in life and deliberately keep assets separate and reserve family heirlooms and wealth for biological children not resulting from that marriage, there are entanglements. It works great if everybody agrees to the dispersal of assets when one partner passes. When people don't agree, that's what marital laws are for. Trust me: I know this.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should the value someone has for another human companion (romantic or friend or otherwise) be any of the government's business though? If 2 platonic friends want to get married, why should that in itself justify them receiving tax benefits?

If it should not justify that, then why should a romantic couple get those benefits? Why is the romantic affection a couple has a game-changer on how much preferential treatment the government rewards them with?

Again, I am all for people being allowed to make civil contracts with each other. They can declare who they want their inheritances to transfer to upon death, they can declare who they want to make life-and-death decisions for them if they are in the ER, etc. Married couples should not receive tax benefits though that are denied to unmarried couples and singles. Having children (or other dependents) would be grounds for that, but not simply being married to each other.

It isn't any of the government's business if the marriage is a happy one or not, so long as there is no violence involved or fraud; it's not the government's business if the marriage is formed for love or avarice or just plain convenience. Or a combination.

The government does not require love. The government does not require that marriage be permanent.

 

[rousseau]

Why should the value someone has for another human companion (romantic or friend or otherwise) be any of the government's business though? If 2 platonic friends want to get married, why should that in itself justify them receiving tax benefits?

If it should not justify that, then why should a romantic couple get those benefits? Why is the romantic affection a couple has a game-changer on how much preferential treatment the government rewards them with?

Again, I am all for people being allowed to make civil contracts with each other. They can declare who they want their inheritances to transfer to upon death, they can declare who they want to make life-and-death decisions for them if they are in the ER, etc. Married couples should not receive tax benefits though that are denied to unmarried couples and singles. Having children (or other dependents) would be grounds for that, but not simply being married to each other.

You won't get much of a better answer than that laws are built to incentivize child-rearing, so coupling (whether common-law or marriage) entails benefits, and actually having kids entails more benefits. This is the fundamental purpose of a society - to make it easier to have kids.

But I don't know what benefits a single person even could get that would make sense outside the context of a relationship. So it's not that single people are losing out on anything, they just don't gain anything from not being in a relationship. With that in mind I don't know why you'd want couples to lose out on benefits?

Exactly. I have no problem with people deciding that they don't want to marry or just never finding the right person to marry. Whatever makes you happy is fine.

I don't understand why you think you benefit by removing legal marriages with all the rights and responsibilities it confers from those who wish to marry.

I don't like motorcycles. I had a bad experience on one when I was young and I find them loud and dangerous. I will never ride one again. I often wish they were not on the road when I am driving or trying to sleep. Does that mean that I have the right to say that no one should ride motorcycles? Or to try to pass laws outlawing motorcycles?

Yea ideally a tax structure should benefit the society as a whole. Promoting child-rearing means more contributors to the income tax pool, unemployment benefits, social security and well.. the society's continued existence.

It is very much in single people's benefit.. for married people and parents to be given benefits. And any offsetting losses they experience should be made up by the fact that they're not raising children.

It's not a perfect system and can be gamed, but for the most part it works.

 

[Brian63]

With that in mind I don't know why you'd want couples to lose out on benefits?

If the benefits existed as an incentive for them to bear children, and they did not actually bear any children, then they are receiving benefits even though the purpose was not satisfied. Someone else (the rest of taxpayers) would be paying more than we otherwise would have for the benefits that couple was granted.

 

[Brian63]

It isn't any of the government's business if the marriage is a happy one or not, so long as there is no violence involved or fraud; it's not the government's business if the marriage is formed for love or avarice or just plain convenience. Or a combination.

So should any 2 people be allowed to marry each other? Maybe they are doing it just for the sake of convenience and getting the benefits out of the system. A pair of siblings can marry each other, or 2 neighbors can marry each other, or a boss and a worker---all of whom have zero, zero, zero romantic interest in each other. Should those be permitted, and those people then be granted tax benefits that unmarried couples do not receive?

 

[Toni]

With that in mind I don't know why you'd want couples to lose out on benefits?

