|
Personal interest; ‘Mrs’ B and I have been together for 29 years and remain defiantly unmarried. Neither of us have a God before whom to affirm our relationship, nor did we feel impelled to do so before friends or family. We’ve brought up two kids in a secure home. Finances etc arranged so that survivor takes all on first death and she will get a partners pension when I die. The only reason I can think of to marry would be IHT, but we’re way below the threshold and tax planning seems a pretty scrappy reason for doing so anyway.
Probably 20% of my kid’s contemporaries are from similar backgrounds. It’s a new norm. Society need not concern itself except that government needs to develop the spine to legislate for it. Instead we have the Courts trying sort out property issues by the law of equity as in last week’s Supreme Court case.
Couples breaking up leaving fatherless families are one problem. The never had a live in father/kids with different men is a different one. Neither is a fiscal issue for the tax system (though Fathers paying maintenance is for Social Security).
The first might be addressed if mediation were to be the norm rather than separation and divorce. That would need a cultural change of which I am not optimistic.
The second frankly is a question of education and employment. Too many young women have low self esteem and poor life chances and see having a baby at 16 as a way out. Education needs to be more relevant to those for who 5 A* to C at GCSE is a pipe dream and the job market has to react accordingly. Again I’m not optimistic.
Tax breaks will only benefit couples who are working and will go overwhelmingly to those already on average earnings or better. We need a government that's prepared to read social research and act joined up across the piece in ways that might upset noisy elements in both parties and the media.
Which is why I'm not optimistic.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 14/11/2011 at 13:52
|
