Latest Census Report

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Two decades ago, married couples made up 80 per cent of families. In 2006, that number plunged to 68.6 per cent.

At the same time the number of single parents and common-law couples heading up families has increased significantly. Twenty years ago, common-law couples made up 7.2 per cent of families while single parents headed up 12.7 per cent of families.

Today, common-law partners make up 15.5 per cent and single parents make up 15.9 per cent.

About 23 per cent of all common-law couples in Canada live in Montreal and Quebec, the study reports. Between 2001 and 2006, the number of common-law partners increased 20.3 per cent to make up about 44.4 per cent of the national total.

I think this will certainly bring up a number of issues in regards to marriage, taxation and law.

The biggest change seems to be in Quebec.

[Denny]

Families have been de-emphasized for far too long in our society.

Some of this is social trends, hard to change, but some simple things like government tax policies can easily be changed.

For so many families, the wife has to work. I recall back in the '60's, the relative amount of tax deductions for wives and children was much greater, relatively speaking. In a sense, the govnerment recognized the value of stay home mothers by giving a good incentive in the form of a good tax break for the family. But, only to legal families, in which a covenant existed between man and wife. Not a common-law shack up. Parenting was taught to us at school to be a vocation. It was a high level of responsibility one aspired to. And, the permanence of marriage. Not now.

I like the U.S. approach to income taxation, in that it recognizes the family as the basic economic unit. It makes no difference for taxes whether the combined family income is earned 50/50 or 100/0 between man and wife.

[jdobbin]

Families have been de-emphasized for far too long in our society.

Some of this is social trends, hard to change, but some simple things like government tax policies can easily be changed.

For so many families, the wife has to work. I recall back in the '60's, the relative amount of tax deductions for wives and children was much greater, relatively speaking. In a sense, the govnerment recognized the value of stay home mothers by giving a good incentive in the form of a good tax break for the family. But, only to legal families, in which a covenant existed between man and wife. Not a common-law shack up. Parenting was taught to us at school to be a vocation. It was a high level of responsibility one aspired to. And, the permanence of marriage. Not now.

I like the U.S. approach to income taxation, in that it recognizes the family as the basic economic unit. It makes no difference for taxes whether the combined family income is earned 50/50 or 100/0 between man and wife.

I don't know that government tax policies are going to overcome some of the social trends you mention. I don't see it changing Quebec's rejection of marriage any time soon.

[Keepitsimple]

A big deal was made of this census data on the news today - bigger than it deserved. Statistics are often misleading. One factor was mysteriously absent - people are waiting significantly longer before getting married - this has a very obvious downward effect on the percentage of married couples. It wasn't that long ago when the natural thing to do was to marry in your early twenties - now it's more likely to be early thirties. Although I know Stats Canada is trying to be consistent with previous census data - it really makes little sense to claim that more than half of Canadians aged 15 and over are unmarried. How many kids aged 15, 16 and 17 do you know that are married? Having said all that, it doesn't dismiss the fact that the percentage of unmarried couples is very much on the rise.....but I don't think the Grim Reaper will be claiming the institution of marriage anytime soon.

An interesting aside in these statistics is the percentage of same-sex couples at .006 percent - supposedly similar to Australia and New Zealand. There have been a lot of stats thrown around by gay activists that measure the gay community as being anywhere from 10 to 15% of the population. If heterosexual couples represent about 25% of the overall population in Canada, then by the same measurement, the gay population should be about 2.4% (.006 x 4). That's in line with most other non-activist studies that peg it anywhere from 2 to 4%. That's a good thing - it should make more people realize that same-sex issues should really not be that "threatening". Acceptance, if not embracement, is really not that difficult.

[August1991]

For so many families, the wife has to work. I recall back in the '60's, the relative amount of tax deductions for wives and children was much greater, relatively speaking. In a sense, the govnerment recognized the value of stay home mothers by giving a good incentive in the form of a good tax break for the family. But, only to legal families, in which a covenant existed between man and wife. Not a common-law shack up. Parenting was taught to us at school to be a vocation. It was a high level of responsibility one aspired to. And, the permanence of marriage. Not now.

What? The wife has to work? Who sez so?

No one forces anyone to work in paid employment if they don't want to. I daily see many people begging on Montreal's streets.

The fact of the matter is that a woman in 1960 who chose to stay at home forego a relatively small salary. In 2000, a stay at home mom is giving up a much higher salary. Understandably, more women choose to enter paid employment now than in 1960.

You also are wrong to claim that the tax structure favours women working outside the home. On the contrary. A woman who stays at home provides tax-free services and in effect works under the table. Our current tax structure subsidizes and encourages a stay-at-home spouse. (This is also an argument against income-splitting, in particular for younger couples.)

----

What struck me in these latest statistics was the following:

The census counted 45,345 same-sex couples, up 32 per cent from 2001, representing 0.6 per cent of all couples in Canada. Not surprisingly, half of these couples lived in the three largest census metropolitan areas: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

Statistics Canada allowed census respondents for the first time to indicate if they were in a same-sex marriage. A total of 7,465 couples said they were.

G&M

So, we went through all that debate about same-sex marriage for about 0.1% of couples. Before some says it was the principle of the thing, there are many principles that get ignored when it comes to having to pay their cost. I'd say this principle cost alot for little payoff.

Edited September 13, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

So, we went through all that debate about same-sex marriage for about 0.1% of couples. Before some says it was the principle of the thing, there are many principles that get ignored when it comes to having to pay their cost. I'd say this principle cost alot for little payoff.

Did you really expect in the few years since same sex marriage has been permitted that there would be a huge spike?

Edited September 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

An interesting aside in these statistics is the percentage of same-sex couples at .006 percent - supposedly similar to Australia and New Zealand. There have been a lot of stats thrown around by gay activists that measure the gay community as being anywhere from 10 to 15% of the population. If heterosexual couples represent about 25% of the overall population in Canada, then by the same measurement, the gay population should be about 2.4% (.006 x 4). That's in line with most other non-activist studies that peg it anywhere from 2 to 4%. That's a good thing - it should make more people realize that same-sex issues should really not be that "threatening". Acceptance, if not embracement, is really not that difficult.

I've posted this link earlier so please excuse my rule bending. Your estimates on gays seem high according to this survey,about 80% down the page. 1 % of Canadians, when given the opportunity to stand up and be counted in the privacy of their own home, admit to being gay. Our government is paying far too much attention to what 1% of the population is complaining about.

[geoffrey]

Did you really expect in the few years since same sex marriage has been permitted that there would be a huge spike?

One dodo bird giving birth to five would be a huge spike, but still insignificant.

Bottom line, this issue cost way more than it was every worth to the majority of Canadians. The lesson learned? When the government gets involved, things cost alot and benefit few.

There is no reason for government to be involved in marriage whatsoever. Why do we need the state to legislate who we can sleep with or give benefits to certain people that just happen to sleep with the same person for a bit.

[jdobbin]

One dodo bird giving birth to five would be a huge spike, but still insignificant.

Bottom line, this issue cost way more than it was every worth to the majority of Canadians. The lesson learned? When the government gets involved, things cost alot and benefit few.

There is no reason for government to be involved in marriage whatsoever. Why do we need the state to legislate who we can sleep with or give benefits to certain people that just happen to sleep with the same person for a bit.

I certainly thought it was a waste of time that government thought it had to get involved after the court struck down the old law in 2003. Since most benefits of marriage were extended to those in same sex marriage in 1999, it seemed a natural progression.