If the benefits existed as an incentive for them to bear children, and they did not actually bear any children, then they are receiving benefits even though the purpose was not satisfied. Someone else (the rest of taxpayers) would be paying more than we otherwise would have for the benefits that couple was granted.

Marriage does incentivise childrearing, but it also provides other beneficial structures to the government.

 

[Toni]

It isn't any of the government's business if the marriage is a happy one or not, so long as there is no violence involved or fraud; it's not the government's business if the marriage is formed for love or avarice or just plain convenience. Or a combination.

So should any 2 people be allowed to marry each other? Maybe they are doing it just for the sake of convenience and getting the benefits out of the system. A pair of siblings can marry each other, or 2 neighbors can marry each other, or a boss and a worker---all of whom have zero, zero, zero romantic interest in each other. Should those be permitted, and those people then be granted tax benefits that unmarried couples do not receive?

No, I don't believe that parents should be allowed to marry children nor siblings or other close relatives.

Why shouldn't two neighbors marry if they chose and were willing to abide by the legal requirements for marriage? Or boss and worker? Frankly, I know of more than couple that married when they were neighbors, or when one was in a position of authority over the other. In the latter case, the workplace might have a problem with it and usually does (depending on the workplace) but why is that an impediment?

Many marriages are built on love; many are built on convenience. Many are built on avarice. And probably many more are based on some combination.

Why is that anyone's business?

And why do you want to take away my rights to be married?

 

[Brian63]

It is very much in single people's benefit.. for married people and parents to be given benefits.

If offspring are actually produced, then yes. Not if there are no offspring, however. Suppose an elderly couple who is not capable of producing children wants to get married and receive tax benefits associated with it. Since the reason for those incentives existing is to make it easier to rear offspring, and they cannot, why should they be given the tax benefit? Same with any gay couple, or any couple where one or both members is infertile?

 

[Brian63]

Many marriages are built on love; many are built on convenience. Many are built on avarice. And probably many more are based on some combination.

Why is that anyone's business?

Because it impacts the rest of us when they would receive benefits for doing so, and pay less in taxes for example. If they wanted to prepare a civil contract between just the 2 of them stating what would happen if they broke up, that is fine. The government would not play a role in their civil contract though (unless there was criminal conduct involved).

And why do you want to take away my rights to be married?

I do not. I want to take away the financial privileges that married couples are granted over unmarried couples and singles.

 

[Toni]

It is very much in single people's benefit.. for married people and parents to be given benefits.

If offspring are actually produced, then yes. Not if there are no offspring, however. Suppose an elderly couple who is not capable of producing children wants to get married and receive tax benefits associated with it. Since the reason for those incentives existing is to make it easier to rear offspring, and they cannot, why should they be given the tax benefit? Same with any gay couple, or any couple where one or both members is infertile?

Childrearing isn't the only reason for marriage nor is childrearing the only benefit to the government or society.

- - - Updated - - -

Many marriages are built on love; many are built on convenience. Many are built on avarice. And probably many more are based on some combination.

Why is that anyone's business?

Because it impacts the rest of us when they would receive benefits for doing so, and pay less in taxes for example. If they wanted to prepare a civil contract between just the 2 of them stating what would happen if they broke up, that is fine. The government would not play a role in their civil contract though (unless there was criminal conduct involved).

And why do you want to take away my rights to be married?

I do not. I want to take away the financial privileges that married couples are granted over unmarried couples and singles.

Why? Why should I not benefit from my husband's pension if we divorce and he predeceases me?

Why should he not be able to remain in our home without incurring any other costs if I predecease him?

Why should we not be able to cover each other through health insurance?

 

[rousseau]

It is very much in single people's benefit.. for married people and parents to be given benefits.

If offspring are actually produced, then yes. Not if there are no offspring, however. Suppose an elderly couple who is not capable of producing children wants to get married and receive tax benefits associated with it. Since the reason for those incentives existing is to make it easier to rear offspring, and they cannot, why should they be given the tax benefit? Same with any gay couple, or any couple where one or both members is infertile?

