To think married couples should be taxed together

Why would (or should) your income status be deductible off your husband's tax bill? It's your choice to not be in paid employment, you're not doing the country a favour or anything.

In that case I wouldn’t have got married - we are not one person and our jobs pay differently and we are entitled to our own savings and money management.

No. Marriage is bad for women and should not be incentivized.

Absolutely not. What about having a partner who doesn’t pay their tax? Why should their spouse be liable for it?!

After years of frustration at being a couple with a highish earner and a SAHP, I'd agree. And that was before the current 100k cliff edge for childcare benefit.

I'd stop child benefit, 'free' nursery hours, and allow personal allowance transfer between spouses. I'd up UC to replace CB for low earners.

That would encourage parents to spend time with their children. Quite old-school, but I prefer that to the state biscuit-eating machine cycling tax money into childcare factories.

It'll never happen because it'll reduce the tax take.

Absolutely not!
Women had to fight for years to have their financial affairs treated separately. I am old but when I was young, if you wrote to the tax office they would reply to your husband,

No chance of Rachel going for this. It would cost tge government too much.

Your plan would mean that I would be paying higher rate tax on a tiny salary. Really?

The thing is it does actually save a lot of money as well. If this SAHP was working they would be sending their child to full time childcare which cost the taxpayer money. Assuming this person earnt £30k their total income tax bill would be c.£3.5k for the year. It would cost a lot more for their kids to be in childcare. So overall there is a cost saving to the government for them staying at home.

It's all about the perception of fairness isn't it. If you're in a couple it seems unfair that a total salary of £120k for a couple where one works incurs c.£40k of tax while if both in a couple worked there would be a total tax bill of £25k. While in the second scenario they would be having to use childcare which costs the government money etc. On the flip side of the coin if a single person earnt £120k their costs wouldn't be necessarily substantially less than the married couple so why should they be forced to pay more tax than a married person who has a stay at home spouse.

The logical thing would be for people with dependents (SAHP or children) to pay MORE in taxes, as their choices are burdensome to our communal systems.

Few of these dependents will go on to be net taxpayers, so spare me the “you need our kids to pay for your old age” claptrap.

What does that have to do with anything?

I do think there is value in both systems. When I was a sahm I was quite envious of friends in the French system who were taxed as a family so dc qualified for a 50% tax allowance each and other sahm mum got full allowance so essentially he was getting 3 lots of tax free allowance as only earner in family. That said his mum is now in a care home in France and contributing to large bills is mandatory.

I suppose it’s swings and roundabouts really.

How can it not cost more?

Or do you mean it does not costs couples more as the financial burdens transfers to single people?

Agree, it's a fascinating take. The logical answer would be for one - or ideally both - of you to earn more money!! (Also extremely odd to plan to your SAHP life with 3 kids, when you only have one toddler and an income low enough to qualify for child benefit!!)

It’s not that. People are just uncomfortable penalising single people to pay for those who are not single.

Lots of investment income is joint though and no issues at all in dealing with it through the current system. If the investment/bank account is joint then each of the named people get 50% of the income and it's then taxed at the appropriate rate for that individual. Not rare at all - in fact quite common.

Exactly.

People are so entitled, to expect lower taxes based on personal lifestyle choices, especially when their families use up far more resources and are a far greater liability.

Oh - so I get it. Households are taxes as households, not individuals.
I have no issue with this but I don’t want any additional financial burdens on single people. I would prefer that government spending is reduced to pay for this change.

Me too

I think that in this scenario there would be combined tax brackets.

At the moment if you were a couple and you both earnt 30k you would be each entitled to your tax allowance and then taxed at 20% on the remaining balance. If instead you had one of you earning 60k and the other a stay at home parent you would be entitled to your spouses tax allowance but you would pay tax of 40% above the 50k threshold. So while the gross household earnings are the same the take home would be lower. So there is an arguement that why shouldn't from HMRC's benefit you be able to be seen as a joint entity and doube the thresholds so that the tax is equivalent.

However, this works on the assumption that it is twice as expensive to be a couple as it is to be single which isn't really true. When you live together in one house you have one mortgage, one set of bills etc. Your electricity bills do not double because there are two of you. If a single person trying to run their own household and pay their own bills has to pay more tax than a married person because their partner decided to stay at home for whatever reason that doesn't seem particularly fair.

I think the reality is that whatever you do with regards to income tax is going to be unfair to someone.

However, I personally think there should be ISA/ investment products available to couples should they chose to use them. It would promote the idea of joint savings and as long as the thresholds were kept the same it would be fair. Albeit it does open the door to abuse. With any joint account one person can decide to make a withdrawal without the others consent and like many have said which could end up with people losing access to their savings. That being said it would be nice to have the option for those who are in stable relationships.

If those couples don’t want it I will take it. I could do with it.

I do think all adults should get a tax allowance and it be applied to the household income though.

But single people are already at a significant financial disadvantage in a society which expects most people to live in households with two incomes.

Do you have an idea for how to fund this OP without penalising single people?

@Flutterbyby that’s nice, but I doubt it’ll happen like that here - given the overspent and huge cost pressure nature of uk public spending. There is no campaign to give serious tax breaks to married couples. There is a move to wanting to tax on household income, but not to reduce tax.

Yay. More single people subsidising those with dual incomes….

An extra grand is an extra grand that single people don’t get.

I’m baffled as to why people are advantaged based on their domestic and relationship choices. Everyone should pay the same rates, married or solo. Lifestyle choices shouldn’t be penalized/rewarded.