Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think ‘household income’ should be a tax option?

103 replies

MeteorGarden · 06/09/2018 17:28

(Disclaimer- I’m actually not a parent but grew up in a low income family where this would have made a world of difference)

It’s discrimination at its most socially blatant. HMRC may as well be dipping their hands straight into the pockets of family units and taking hundreds of pounds every month.

**Imagine: Two identical families have an annual income of £24,000
Family A- Has one person working full time whilst the other other provides childcare to 3 small children.
Family B - Both parents work part time earning £12,000 each whilst tag teaming childcare.

At the end of the month A take home £1600 whilst B get £1900. For the EXACT same hours and EXACT same salary!

How much difference would £300 per month make to a struggling family? What does it matter to HMRC whether one person earns or both? If you’re cohabiting/ married and share children you’re functioning as a family unit which shouldn’t be discouraged or disregarded by the government.

Why are HMRC happy enough to count ‘household’ income if it means they can refuse a benefit claim but refuse to offset that by offering a tax break?

**Imagine: Two identical families have an annual income of £90,000

Same set up as above.

A bring home £5000 per month whilst B bring home £5600 per month. To add insult to injury family B also get child benefit 😂🙈 - I bet they need it, surely it’s hard to survive in £5600 a month!

My point is that regardless of your income level, family units who split work unevenly (for whatever multitude of reasons families face) are being pick pocketed by the government.

(Disclaimer - I’m not suggesting that ‘household taxation’ should be forced upon everyone, just those functioning financially as a family unit)

OP posts:
firehousedog1 · 10/09/2018 12:54

I agree.

ItalianPoster · 12/09/2018 10:01

“But it's the high earners who are 'paying for it.

You have to have an above average income before you become a net contributor (can't remember the figures but it's somewhere around £40-60k). “
Precisely.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222
That link has a nice chart, from HMRC’s official data, showing that “about 90% of income tax is paid by the 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes, while more than a quarter is paid by the richest 1%.”. Note this is just about income tax: other taxes like VAT are regressive because they don’t depend on income.

We can get into endless debates on what is fair or what would be fairer. But claiming that high earners do not pay for services like schools and the NHS is FACTUALLY WRONG.

ItalianPoster · 12/09/2018 10:03

"We live in the US and file a joint return. DH earns more than me but I'm first named on our return. The system here is fair. You have 3 main filing options, single, married filing joint and head of household. The allowances for married filing joint and simply double the single allowances. Head of household is for single parents and they have much more generous allowances to reflect the higher costs they incur. Overall I like the system compared to the UK. You can be married and file individually or once you have DC you can file as head of household."

Fully agree. This is one thing of the overly complicated US tax system that actually makes a lot of sense, and is much fairer than in the UK.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page