Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

Monkeyfeathers you have stated the case very eloquently and I agree with you. I don't think I should get a tax break just for being married. I don't think my relationship is neccessarily better or stronger than anyone elses just because I am married.

However, I chose to be married because, amongst other things, it makes mine and DH's partnership a legal and binding one. When we (hopefully) have children, we will have to make decisions about who works full time and who reduces their working hours (and income). If finaces allow, we might even make the decision to have oneof us stay hope and be a full time stay at home parent. We will make those decisions on the basis of our joint income, if one of us stopped working entirely then the one who earns will be earning on behalf of us both. It seems only fair that he should be able to transfer his tax allowance to me in that situation. We are a partnership, we arrange our live as such. It seems eminently reasonable to expect the tax system to be flexible enough to recognise this.

I would vote Tory if they dropped this elitist policy

Thank you both. Monkeyfeathers, you've made me think a bit differently about this.

I suppose, for me, it feels a bit like I'm being told I'm a second class citizen because I have a child "out of wedlock" and I do resent having to work so very hard and then get absolutely nothing back at all. I am aware that I earn a lot of money but one third of my income goes on childcare and I see no respite from anywhere/anyone. I suppose I could just get married

Thing is the SAHP really is paying tax. It appears that only the partner who works in a paid job is the only one paying tax because the tax is deducted in his or her name. However, since the income from which that tax is taken is treated as the household income (and all means-tested benefits and tax credits are based on that) then it must be the income of both adults in the partnership/marriage. This means that the household pays more tax on the single income than they would if both partners worked in lower paying jobs that added up to the same salary.

I'm not entirely convinced the tax system is unfair to those on less than £16k a year though. People on low incomes are taxed in exactly the same way as me (since I do not pay any higher rate tax). The problem is that a less than reasonable amount is left over and this is not (adequately) addressed through the tax credits system. I don't know much about how working tax credit, but I'm sure the system probably isn't great for those without kids. There may also be some issue with the way in which national insurance is calculated that disadvantages lower income earners, but again I don't really know much about this.

I don't think pooling tax allowances would only help households with an income in excess of £66k. People with a household income far less than that are only entitled to child tax credit at the basic rate, not working tax credit, especially since couples where one parner is a SAHP do not qualify for the childcare element of this. Since taxing by (married) household would affect both those with children and those without, then child tax credit would (should?) remain the way in which people with children were relieved of some of their tax burden.

Of course, we're probably all going to get a tax hike anyway.

belle surely any reasonable calculation could take this into account. What we need is the Lib Dems to take this idea and implement it fairly - it could be done!

I flounced off this thread in a huff on page one I think but can't seem to stay off it...

I'm not getting back into the married/not married discussion again but one thing that doesn't seem to have cropped up much on here is that if you do combine the tax allowances (oh, and the reason that SAHP doesn't get this automatically is because they're not actually paying tax) the family income will increase. I suspect, therefore, that any other benefits ie tax credits will probably be reduced.

I would suggest, therefore, that this will not benefit those on lower incomes at all but only those on incomes higher than £66k.

And, for the record, I am a single mother, work full time and get no benefits other than child benefit.

I take it you can't find any evidence that marriage makes for a better enviroment for dc to grow up in... a loving stable family of whatever ilk will do fine and poverty will be a drag No not going round in cirles - there is no evidence and you want me to do your leg work and find your evidence cos you cant find anything to back up what your spouting

For those on less than 16k the tax is unfair - they dont get benifit unless they have children - and now if there conterpart is married the torys will give them a tax break, but not i they are single they lose out all round

I haven't read all of this but from the OP I would respond that if a party is trying to reinforce family values then giving people who marry a tax break it is valuing marriage.

I believe children feel more stable in a married family, I waited until I was married to have them. I know I'm lucky it worked out that way, but I would love a tax break for it please!

If you move to a couple taxation system, you can only really do it if the couple are married (or in a civil partnership) as that is the only way that we have to formalise these relationships.

How is the HMRC supposed to know when someone is entitled to the allowance if there is no marriage certificate, especially in households were mum has a string of 'boyfriends'. And when does someone stopping over turn into a lifelong partnership? Marriage is the only reasonable way to prove that you are what you say you are.

And children do not need to be part of this system as they are already catered for by Child Benefit.

As for widows, there was certainly an allowance alongside the married couples allowance.

"BOLLOCKS to the tories if that is not good enough and UP YOURS Cameron if he thinks it MATTERS"

Haha, NotAnOtter, I love this. High five.

