Marriage

==Economic considerations==
{{see also|Economics of marriage|Family economics}}
The financial aspects of marriage vary between cultures and have changed over time.

In some cultures, dowries and bride wealth continue to be required today. In both cases, the financial arrangements are usually made between the groom (or his family) and the bride's family; with the bride often not being involved in the negotiations, and often not having a choice in whether to participate in the marriage.

In [[Early modern Britain]], the social status of the couple was supposed to be equal. After the marriage, all the property (called "fortune") and expected inheritances of the wife belonged to the husband.

===Dowry===
A [[dowry]] is "a process whereby parental property is distributed to a daughter at her marriage (i.e. ''inter vivos'') rather than at the holder's death (''mortis causa'')… A dowry establishes some variety of conjugal fund, the nature of which may vary widely. This fund ensures her support (or endowment) in widowhood and eventually goes to provide for her sons and daughters."<ref>{{cite book|last=Goody|first=Jack|title=Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain|year=1976|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|page=6}}</ref>

In some cultures, especially in countries such as [[Turkey]], [[India]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Pakistan]], [[Sri Lanka]], [[Morocco]], [[Nepal]], dowries continue to be expected. In India, thousands of dowry-related deaths have taken place on yearly basis,<ref>"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3071963.stm India's dowry deaths]". BBC News. 16 July 2003.</ref><ref>[[Anita Pratap]] (11 September 1995) [https://web.archive.org/web/20040311150501/http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950911/women.india.html Women: killed by greed and oppression]". Time Magazine. Volume 146, No. 11</ref> to counter this problem, several jurisdictions have enacted laws restricting or banning dowry (see [[Dowry system in India#Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961|Dowry law in India]]). In Nepal, dowry was made illegal in 2009.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/nepal-bans-dowry-caste-based-discrimination#.UGH0Nq4Zh0I |title=Nepal bans dowry, caste-based discrimination – OneWorld South Asia |publisher=Southasia.oneworld.net |date=27 January 2009 |access-date=26 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120720040917/http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/nepal-bans-dowry-caste-based-discrimination#.UGH0Nq4Zh0I |archive-date=20 July 2012  }}</ref> Some authors believe that the giving and receiving of dowry reflects the status and even the effort to climb high in social hierarchy.<ref>{{cite book|author= Tanwar, Reicha|title=Dowery the North Indian Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NS_TOHRTWpgC&pg=PT36|year= 2007|publisher=Pinnacle Technology|isbn=978-1-61820-208-6|pages=36–}}</ref>

===Dower===
{{Main|Dower}}
Direct Dowry contrasts with [[Bride price|bride wealth]], which is paid by the groom or his family to the bride's parents, and with indirect dowry (or [[dower]]), which is property given to the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage and which remains under her ownership and control.<ref>{{cite book|last=Goody|first=Jack|title=Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain|year=1976|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|page=8}}</ref>

In the Jewish tradition, the rabbis in ancient times insisted on the marriage couple entering into a [[prenuptial agreement]], called a ''[[ketubah]]''. Besides other things, the ''ketubah'' provided for an amount to be paid by the husband in the event of a [[get (divorce document)|divorce]] or his estate in the event of his death. This amount was a replacement of the biblical [[dower]] or [[bride price]], which was payable at the time of the marriage by the groom to the father of the bride.<ref>{{bibleverse|Exodus|22:15–16}}</ref> This innovation was put in place because the biblical bride price created a major social problem: many young prospective husbands could not raise the bride price at the time when they would normally be expected to marry. So, to enable these young men to marry, the rabbis, in effect, delayed the time that the amount would be payable, when they would be more likely to have the sum. It may also be noted that both the dower and the ''ketubah'' amounts served the same purpose: the protection for the wife should her support cease, either by death or divorce. The only difference between the two systems was the timing of the payment. It is the predecessor to the wife's present-day entitlement to [[alimony|maintenance]] in the event of the breakup of marriage, and family maintenance in the event of the husband not providing adequately for the wife in his [[Will and testament|will]]. Another function performed by the ''ketubah'' amount was to provide a disincentive for the husband contemplating divorcing his wife: he would need to have the amount to be able to pay to the wife.

