Reem Ibrahim, undergraduate at LSE and IEA intern, argue YES
Data shows 51.3 per cent of live births in 2021 were not to married couples – the first majority since records began in 1845. The figures out this week show that just half of children born in 2021 were born within a marriage.
Why has this happened? Well, one of the incentives for people to marry in the post war era were the tax benefits given to married men. These were designed to help with family expenses. However, as attitudes shifted, these tax benefits were seen as outdated, and were gradually removed during the 1990s. The intended or unintended consequences of these changes meant that for many couples marrying could be more expensive than not doing so.
Why does it matter? The evidence for marriage is clear. Marriage is not only beneficial for the couple, but it also creates the ideal conditions for raising children. We know that family stability is incredibly important for children. Two-thirds of cohabiting parents split up before their child reaches age 12, compared to just one quarter of married parents. Children who are raised in stable families are usually better educated, healthier, and more likely to avoid poverty.
Marriage also has positive impacts on the couple’s mental health and wellbeing. Married mothers have lower rates of depression than those who are single or cohabiting. They are more likely to receive both emotional and practical support from their partner’s family, and married men are statistically less likely to perpetrate violent crimes than unmarried men.
It is time to look at this issue again. There could be a number of incentives, including tax deductible medical insurance, higher starting tax band rates, and home allowances so that each person is allowed to own a home and to sell the home without capital gains tax (which is the case for couples who are unmarried).
If we can agree that a stable family with a married couple is the best way to bring up children, who in turn grow up to become dependable members of society, then it makes sense to incentivise those who wish to marry rather than provide loopholes and tax advantages for those who choose not to.The long term benefits are clear: less crime, a better qualified workforce and a motivated settled society.
Harrison Griffiths, Communications Officer at the IEA, argues NO
Marriage can be the bedrock on which a family rests. To many, marriage represents the deepest possible commitment to another person, a promise to spend eternity together. In short, marriage is a sacred institution – too sacred to entrust the government with its future.
For the institution to live up to its promise, it must truly represent stability and commitment. Artificially incentivising marriage will likely see more couples tie the knot without fully considering the implications. This will both turn marriage into a commodified institution and exacerbate the issue of family breakdown in the long-run.
To reconcile this with promoting stability, the only option would be to tighten divorce laws. This would trap partners and children in arrangements which may be controlling, abusive, or otherwise detrimental, which could further undermine marriage by characterising it as a coercive institution, rather than an empowering one.
Finally, state marriage incentives raise a profound moral dilemma. While marriage carries significant meaning for many, this view is not universal. Some point to the sexist and oppressive history of marriage as a reason to opt out, while others feel that their relationship doesn’t warrant official certification. Taking money from those who don’t wish to participate in marriage in order to subsidise those who choose to embrace it violates the core liberal principles of property rights, self-authorship, and freedom of conscience.
Government cannot centrally plan love and commitment, nor can it fully grasp the myriad complex reasons that lead to their breakdown and reconciliation. Marriage should be a joyful commitment to a partnership, an exhibition of spontaneous order, a transaction where equal partners come together to combine their efforts; it is this vision that promotes stability and makes marriage more than just a piece of paper. Government intervening by using stolen money to bribe people into marriage does not strengthen the institution or expand its benefits; by contrast, it relegates marriage to a tax avoidance scheme and dilutes its meaning by encouraging poorly suited partners to participate in it.
