On the income splitting aspect, I think it rather unlikely that people are going to stay together merely because it gives them a financial benefit. After all, splitting up almost invariably involves costs, yet people do it anyway.

This is not to say that I'm opposed to income splitting. Indeed, I'd take it further, and suggest that incomes should be split not just with a spouse, but with the children as well. Essentially, it makes little sense to tax incomes on their cash amount without regard to the number of people that the income has to support.

The income splitting proposal also does nothing to address the problem of people, and in particular men, being deterred from getting into relationships, or at least having children, because of the risks involved if the relationship fails.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

You are correct in that income splitting is only part of the answer, but it is hard to argue that it is not a step in the right direction. Great article BTW.

Income splitting would reduce government’s stranglehold on welfare provision. With your extensions, it should adequately take family size into account, so that a single person earning $80k, and one with 4 dependants, earning the same amount, are not viewed equally on our progressive income tax scale.

Outside of income splitting, and especially post divorce, men should not be expected to finance 2 or more households. The arbitrary, income based rates of child support, are inadequate mechanisms for promoting parental responsibility, especially with no fault divorce, especially with fathers left with inadequate rights of access and decision making about their children’s futures.

The current system promotes divorce in some cases. Men and children deserve better, and it is no wonder that men feel overwhelmed by risks assigned to them. More men like myself, would consider resumption of family life post divorce, if only the risks could be reduced to more reasonable levels. More young men would feel comfortable with taking on such responsibility and making the necessary investment, if partnering errors were not deemed theirs alone.

Sylivia,
I would agree with Seeker. More financial incentives to begin a family and to keep the family established would be a step in the right direction.

I think that there has been too little reliable research into marriage, divorce, de facto relationships etc in Australia, but from what I have seen from other countries, marriage is much better than de facto relationships, and the more wealth in a marriage, the less likelihood there will be divorce. Income splitting could help to establish more wealth in a marriage,(even for low income earners), which then has a positive domino effect.

I also think it important to have incentives and programs that aim to establish long term relationships between couples. Once these relationships are established, the children will then naturally come along in those relationships.

But I think that government has shown minimal concern about trying to establish long term relationships between couples. There are minimal tax incentives, and there has been almost no reform of family law, which must act as a very great disincentive for many men to want to start a family, or to begin again if the first relationship breaks down.

There is almost no equality in Family Law, (and I have had Family Law solicitors tell me this straight out). Family Law is a totally archaic, anti-family system that certain people make money out of, but overall it has a very negative affect on society. One of these negative affects has been an eventual lack of children.

OR.......

Society could 'repent' of the many illusory and shallow and selfish values which cause the breakdown of so many marraiges.

It could re-examine the concept of 'family' and see if other cultures and dare I say it, the scriptures have anything to teach us today about family.

It could reflect on the best aspects of those days when marraiges stayed together, and see if anything of value has been thrown out with the bathwater.

I'm reminded of "You have sown much, but reaped little"

Sylvia,I agree with David.The biggest factor that destroys marriage is the shallowness of the image of "The Perfect Woman" which many men fail to out grow and become disillusioned when their post pregnant wife no longer has the ideal physical attributes.

Many women become paranoid trying to maintain the illusion of youthful sexuality,and the real relationship of understanding our common humanity fails to develop.

Both sexes should try to look their best,for their spouses,but should also be prepared for the really difficult unrewarding hard yards that will see them both develop into mature,responsible and realistic beings.

Boaz,
The idea of values seems good in theory, but unfortunately it all has to do with money at present, and the woman controls the relationship almost completely.

Statistically:- if he has minimal money, he is unlikely to marry or be a father. The more he earns, the more satisfied she is likely to be. The more he earns, the more children he is likely to have. The more he earns, the longer the marriage is likely to last.

70% of divorces are initiated by the woman, and she will take from him as much as possible and then attempt to bleed him dry through child support. Over 60% of mothers in couples have jobs, yet over 90% of child support payers are fathers. Work that out for “gender equality”. She takes the children (and does not want 50/50) so he must pay her child support, and she can also receive innumerable government subsidies if she has the children.

After 30 yrs of feminism, values such as family and love may be on the list somewhere, but money is definitely at the top.

There can be government programs to help educate people in the value of long term marriage etc, but it think that there has to be something more tangible, such as reforms to law and to taxation.

As can be seen in recent news releases regards research into stem cells and embryos, the development of the artificial womb is ongoing, if not inexorable. There will have to be big rethinks in family and motherhood then.