Likely because it's the more humane and efficient thing to do to just universally give married people the same benefits, rather than try to parse through the huge amount of case types. And in some cases - how would you even determine this? If someone gets married but has trouble having kids, do you just tell them they're out of luck until they procreate? Then marriage stops have an incentive, and they might as well just have kids.

And as far as I understand it, marriage in itself doesn't actually confer that much of a financial benefit, at least in Canada. If my wife has no income I can claim her as a dependent, and you can shift your taxable income around a bit, but that's about it.

 

[Brian63]

Childrearing isn't the only reason for marriage nor is childrearing the only benefit to the government or society.

Are there other benefits to society (besides childrearing) that can only be achieved through incentivizing marriage? Or can those benefits also be achieved without incentivizing marriage? There may be some, I admit to not knowing. You are welcome to change my mind on this.

I do not. I want to take away the financial privileges that married couples are granted over unmarried couples and singles.

Why? Why should I not benefit from my husband's pension if we divorce and he predeceases me?

Why should he not be able to remain in our home without incurring any other costs if I predecease him?

Why should we not be able to cover each other through health insurance?

Those same questions apply to examples of couples I listed earlier---siblings, neighbors, and coworkers---why should we say that 2 siblings should not be allowed to marry each other? If they wanted to marry each other because they wanted the pension benefits, home ownership, health insurance---why should the government say "No we will not let you. We will let these other people marry each other though to reap the same rewards."?

 

[Brian63]

Likely because it's the more humane and efficient thing to do to just universally give married people the same benefits...

Well I agree that would be considered the humane choice if it was up for a popular vote, but there is no rational underlying reason to adopt that system. Once you do examine it, it becomes clearer the alternatives are also just as humane and also more reasonable. It is more of a knee-jerk reaction though to consider the former more humane than the latter, hence that is why it is the way it is.

...And in some cases - how would you even determine this? If someone gets married but has trouble having kids, do you just tell them they're out of luck until they procreate?

Not that they're out of luck. Just that they do not get the financial benefits of having children until they actually do have children. An unmarried heterosexual couple should not be able to say "Hey, we're trying to have children here. Can you give us a financial boost?" and then the government would respond "No." Then the couple returns the next day and says "We just got married earlier today. Now will you give us that boost?" and the government would say "Sure thing."

 

[Tharmas]

And as far as I understand it, marriage in itself doesn't actually confer that much of a financial benefit, at least in Canada. If my wife has no income I can claim her as a dependent, and you can shift your taxable income around a bit, but that's about it.

I believe this is accurate for the US as well, where until recently the opposite was true, at least for tax purposes. There was a "marriage penalty" that recent laws have sought to overcome.

But I would like to suggest that there are personal emotional benefits to a long-term relationship, not just financial. I don't think that you can get to know someone in six months or a year. I would consider that the "infatuation" stage, where every little thing he/she does is magic.

I have been married twice. The first one was a forced marriage, that is, we were confronted with a pregnancy. That marriage lasted fourteen years, and was pretty miserable. We stayed together that long for the sake of the (two) kids.

My current marriage is a few months shy of 25 years right now. I feel that getting to know someone as well as we know each other has enormous psychological benefits. We know each other's strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, and have a true partnership. In the down times we are there for each other. In the up times we can share our happiness. We are comfortable being around each other. We can always find a lot to talk about and have common interests including some that we have developed together, such as travel, but we are also comfortable with each other when sitting quietly.

I don't want to sound too treacly, and I certainly believe "to each his own," but that's my experience.

Oh, and I've found the sex gets a lot better with the more experience you have with each other, emotionally and physically.

 

[Toni]

Are there other benefits to society (besides childrearing) that can only be achieved through incentivizing marriage? Or can those benefits also be achieved without incentivizing marriage? There may be some, I admit to not knowing. You are welcome to change my mind on this.

The impetus is on you to make a compelling case for changing the status quo. Brian63 doesn't want to get married isn't going to cut it. Neither is Brain63 thinks it's unfair that some people benefit from something he doesn't even want.


Why do you think that removing benefits from people because you don't wish to participate in those benefits is 'fair?'

Should you be required to give up meat because I am vegetarian? The government certainly subsidizes all meat industries and meat production contributes significantly to pollution and to all sorts of health problems. It costs everybody a lot of money, including people who don't eat meat.