My dad will love it if David Cameron gets in. He gets married all the time.

My aunt got married recently. She's a management consultant, her DH is a solicitor. They don't have kids. They have two houses. They don't need a tax break.

thank you monkeyfeathers! that's the clearest way of putting it yet!

i represent more than just me
thats lots of 'unmarrieds' out here abra!d..
it does drive me nuts reading the sanctimonious comments about how we should live to best serve society

NotanOtter, you seem hellbent on taking every comment on this thread (even jokes) personally!

We don't know you. We don't know your situation. Stop looking for offence where none is intended. Or hide the thread before you drive yourself nuts.

I don't really think this should, or would, be a tax break for marriage (even if that's how it'll be painted by both proponents and opponents). Rather it would be a way of transferring the tax and benefits system wholly to a system based on family/household incomes rather than the current mess where sometimes you're an individual and sometimes you're a household.

All adults in this country are (theoretically) entitled to a tax free personal allowance annually. However, in practice stay-at-home partners (who may or may not have chosen to stay at home) don't get the benefit of theirs. This would be fair enough, if it weren't for the fact that their partner's income counts as their income for a whole host of purposes. As it is they vicariously gain an income (what their partner earns) but the tax system does not acknowledge that the income pertains to two adults.

Marriage (and civil partnership for same-sex couples) is the most simple and logical way of distinguishing between single adult 'households' and two adult 'households' for tax purposes. This is more a practical issue than a moral imperative as far as I'm concerned.

The fact that a tax allowance transfer would tend to benefit the middle classes more (but far from exclusively--plenty of lower income couples get married) is a red herring. Shifting the system to base all taxation (and benefits) on household units does not preclude the government addressing income disparities through tax credits. It just means that the system cannot choose to treat you as a household or an individual wherever it suits the system best.

very outdated and sort of daily mailish - luckily i think this country is more intelligent that to bring that in

What HerBeatitude said:

By HerBeatitude Thu 07-Jan-10 08:10:49 I'm not against a transferable tax allowance for couples where one wants to stay at home to look after the children; what I am against, is the tax burden of a single parent being higher than that of a married, childless couple.

Taxes and benefits should support children, not give childless adults extra money for another holiday just because they happen to be married.

I'm married ut am opposed

My friend is married but we are trying tomeprsuade her to get divorced. Well she may as well, the twat she ahs been apart from for many years has been recently arrested and is awaiting a ten stretch for sex trafficking!.

Her only hope to ever get away from him financially (he used her name a loton fraudulent stuff) is a divorce,but we have one thread on MN saying single mums shouldn't get housing benefit,and the tories saying she shouldn't be treated as well as a marriedmum

IMO the fact she'skept her dd'swell,loved and stable marks her out as an excellent example of parenting, she's not well herselfwither.

Are the fifties in vogue again? marriedaprents getting more, baking trendy and mag articles on thrift.

I got it Heathen! Don't run away!

Aagh, I was disagreeing with tisfedup and being sarcastic. i see that hasn't worked at all well, and will slink off in shame...

free tax break here

Bramshot good point

flockwallpaper /darcymum et al

dp and i are individuals not statistics

because we have not commited to a 'legally' binding contract belies the fact that after 20 years we have evidently commited very strongly to each other and our children

both sets of our shit parents made that lovely legal commitment of which you refer and both sets ended in divorce

both of our mothers ditched their kids....we chose another route for our own children - based on what we knew

I see your point though. Tax breaks and all. Cohabiting is not a respectable option as you say 'contributing to broken back britain' and therefore we should be penalised. I'll explain that to my kids - I am sure they will see yours and Camerons pov

I feel certain Cameron has a good insight and experience of grassroots Britain when he is thinking up these middle class vote hauls policies

TheHeathenOfSuburbia

i resisted the urge to swear badly at you

your somments on here are offensive

better get back to my broken back britain partner of twenty years and six bastards

I think the problem is that no one knows if getting married makes people take a "more responsible" approach to relationships, commitment etc., or whether people who tend to take a more responsible approach to relationships, commitment etc., tend to get married. No one has yet established which bit is chicken adn which is egg.

Similarly, married people tend to be richer than co-habitees. But is that because marriage makes people rich, or because richer people are more likely to marry than poorer ones?

And some people get married because they fancy a jolly party, not because they're more committed.

Either way, I just don't see why other tax payers should subsidise them for their lifestyle choice. Once it comes to subsidising their children, that's fine, I have no quibbles with that and believe that children should be subsidised. But all children, not just the ones with married parents.