[jamespo]

Why is taxing households together the correct thing, other than the fact it presumably would improve your personal standard of living (it would also improve mine)? What are you trying to encourage? I could see if you want to encourage families having tax benefits based on children - but universal childcare provision seems more likely to succeed.

And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted.

[triceratops]

> Why is taxing households together the correct thing

Hypothetically if the household splits up due to a divorce its assets are divided 50:50 (this varies by jurisdiction). Usually (again depending on the jurisdiction) the lower-earning spouse also gets alimony to even up the difference in income resulting from the new situation, at least for a few years.

Clearly then the state believes assets owned and income earned by either one of the couple belong equally to both (something I agree with personally: it's called a partnership). If that's the case, how could it be wrong to tax the household as a single entity?

[jltsiren]

The fundamental question is whether the primary unit of the society is a household or an individual. If you assume that the society consists of individuals, people should be taxed individually, spouses should be allowed to choose in advance how their assets would be divided in a divorce, and alimony should only be paid to support underage children.

[scotty79]

I think the currently prevailing view is that a household (or a family) is the smallest social structure and the individual is pretty much the opposite of society.

[graemep]

Exactly. Economists usually regard households as basic economic units for good reason.

[graemep]

> Why is taxing households together the correct thing

its fairer

> It presumably would improve your personal standard of living

I am divorced and remain single so it would make no difference to me

> could see if you want to encourage families having tax benefits based on children

I want people to enjoy family life. Its the same reason I want family friendly working hours, decent paternity leave, a right to home educate and better schools etc.

> And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted.

And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted.

Please do explain . Also please find evidence it is abused where tax does work like that. Its not a cut either as many households would pay the same tax, and its likely rates would go up slightly to make it revenue neutral. Its also more consistent as benefits are based on household income in the UK, as are things like student loans and educational bursaries and the treatment of finances in divorce.

[jamespo]

"It's fairer" is just tautology.

Student loans are not based on household income and many other benefits aren't either.

As for family life that is covered by basing tax cuts / benefits on children not merely the nebulous concept of a household.

[graemep]

The concept of a household is not nebulous. It is used by economists for a good reason. People in the same household pool income and expenses. The law assumes married couples do so. Parents are jointly responsible for their children.

Really? There are benefits and tax cuts that allow parents to spend more time with their children? Not that I know of.

[jamespo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c776xgex02jo

[1718627440]

> Student loans are not based on household income and many other benefits aren't either.

Citation needed. Mine are.

[jamespo]

https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/who-qualifies

[scotty79]

> What are you trying to encourage?

Specialization within the houshold? Because it's conducive to reproduction?