Should you be forced to drive a Prius because I drive one? Why not? Why should you get to drive a gas guzzling truck? Why should you get to watch football? I don't like it. It causes significant lifelong health problems for the players who are unfairly put at risk for the 'entertainment' of a bunch of fat old men who would die of heart attacks if they had to run 50 yards. No more metal! It's bad for your hearing! And I don't like it! Definitely socks with sandals needs to be outlawed!

Why not save us all a lot of money and simply outlaw guns altogether? And hunting knives or any blade 4" or longer?

 

[ruby sparks]

Are there other benefits to society (besides childrearing) that can only be achieved through incentivizing marriage? Or can those benefits also be achieved without incentivizing marriage? There may be some, I admit to not knowing. You are welcome to change my mind on this.

Why? Why should I not benefit from my husband's pension if we divorce and he predeceases me?

Why should he not be able to remain in our home without incurring any other costs if I predecease him?

Why should we not be able to cover each other through health insurance?

Those same questions apply to examples of couples I listed earlier---siblings, neighbors, and coworkers---why should we say that 2 siblings should not be allowed to marry each other? If they wanted to marry each other because they wanted the pension benefits, home ownership, health insurance---why should the government say "No we will not let you. We will let these other people marry each other though to reap the same rewards."?

Personally, I'm not much in favour of giving people financial incentives to either get married or to have children, although my country, like most western developed countries does do both (and I have in fact benefitted from both, as a husband and a father).

That said, I do at least understand the given reasons, and child wellbeing is apparently the biggie.

 

[Brian63]

Toni, I am hoping we can keep the personal tit-for-tats aside here, and not inflame the discussion. Maybe I am misinterpreting the tone there, and am sorry if so (that is unfortunately a common habit of mine). We can have an enjoyable discussion on the topic without setting targets on each other.

The impetus is on you to make a compelling case for changing the status quo. Brian63 doesn't want to get married isn't going to cut it. Neither is Brain63 thinks it's unfair that some people benefit from something he doesn't even want.

It's not that some people benefit, it's that others have to pay for those benefits. If the benefits came freely, there would be no problem. If everyone wanted 0% income tax rates for themselves, then there would be no budget from income taxes to pay for various social services which are needed. If one group makes a case that they should have to pay less taxes than other people do, they should make an argument for why that should be the case. It is not a matter of receiving benefits where the problem is, it is who else is paying for those benefits and how much.

Why do you think that removing benefits from people because you don't wish to participate in those benefits is 'fair?'

Because if marriage serves a unique function in that it makes it financially easier for children to be raised, but then couples who do not have children are still receiving the financial benefit, then they are not using the system for its purpose. In the meanwhile, the rest of the taxpayers who are unmarried couples and singles have to bear a slightly higher burden to live in society.

Should you be required to give up meat because I am vegetarian? The government certainly subsidizes all meat industries and meat production contributes significantly to pollution and to all sorts of health problems. It costs everybody a lot of money, including people who don't eat meat.

Actually I am a vegetarian too. In an ideal world that we could design from the ground up, yes I could agree with not subsidizing meat industries for the reasons you mention. It is not realistically going to happen, but in terms of ideals it has merit.

Should you be forced to drive a Prius because I drive one? Why not? Why should you get to drive a gas guzzling truck? Why should you get to watch football? I don't like it. It causes significant lifelong health problems for the players who are unfairly put at risk for the 'entertainment' of a bunch of fat old men who would die of heart attacks if they had to run 50 yards. No more metal! It's bad for your hearing! And I don't like it! Definitely socks with sandals needs to be outlawed!

Why not save us all a lot of money and simply outlaw guns altogether? And hunting knives or any blade 4" or longer?

