To think the married couple tax break is a waste of time

[mpje]

Most people don't seem to understand it / don't claim it.

It will benefit well off the most as they are the ones that are most likely to have one unused tax allowance and for these people 200 odd extra a year isn't very much.

I think it should of just been used to raise the income tax threshold.

Yes you can dr dre. It changes both partners tax codes.

I think so DrDre. DHs tax code has been changed because of it, he's the middle rate taxpayer this tax year and I'm the one not earning my personal allowance.

Thanks guys.

It's a publicity thing, brought in to appeal to traditionalist voters. I don't think it's anything to do with social engineering (otherwise it might actually be worth something - I doubt anyone would get married for the sake of £200).

I claimed it.

I earn just under £25k a year and DH is a SAHD - with this I get an additional £18 a month. I got a back payment as well when I finally got round to completing it. It was just before Christmas so very welcome.

I don't agree with it, I think that co-habiting couples (and civil partnerships? Don't know if they're included or not) should get it.

And it's not for 'parents' it's for 'married couples'. You don't need to have children to claim as far as I remember. You had to sign up last year to claim from this year.

I did it from a link on here!

CPs are included.

Thank you Jizzy

I think married couples are cheaper for the state and there are ideological reasons for encouraging marriage too.

How are they cheaper, blae?

Can you claim this for just one year?
At the moment I earn over the tax threshold. But as of the end of March I will be on maternity leave receiving smp so for the April 16 - marxh 17 tax year will be below the threshold?

You should be able to transfer unused tax allowances between couples whether they are married or not and whether they have children or not.

As already pointed out, unmarried partners are treated as a household for tax credits and benefits purposes, so why not here.

ideological reasons for encouraging marriage too

^ This

where do you claim it from?

who do you call

do both spouces have to be working? dh works I am sahm

Given that benefits are assessed on household income then taxation should be too, regardless of marital status or children.

Well, the main reason I can see to allow this would be in the scenario where one partner has low or no pay due to being a sahp. I thought that was the point?

I can't see any justification for giving this to any low paid person just because they are married. What about all the single people on low pay?

Thanks - disn't realise this had started and we're eligible.

It is an absolute crock of shit but we could do with the money!

Hmmm. If we were to get married without inviting anyone or doing anything celebratory on the day, we would make a small profit. We would also make DP's family very sad. So I don't think that I'll be getting married for the money.

It annoys me. The family is a more successful economic unit (either 1 earner and 1 carer, or 2 earners and incomex2 for childcare costs) so why on earth that unit should get a tax break when a single parent can't be an earner and a carer at the same time strikes me as very wrong. A single parent can obviously be in the situation where they earn a good enough salary to pay for childcare but that unit is never going to have two salaries, or a carer in situ.

It's conservative victorian cameronian bollix

Yes Fatima you can, but when you claim it they say they'll do it indefinitely unless you tell them otherwise. So you have to claim it then tell them when you want to stop claiming it, there's no mechanism to say I just want it in 2016-17 but not in 2017-18, iyswim.

In reality fay I imagine the takeup will primarily be from people where the lower earner is either doing a lot of childcare now, or is the lower earner because of giving up full time work when having kids and not having gone back afterwards. Aside from people with health issues and carers, married couples who've never had kids tend to want to work enough to earn more than 10.6k if they can.

I can't see any justification for giving this to any low paid person just because they are married. What about all the single people on low pay

But who would they transfer the allowance to? The point of this is that, if you have a couple where one earns less than the tax allowance of £10.6k, part of that tax allowance is 'wasted' so if the couple is married the other person can use their lower earning spouse's unused tax allowance to reduce their own tax bill.

I don't see what being married has to do with it. It should be available to any couple living in the same house, for consistency with benefits and tax credits rules if nothing else.

It would have been useful to us when DP was starting out as self employed - for a couple of years he earnt £5-10k. Because I was earning a full time wage, he was never entitled to any income related benefits, because my income was taken into the account.

This is fair enough, but if that's the rule, I should also have been able to use his unused tax allowance, had this scheme been in place at the time, but we weren't eligible due to not being married.

Barbara said "I don't see what being married has to do with it. It should be available to any couple living in the same house, for consistency with benefits and tax credits rules if nothing else."

But WHY couples at all? Why should people get tax breaks simply because they happen to have been lucky enough to find themselves a partner?

I agree with Poulet - if benefits are based on household income, so should taxation.

Married couples are cheaper as they make less demands on public services and are more likely to stay together to bring up children so less demand on housing etc. This is population level stuff which matters to government; small difference add up even though you may not see it in your social circle.

But the point of this is they are providing the facility to transfer an unused tax allowance.

Who would the single person transfer their unused allowance to? Parent, sibling, child, cousin, the woman down the road? Fair enough, but I can see that it would get very complicated.

But I don't agree with this in principle because it's an unnecessary added complication. Apparently the UK has one of the most complicated taxation rulebooks in the world, which is why we have such a problem with clever avoidance schemes by businesses and those who have enough income be able to afford and make it worthwhile paying accountants to set these things up for them.

If the tax rules were simpler, there would be less avoidance.

how is is paid?

less tax per month or in a lump sum?

if its back dated do you get a cheque?
started my own thread but no one answered does anyone know?