[quote=Fletch]
The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.
So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)[/quote]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
There is no requirement that married people have children. Nor is there a requirement that you be married to have children. I spent the weekend at a friend’s wedding. They will never have kids. (By choice). Several of the other couples there were also child free by choice and married.
And until the marriage penalty was fixed a decade back – it was a tax dis-incentive to be married with 2 good incomes. I was careful to push my wedding day into the new year, rather than at the end of the previous year for that very reason… I’d have paid higher taxes with 2 incomes married, than 2 incomes both filing single. The tax law does incentivize having 1 stay at home parent, though.
There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?
As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.