Ideally, people who consume relatively more resources, or pollute or contaminate a relatively high amount of resources (that renders them unavailable for use by others) should likewise pay more for those privileges, or behaviors. If a person consumes less and pollutes less than others, they should be liable to owe less than others. That would be the general guiding principle, although in many particular scenarios I do not know how the specifics would be obtained. With marriage though, if it serves the function as easing the financial burden of propagating the society, but couples sign up for it even though they are not actually propagating the society, then that money was unfairly given to them. You had listed other benefits that couples have with marriage such as health insurance, home ownership, pensions. If marriage serves to benefit people for those reasons, then why should we not allow 2 siblings to enjoy those benefits as well? Because they happen to be siblings? I do not see why that should disqualify them.

 

[Brian63]

Personally, I'm not much in favour of giving people financial incentives to either get married or to have children, although my country, like most western developed countries does do both (and I have in fact benefitted from both, as a husband and a father).

That said, I do at least understand the given reasons, and child wellbeing is apparently the biggie.

Yeah. It is similar to how a country can give tax breaks and other incentives to people who defend the country by serving in the military. If a person comes along and wants to claim those breaks, but they have never served in the military, it makes no sense to give them those incentives. Defeats the purpose, in the first place. If somehow they did receive the incentives, but others said "Hey, that's not fair. You never earned them since you did not serve." they would be right. It is not that the person is being denied the right to those incentives, they just cannot claim them if they have not earned them.

 

[Toni]

Toni, I am hoping we can keep the personal tit-for-tats aside here, and not inflame the discussion. Maybe I am misinterpreting the tone there, and am sorry if so (that is unfortunately a common habit of mine). We can have an enjoyable discussion on the topic without setting targets on each other.



It's not that some people benefit, it's that others have to pay for those benefits. If the benefits came freely, there would be no problem. If everyone wanted 0% income tax rates for themselves, then there would be no budget from income taxes to pay for various social services which are needed. If one group makes a case that they should have to pay less taxes than other people do, they should make an argument for why that should be the case. It is not a matter of receiving benefits where the problem is, it is who else is paying for those benefits and how much.



Because if marriage serves a unique function in that it makes it financially easier for children to be raised, but then couples who do not have children are still receiving the financial benefit, then they are not using the system for its purpose. In the meanwhile, the rest of the taxpayers who are unmarried couples and singles have to bear a slightly higher burden to live in society.

Should you be required to give up meat because I am vegetarian? The government certainly subsidizes all meat industries and meat production contributes significantly to pollution and to all sorts of health problems. It costs everybody a lot of money, including people who don't eat meat.

Actually I am a vegetarian too. In an ideal world that we could design from the ground up, yes I could agree with not subsidizing meat industries for the reasons you mention. It is not realistically going to happen, but in terms of ideals it has merit.

Should you be forced to drive a Prius because I drive one? Why not? Why should you get to drive a gas guzzling truck? Why should you get to watch football? I don't like it. It causes significant lifelong health problems for the players who are unfairly put at risk for the 'entertainment' of a bunch of fat old men who would die of heart attacks if they had to run 50 yards. No more metal! It's bad for your hearing! And I don't like it! Definitely socks with sandals needs to be outlawed!

Why not save us all a lot of money and simply outlaw guns altogether? And hunting knives or any blade 4" or longer?

Ideally, people who consume relatively more resources, or pollute or contaminate a relatively high amount of resources (that renders them unavailable for use by others) should likewise pay more for those privileges, or behaviors. If a person consumes less and pollutes less than others, they should be liable to owe less than others. That would be the general guiding principle, although in many particular scenarios I do not know how the specifics would be obtained. With marriage though, if it serves the function as easing the financial burden of propagating the society, but couples sign up for it even though they are not actually propagating the society, then that money was unfairly given to them. You had listed other benefits that couples have with marriage such as health insurance, home ownership, pensions. If marriage serves to benefit people for those reasons, then why should we not allow 2 siblings to enjoy those benefits as well? Because they happen to be siblings? I do not see why that should disqualify them.

The orderly and well established transfer of wealth and assets as well as the established norms for providing care for one’s spouse and assets when the spouse becomes too ill or injured or just too old to manage for ones’ self provides tremendous benefit to society as well as significant cost savings. Married people tend to be more stable and more productive—also a benefit to society.

Siblings can go through separate established legal channels to name one another heir, power of attorney, etc. there are not likely to be so many such sibling pairs as to bog down the court and legal system.