> 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?

> 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.