Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

Why thank you ma'am

you speak so much sense her beatitude

Well it would be nice if we lived in an ideal world, but we don't. I can't imagine an average woman having such an advantageous divorce settlement, that it compensates for the loss of a tax allowance. The Ivana Trumps of the world are few and far between.

And I still can't get over the concept of childless people with double incomes having a tax allowance unavailable to single people with children. It is just wrong.

Does anyone know if it will apply to gay couples in civil partnerships, or just formal marriages?

It is, in fact, discriminatory.

Ah but then, abdnhiking, it's not actually sensible to base any tax policy on the marital status of anyone when so many variables exist...

NotAnOtter, either Brown or Darling, I'm not sure which 1 and unfortunately it looks like the Lib Dems did too 2 I think they might have been meaning rich women without young children but it sure wasn't clear.

And yes, of course it benefits families where one person is a higher wage earner the most - but then divide my husband's salary by two and it wouldn't be above the higher earnings level.

HerBeatitude - But how many husbands leave their wife and remarry right away? Because they'd have increased taxes in the short term from losing their exes allowance. And I do not think it's sensible to base all policy on the case of the divorced wife - surely the settlements from divorces in an ideal world would handle that for individual cases.

But I don't think the state should kick her when she's down, Bacon, do you? Seriously? do you think the state should punish her and reward the man who walks out on his marriage and into a new one? No-one expects life to be fair, but for the state to back up the right of spouses to walk out on their marriages by rewarding them with a tax break while removing the tax break from the dumped party (who generally has the extra expense of children) seems utterly bizarre and wrong to me. And er... it doesn't actually look like it's backing marriage, it's certainly not backing the marriage of the dumped party is it?

I'd also like to know if it applies to civil partnerships.

I'm quite confused about the whole thing. It seems to be a question of moving money around for PR purposes.

As I understand it, single folks who live alone get a rebate of 25% off their council tax. Which for me would equate to £500 a year. So if you are on a low income (taking home less than £200 a week) it's quite a significant saving being single as is.

If we take it as read that tax/NI on basic income is about 30% and you earn £20K you are going to pay £6k a year in tax and NI

If you are on a higher rate you can pay about 40% (I do, it may even be more than that, my accountant would know but he refuses to talk to me this early in the morning ). If you are single and on higher rate, the saving you get by being single is frankly negligible (yes I know it's the same number but if your take home is £800 a week, then saving £500 a year seems small bananas IYSWIM).

So first point - breaks for both single and married people are intended to only help those on lower incomes and not those who earn more than £65K per year gross as a household. Frankly, once you get past that point, you are on your own and get as much off as you are willing to pay your accountant to wangle.

Second point - if you increase the taxable allowances, by a few thousand selectively (ie for those already married) they get slightly better off. Which means they can probably afford childcare if they have kids and makes getting both parents at work more likely. The sum total result of this is that there is on average more taxable income coming into the system, so there is an economic argument for doing so.

Doing so just for married people: - well there's a good argument for doing so there as well - married couples require two people to agree to make changes to their working situation so it's less likely they will. I'd give up jobs at the drop of a hat when single and childless, but now I have a nanny, career, husband etc. I'm more likely to be cautious because DH would not be chuffed with me.

Long post, so I will summarise: there is less of a total effect by reducing taxes on the affluent but overall, in total the income to the govt would be likely to rise, so it's a sensible move.

Doing it by marriage may also be sensible but it is in no way proven and morality based taxes will alienate as many as it will aid.

I don't think anything is fair in the case of the 'dumped wife', losing a tax break would probably be the least of her worries.

belledame and her beatitude how very true and terrible

bring back the backers of this 'policy' and let's see them answer this

Haven't read whole big thread - I don't want a tax break for marrieds necessarily, but why can't we do a tax break like some other countries do ie if living as a couple on 1 salary, then working partner can take on the non-working partners tax free allowance, so a couple would get a £6000 tax free allowance?

Of course the definition for 'couple' could be controversial...but it could possibly enable some couples to cut back on both working FT and (if one of the partners wanted to) SAH to care for their kids/care for their partner?

Good point... Can't imagine anyone thinking that's fair.

They've just been discussing this on Any Questions and Polly Toynbee made a very good point - a man who unilaterally dumped his wife and children and left her for a younger woman, would keep the tax break if he married said younger woman, while the dumped wife would lose the tax break.

Do women really think that's fair?

And, the irony of this for me is that I never, ever thought that I would vote Conservative but I was seriously considering it. This "policy" makes it unlikely that I will. I'm not voting for a party that makes me feel like I'm NQOCD (Not Quite Our Class, Darling).

At this risk of going wildly off tangent none of us get to choose where our tax or allowances go or are applied.

I resent every penny of public money spent on the Olympics but I have no interest in spectator sports. I also think all the money spent on space exploration (worldwide) would be better directed at alleviating world poverty but that's not a very popular view either!

Anyway, if this comes to pass I remain convinced that what is given with one hand will be taken with another. And, given that it's Tory "policy" I would suspect that the taking will come from benefits currently paid.

i cant believe people would rather money go on an aribtrary tax allowance rather than, e.g, schools, hospitals, care for the elderly.

I think that childcare should be a tax deductible expense, but with the current economic climate, I just can't ever see it happening. If any political party truly wanted to help working families, that would target them well.

Sorry to be selfish but I don't feel the least bit "icky". It's about time we were on the right side of a Government financial policy for once.

yes could be - need to research if he said it before i really go stern

oh i forgot - all the MPs have cleaners and gardeners (not that much gardening goes on at the moment but anyway) and the like paid for at our expense! So perhaps they have a misguided impression of what life is really like for the average SAHM?

i have 6 kids - gordon ...fancy a day chez nous??

it = the term lady of leisure, sorry bit tired

i don't know if he used it, but i'd like to offer GB a chance to swap with me for a day. i can be PM and he can sort out the kids and see if he can keep the kitchen floor clean (oh and breastfeed DD maybe not) and we'll see if he still thinks i am a lady of leisure.
actually i don't think i could be pm for the day- unless i got to meet obama (swoon)

did brown actually use the term 'lady of leisure'?

Belle and I'm second class in Labour and LibDem's views because I'm a SAHM and therefore am a lady of leisure (Brown) or less offensively not eligible as a family for the same tax allowance as another family with a different working structure. I hate that the parties seem to have picked a group of mothers to support and don't care about the rest of us. (When I was still working around 90% of my income went to childcare. Labour didn't value that work (trying to axe childcare vouchers was rather revealing about how they felt about all of us middle class mums).)