Newspaper articles don't get much more important than the Daily Telegraph one below. It goes to the heart of how and why the character of British people has changed. You see in it incentives not to be married. Through that, you see a major cause of the increasing number of children not brought up within a family with married, committed parents. That, in turn, tends on average - though not always, of course - to lead to alienation and delinquency among more children. That is a pathway to uncivil behaviour and crime. And then there is also the incentive to fraud - making lying and cheating a normal part of the way people lead their lives.
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 16/12/2005)Thousands of couples with children may be choosing to live apart because they can cash in on benefits.
An official report by one of the Government's former leading experts on the family shows that as many as one million couples in a committed sexual relationship live most of their time at separate addresses.
Family campaigners seized on the findings, saying women who lived apart from their child's father or a new partner were rewarded with higher levels of state benefits.
The research, contained in a politically sensitive report published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, has prompted politicians and family campaigners to question Government policy. They say changes to the tax and benefits system could encourage women to wait until they are married before having children.
The ONS report, Living arrangements in contemporary Britain, has been surrounded by controversy for some time.
Last year there were claims - strongly denied by the ONS - that the Government was suppressing a draft version because the findings could be seen as embarrassing.
Yesterday Roma Chappell, of the ONS's editorial board, said the final report drew no conclusions on why so many couples were living in such an untraditional fashion.Asked why there were no references to the possible financial disincentives of living together in the final report, she said the earlier report was "a working paper which went to academics. It had more information in it that was speculative. The current one is not speculative. The report has been edited".
Yesterday's report found that one million couples in committed relationships chose to live apart, which amounts to three in 10 men and women under 60 - excluding teenagers living at home with their parents, and full-time students who have girlfriends or boyfriends elsewhere. It was not clear how many of the couples had children or were divorced.
The ONS said a couple might be cautious about cohabiting and prefer to have their own separate addresses. They may also be living with children from a previous marriage or living apart from their partner because he or she had moved away because of their job. Alternatively, the couple may just be starting out together and could end up marrying or cohabiting.
The ONS would not be drawn on the possible financial benefits of being a lone parent household.
The complete article is here.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Behaviour & Crime • Parenting • Welfare benefits
Comments (6)
TrackBack (19)
Comments
These policies make complete sense: they maintain/increase the taxes dispensed by the officials involved -- i.e., they maintain/expand the numbers of officials involved. We are not ruled by philosopher-kings, but by ordianry humans who respond to incentives.
Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at December 17, 2005 02:03 PM
Thousands "may be"...
Are we being asked to believe that the difference in benefits is enough to make it worth the expense of having two homes instead of one?
Evidence rather than assertion please.
Posted by: bierce at December 17, 2005 04:53 PM
Why is this surprising? Even better why is it a problem? Not that I agree with it but we have set up a system where it is a valid option to be on the social. We reward people with many children even though without state handouts they cannot live. Also via the infamous CSA there are many people who cannot afford to stay together because a large portion of income goes to a third party. Split up from your current and that get's halved straight away.
It's called following the rules. What do tax advisors do that is any different? They follow the rules to minimise payments to the Government. They people follow rules to maximise their funding from the Government.
I don't like either but it's perfectly legal.
Posted by: Dave Petterson at December 17, 2005 05:13 PM
The ONS report may indicate how state monies and entitlements affect familes, but I doubt it fully reflects what is happening.
And then there is also the incentive to fraud - making lying and cheating a normal part of the way people lead their lives.
That is the part that by its nature the ONS will never really get to grips with.
For example, I once knew a couple with children who lived together but affected to live apart lest they lose the benefit of 'right to buy' on a council house.
Posted by: Tim at December 19, 2005 09:08 AM
Civitas comments on this too...
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2005/12/post_3.html
Posted by: pl at December 20, 2005 10:38 AM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/12/parents_live_ap.php on line 332
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/12/parents_live_ap.php on line 332
The report doesn't say this. It says that there are at least 1m couples who are in a long-term relationships who live apart. It hardly says anything about benefits -- the version I have seen points out that some make it better to live together, others live apart. As of course does many other things, such as jobs.
Posted by: Matthew at December 17, 2005 01:22 PM