It would be a “serious mistake” to make cohabitation equivalent to marriage in our tax code, the Iona Institute has said. The remarks were in response to remarks made on Wednesday by Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly that the tax code treats married and cohabiting couples differently.
At a meeting of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, she pointed out that the tax code gave cohabiting couples none of the tax benefits of marriage, but the welfare system treated such couples as though they were married.
The Director of The Iona Institute, David Quinn, said: “Cohabitation is not equivalent to marriage and it would be a serious mistake to treat it as such. Research shows that cohabiting relationships are much shorter-lived than marriage and this is particularly bad for children.
British data from the Millennium Cohort Study shows that one in four children of cohabiting parents suffer family breakdown before they start school at the age of five. This compares with one in 10 children with married parents.”
He continued: “This means that for the sake of children we need to encourage marriage by providing incentives to get married. In turn, that means giving it advantageous treatment in the tax and welfare codes.”
He added: “Cohabiting couples are not being discriminated against because they can exercise the choice to marry if they wish. In addition, according to one Irish study, three out of four cohabiting couples either marry or break-up within the first seven years of the relationship forming. This is similar to overseas findings. Cohabitation is rarely seen by couples as a permanent alternative to marriage and the State should not treat it as such.
“Marriage has consistently shown itself to be the most pro-child of all social institutions and that it why we have given it special support historically.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: CIN)