I wish they would treat all single parents equally. It doesn't make any sense that I am ineligible for the tax deduction simply because I was never legally married.

It doesn't make any sense that I am ineligible for the tax deduction simply because I was never legally married.

Perhaps it does. We know that children raised in two parent households have better life outcomes. Creating financial incentives for marriage is a way to encourage the careful selection of suitable longterm partners and creation of financially stable households for children.

It doesn't make any sense that I am ineligible for the tax deduction simply because I was never legally married.

This is Japan. Very little here makes very little sense.

 We know that children raised in two parent households have better life outcomes.

BS

if that one parent gives the child more love and affection than the child of two half-arsed parents or one that sees their parents beating on each other all the time which is going to turn out better?

its 2018 mate, not the 1950s.

if that one parent gives the child more love and affection than the child of two half-arsed parents or one that sees their parents beating on each other all the time which is going to turn out better?

You're talking about specific cases. But scholars mostly agree that kids who are raised with two parents generally do better than those raised with one. Of course a kid with a single-parent that loves them and provides a stable, safe environment is going to be better off than a kid with two drunk and violent parents. There is no doubt about that. But with all things equal other than the number of parents, kids with two parents will almost always fare better.

From the article

She was subject to domestic violence at the hands of her fiance while she was pregnant, and escaped their shared residence. She gave birth without ever being legally married. She currently makes ends meet with part-time work that only pays a little over 100,000 yen per month.

M3 Comment

Perhaps it does. We know that children raised in two parent households have better life outcomes. Creating financial incentives for marriage is a way to encourage the careful selection of suitable longterm partners and creation of financially stable households for children.

Holy smokes - what a cold and heartless comment. This woman was a victim of domestic violence, escaped, and now is trying to raise her child and this is what you say?! Unbelievable

She absolutely deserves a tax deduction. Cold as ice comment and cold as ice policy!

Agree with her. It's about time ppl realise that marriage is not the be all and end all of a man/woman's life. Too often unmarried ppl are discriminated against.

@Tokyo-Engr

Holy smokes - what a cold and heartless comment.

How so? Do you think it's also cold and heartless to say that smokers should be charged higher life insurance premiums? Because that's equivalent to what we're talking about here.

The statistics show that people who are formally married are more likely to stay together to raise children than partners who are simply cohabiting. The statistics also show us that married parents and their children are less likely to draw on the social welfare system.

Why wouldn't we pay a little more (or charge less) to people who engage in risk mitigating behaviours which reduce the burden on our stretched social welfare system? It's exactly the same reason we charge smokers higher premiums for engaging in risky behaviour. Actuarial science isn't cold and heartless, it just is what it is. The fact that this particular woman was abused by her chosen partner is largely irrelevant to whether all prospective parents should be financially incentivised to get married.

@FizzBit

Strangerland is one of the most rational and fact based posters on this site, at least in my opinion. Why feel bad about agreeing with him? I do all the time.

@Captain....so should this single lady who was abused

a. Stayed with the abuser and continued to gaman domestic violence? Or...

b. Aborted the baby?

I think in her case she definitely needs and deserves the tax break

Creating financial incentives for marriage is a way to encourage the careful selection of suitable longterm partners and creation of financially stable households for children.

And how does that help pregnant women who are victims of domestic violence? And how about those married couples who refuse to have children? Or those who willy-nilly marry, divorce, remarry, etc?

I know plenty of couples who are not married, but in steady, long-term relationships and some with children. You don't need a marriage certificate to show how much love there is in a household. Plenty of people stuck in loveless marriages, and plenty also caught up in DV.

Tokyo-Engr & Pukey2, I think both of you may have missed the point and gone off on a tangent. Domestic violence is not the issue here and even the woman being quoted isn't arguing that she deserves a tax break simply because she is a victim of domestic violence.

The quote (please read it again carefully) claims that it does not make any sense to provide married couples with tax breaks without extending those same tax breaks to people who were never married. In fact, data shows that it might make perfect sense to extend tax breaks to married people to encourage marriage given the social advantages which marriage appears to provide to all involved. It doesn't mean that we think what happened to this woman isn't horrible or that she shouldn't be helped in some way. By the way, if you are concerned about domestic violence, an interesting data point you might be interested in is that domestic violence is less prevalent in marriages than in cohabiting couples.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/193271

In response to increases in cohabitation in the United States, researchers have recently focused on differences between cohabiting and marital unions. One consistent finding is a higher rate of domestic violence among cohabiting couples as compared with married couples. A prominent explanation for this finding is that cohabitation is governed by a different set of institutionalized controls than marriage.

It makes perfect sense for a society to establish laws that sustain the society and keep it from decline and collapse. Children who grow up with both parents in the household are significantly more successful over the course of their lives. Two-parent households are much more productive, much less likely to live in poverty, and much less likely to become a burden on the welfare system. Constructing the tax system to reward and encourage behavior that betters society and to discourage dyscivic behavior is precisely what a government ought to do.

The complaints of people who are engaged in dyscivic behavior ought to be ignored. If people demand public rewards for behavior that has negative consequences for themselves and for society, they ought to be roundly mocked.

M3

I agree with your premise that 2 parent households are (most often) better for kids. However I still think the tax break should be given to both 2 parent households and single parent households (in Japan often poor and often not getting help from the divorced spouse).

I do not think the tax credit would encourage people to divorce or separate nor do I think it is "rewarding" this behavior.

In the end the child is the one that will end up suffering indirectly.

There are also FACTS that show that children coming from impoverished households have a much lower chance of success than those that come from a stable economic situation.

I pay alot of taxes here in Japan. I would prefer my taxes go to help a single mom than for corporate welfare or lining the pockets of politicians and politically connected.

Best for her to find a new partner, get married. Easier said than done, in particular in Japan I know, but possible.

Also getting to know your partner before getting pregnant is also the kind of advice that has always been given by parents.

Point of general discussion here is not to get reward thanks to mistakes.

In my home country, divorced women with children would tend to remain unmarried to get higher benefits than married couples. It results indeed on average with kids with less education and nonetheless more prone to poverty.

Nothing new in this world. No perfect system either.

The tax write off at the end of the year may be different for single parents; however, comma the monthly allotment of funds that the government gives is drastically different for single parents and married parents. Example. I am recently divorced. I make roughly ￥4M per year working full time. Prior to the divorce the city sent us ￥15,000 per month per child. After the divorce, the government changed the amount to ￥２0,000 per month per child plus an additional ￥70,000 for monthly expenses. While the tax deduction is no longer there. The monthly allotment is a bigger trade off.