[[Dower|Morning gifts]], which might also be arranged by the bride's father rather than the bride, are given to the bride herself; the name derives from the Germanic tribal custom of giving them the morning after the wedding night. She might have control of this morning gift during the lifetime of her husband, but is entitled to it when widowed. If the amount of her inheritance is settled by law rather than agreement, it may be called [[dower]]. Depending on legal systems and the exact arrangement, she may not be entitled to dispose of it after her death, and may lose the property if she remarries. Morning gifts were preserved for centuries in [[morganatic marriage]], a union where the wife's inferior social status was held to prohibit her children from inheriting a noble's titles or estates. In this case, the morning gift would support the wife and children. Another legal provision for widowhood was [[jointure]], in which property, often land, would be held in joint tenancy, so that it would automatically go to the widow on her husband's death.

Islamic tradition has similar practices. A '[[mahr]]', either immediate or deferred, is the woman's portion of the groom's wealth (divorce) or estate (death). These amounts are usually set on the basis of the groom's own and family wealth and incomes, but in some parts these are set very high so as to provide a disincentive for the groom exercising the divorce, or the husband's family 'inheriting' a large portion of the estate, especially if there are no male offspring from the marriage. In some countries, including Iran, the mahr or alimony can amount to more than a man can ever hope to earn, sometimes up to US$1,000,000 (4000 official Iranian gold coins). If the husband cannot pay the mahr, either in case of a divorce or on demand, according to the current laws in Iran, he will have to pay it by installments. Failure to pay the [[mahr]] might even lead to imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international-divorce.com/iran_divorce.htm |title=A translation of some parts of the Civil Code of Iran |publisher=International-divorce.com }}</ref>

===Bridewealth===
{{Main|Bride price}}
[[File:Thai Bride Price 2008.jpg|thumb|Traditional, formal presentation of the bridewealth (also known as "sin sot") at an engagement ceremony in [[Thailand]]]]
Bridewealth is a common practice in parts of [[Southeast Asia]] ([[Thailand]], [[Cambodia]]), parts of [[Central Asia]], and in much of [[sub-Saharan Africa]]. It is also known as brideprice although this has fallen in disfavor as it implies the purchase of the bride. Bridewealth is the amount of [[money]] or [[property]] or wealth paid by the groom or his family to the parents of a woman upon the marriage of their daughter to the groom. In [[Anthropology|anthropological]] literature, bride price has often been explained as payment made to compensate the bride's family for the loss of her labor and fertility. In some cases, bridewealth is a means by which the groom's family's ties to the children of the union are recognized.

===Taxation===
In some countries a married person or couple benefits from various taxation advantages not available to a single person. For example, spouses may be allowed to average their combined [[income tax|incomes]]. This is advantageous to a married couple with disparate incomes. To compensate for this, countries may provide a higher [[tax bracket]] for the averaged income of a married couple. While income averaging might still benefit a married couple with a stay-at-home spouse, such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons. In the United States, this is called the [[marriage penalty]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=What are marriage penalties and bonuses?|url=https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-marriage-penalties-and-bonuses|access-date=2021-06-28|website=Tax Policy Center|language=en}}</ref>

When the rates applied by the tax code are not based income averaging, but rather on the ''sum'' of individuals' incomes, higher rates will usually apply to each individual in a two-earner households in a [[progressive tax]] systems. This is most often the case with high-income taxpayers and is another situation called a marriage penalty.<ref>Renacci, James B. "Simplifying America's Tax System." ''Simplifying America's Tax System'' (2016): 1–11. ''Renacci.house.gov''. July 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.</ref>

Conversely, when progressive tax is levied on the individual with no consideration for the partnership, dual-income couples fare much better than single-income couples with similar household incomes. The effect can be increased when the welfare system treats the same income as a shared income thereby denying welfare access to the non-earning spouse. Such systems apply in Australia and Canada, for example.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hanegbi |first=Rami |date=2023-12-15 |title=INCOME SPLITTING IN AUSTRALIA: TIME FOR A PRINCIPLED APPROACH? |url=https://dro.deakin.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/INCOME_SPLITTING_IN_AUSTRALIA_TIME_FOR_A_PRINCIPLED_APPROACH_/24123492/1 |journal=Adelaide Law Review |language=en |publisher=University of Adelaide |volume=44 |issue=2}}</ref>