Married couples allowance (tax releif)

[528Sport]

What are the views on this?
Good or bad idea?
I heard a news story were some middle aged divorcee complained it discriminated against single parents. My thoughts are that single families are helped out with the working/child tax credit system.

Would it make you vote for a different party?


Sorry if a repost but I could not find a topic on this subject...

Edited by 528Sport on Thursday 21st January 08:47

[Puggit]

What really annoys me is that Ed Balls has the balls to announce that the Tories are the party of 'social engineering'.

From the government that have let millions of immigrants (and countless terrorists) in to our country!

[Eric Mc]

Of course, for much of UK Income Tax history there had been a Married Man's/Married Person's Allowance. It was only reduced in value during the 1990s and abolished entirely by Gordon Brown.

In fact, for couples over a certain age and under a certain level of income, it still exists.

[JagLover]

Puggit said:

What really annoys me is that Ed Balls has the balls to announce that the Tories are the party of 'social engineering'.

In terms of 'social engineering' the British state (not only Labour) have been at it for years with the generous benefits and tax credits given to single parents. Very often a mother is better off alone (or pretending so) than to have a working partner living with her.

The restitution of the married couples allowance would move the balance somewhat back the other way, but seems to me to be a crude instrument. There is a problem, the fact that a married man with a non-working wife gets no recognition in the tax code that he has an additional dependent, but a far better solution IMO would be to allow a transferable personal allowance between husband and wife.

Edited by JagLover on Thursday 21st January 09:44

[theaxe]

The argument of social engineering is hardly valid given the current policies of favouring single mothers so heavily.

The phrase "benefiting only the rich" gets knocked around a lot as well, but as I understand it it'll benefit anyone who has a job. Which I suppose in labour's eye's makes you rich...

[Gargamel]

Married couples who have retired get less state pension than two singles.

So it is just hypocrisy.

I actually don't really care one way or the other, but there are no doubt instances of "couples" pretending to live seperately in order to claim more benefit

[Rude-boy]

I used to say to me ex that I would marry her if it ever became favourable to do so from a tax point of view.

Good job we split up.


(Cue posts of "with an attitude like that..." etc it was said half in jest )

[Eric Mc]

Rude-boy said:

I used to say to me ex that I would marry her if it ever became favourable to do so from a tax point of view.

Good job we split up.


(Cue posts of "with an attitude like that..." etc it was said half in jest )

You obviously didn't l;ook too closely at much of the tax legislation.

By and large, marriage does confer significant tax advantages - mainly in the realms of capital taxation and Inheritance Tax - less so with Income Tax.

[cs02rm0]

Good idea.

I think marriage is a positive thing for society. As already said, if that's social engineering then Labour are guilty of social de-engineering.

[allgonepetetong]

This is an issue that has annoyed me for some time, well since my wife gave up work to look after daughter when she was born actually.

How is it fair, that my tax allowance should remain unchanged after my wife's tax allowance is no longer used as she is not working, but at home raising a family? Shirley her non taxable allowance should be transferred to me as I am now the sole family provider?

Of course Winky decides that we should actually be penalised for having the temerity to raise a child in the traditional manner of a stay at home mother with a breadwinning working father.

Even CMD is now wavering on whether to recognise the banefits of family in the tax system.

Does anyone know what UKIP's policy on family in the tax system is? I have read there policy but find no mention of it.

Edited by allgonepetetong on Thursday 21st January 10:41

[Don]

JagLover said:

a far better solution IMO would be to allow a transferable personal allowance between husband and wife.

Bloody excellent idea. Norman Lamont wanted to introduce this. It encourages marriage and makes child rearing by a married couple more affordable - particularly for the less well off.

Shame no-one's had the balls to do it.

[Don]

allgonepetetong said:

Of course Winky decides that we should actually be penalised for having the temerity to raise a child in the traditional manner of a stay at home mother with a breadwinning working father.

That's just wrong!

[allgonepetetong]

musclecarmad said:

whether you are married or not it shouldn't affect tax relief or the income you receive - it is bribing people to get married.

I will never get married and I don't see why I should be penalised for this.

I agree, that is why individual allowances should be transferrable between couples, married or not.

[cs02rm0]

allgonepetetong said:

musclecarmad said:

whether you are married or not it shouldn't affect tax relief or the income you receive - it is bribing people to get married.

I will never get married and I don't see why I should be penalised for this.

I agree, that is why individual allowances should be transferrable between couples, married or not.

What constitutes a couple then though? You and the first jobless person you can find?

[Don]

musclecarmad said:

whether you are married or not it shouldn't affect tax relief or the income you receive - it is bribing people to get married.

I will never get married and I don't see why I should be penalised for this.

I doubt they would make it married. But in a legally recognised marriage OR civil partnership.

i.e. to get the benefit you also have to take the risk.

[allgonepetetong]

cs02rm0 said:

allgonepetetong said:

musclecarmad said:

whether you are married or not it shouldn't affect tax relief or the income you receive - it is bribing people to get married.

I will never get married and I don't see why I should be penalised for this.

I agree, that is why individual allowances should be transferrable between couples, married or not.

What constitutes a couple then though? You and the first jobless person you can find?

That's for the legislators to define, but shirly there can not be any question over the fairness to transfer one parent's tax allowance, for example, to another if they decide to stay at home to raise their child/children.

Edited by allgonepetetong on Thursday 21st January 10:51

[Deva Link]

528Sport said:

What are the views on this?
Good or bad idea?
I heard a news story were some middle aged divorcee complained it discriminated against single parents. My thoughts are that single families are helped out with the working/child tax credit system.

There was a discussion on R4 the other morning about this and apparently it's only going to be payable if one half of the couple is a stay-at-home Mum/Dad.

[allgonepetetong]

Sounds fair. Is this a Tory policy?

[theaxe]

allgonepetetong said:

Sounds fair. Is this a Tory policy?

Originally yes but since the economy is screwed they're not committing to it until they're sure it's affordable.

[motco]

theaxe said:

The argument of social engineering is hardly valid given the current policies of favouring single mothers so heavily.

The phrase "benefiting only the rich" gets knocked around a lot as well, but as I understand it it'll benefit anyone who has a job. Which I suppose in labour's eye's makes you rich...

Quite right! The 'really' rich don't have jobs, they have estates. It's like the IHT threshold, I do not understand why Osborne doesn't retort to Labour's jibes about 'the rich being the only beneficiaries' by pointing out that it's only the rich who'll be taxed by >£1,000,000 inheritance tax.