Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think married couples should be taxed together

118 replies

OneAmberFinch · 10/04/2025 14:40

Philosophically, I think it's a couple's business how they divide their responsibilities between earning and working in the home, and the tax system should treat them as a single unit.

I would extend this to tax on investment products as well: currently, virtually every serious product (available to the masses i.e. not custom family trusts etc) is in a single person's name. For example, there are barely any joint savings accounts that pay a decent interest rate, pensions/ISAa are in individual names etc.

If there were a simple way to tax jointly, I think more of these products would exist.

Why do I care about this? Because I think it would solve quite a lot of the issues that come up on MN w.r.t. money in relationships - "you can't take a 3-year maternity leave, or if you do you need to beg your DH to donate to your pension".

I don't think it's enough to just be able to inherit someone else's pension/savings - beneficiaries can be changed. I think throughout life, many couples would like to truly manage their finances jointly, but the tax system and types of financial accounts available don't make it possible.

OP posts:
JHound · 11/04/2025 16:10

OneAmberFinch · 11/04/2025 12:23

Precisely (and any other necessary adjustments to bands, and to allowances for bank interest etc, to make it so that it doesn't matter which spouse earns each £, it will be taxed as a whole)

Show quote history

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.

TheHerboriste · 11/04/2025 16:10

slashlover · 11/04/2025 13:42

We get £25(ish) a week child benefit, and I’d never want to rely on benefits but if we could have some more tax relief on the basis on how many people DH income was supporting that would be grand :D

So you should be taxed less then me because I chose not to have kids, despite you using more of the NHS (not paying for dental treatments, pre natal care, the birth, post natal care), education etc?

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.

tigger1001 · 11/04/2025 16:12

OneAmberFinch · 11/04/2025 15:26

I've probably introduced two separate concepts here but it's because I feel they're related.

My big issue is that if a couple wants to have fully joint and equal finances, this is effectively not possible for the average couple in the UK (i.e. no trusts, businesses to run money through etc). Pensions and ISAs and high-interest savings accounts all have to be in a single person's name, so you have to just trust that the person keeping the money will share it and will always keep that promise.

I think one of the reasons they don't exist is that the admin hassle of taxing investment income (e.g. interest on a savings account) on a joint account is too much, because there is no joint "entity" that exists in the tax system.

That's why I've linked them in my head. It's an add-on point to the first one about salary income.

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.

JHound · 11/04/2025 16:12

MumofCandRA · 11/04/2025 12:45

Nope - you are naive, It's how most countries in the world work, for good reason. Seems it doesn't suit the individualistic approach of the Brits though, ignorance is bliss.

Show quote history

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

Historyofwolves · 11/04/2025 16:13

TheHerboriste · 11/04/2025 16:10

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.

Show quote history

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!!)

JHound · 11/04/2025 16:20

Flutterbyby · 11/04/2025 15:49

Doesn't work like that in Ireland. We have more benefits, fairer benefits system, more protections for women, better services on the whole, and joint taxation which saves us money, not costs more.

Show quote history

How can it not cost more?

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

Lovelysummerdays · 11/04/2025 16:26

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.

TheHerboriste · 11/04/2025 16:29

OneAmberFinch · 11/04/2025 11:56

If you disagree that this should even be an option (I'm not saying it would be compulsory), do you have a joint mortgage/own a house jointly with your spouse?

What does that have to do with anything?

TheHerboriste · 11/04/2025 16:31

Historyofwolves · 11/04/2025 16:13

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!!)

Show quote history

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.

opinionspleas · 11/04/2025 16:32

Historyofwolves · 11/04/2025 16:13

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!!)

Show quote history

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.

Riaanna · 11/04/2025 16:34

OneAmberFinch · 11/04/2025 01:06

As PP said in most countries it's optional.

But I actually think our system gives LESS financial freedom to women who are not in an exactly equal financial relationship with their husbands.

The setup of same/higher-earning wife, indefinitely with no significant breaks for pregnancy or childrearing, is really unusual.

And yet all financial advice to women is pretend as much as possible that you do have that setup, never take time off or go part time, and "make sure you have a straightforward healthy relationship so you don't have to beg".

Alternatively - you just immediately have access to your joint ISA and pension because, well, you are one of the 2 joint owners of them?

Show quote history

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

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 11/04/2025 16:37

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

Flossflower · 11/04/2025 16:40

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,

Rollercoaster1920 · 11/04/2025 16:57

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.

AquaPeer · 11/04/2025 16:58

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

Smellslikeburnttoat · 11/04/2025 17:00

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

kiwiane · 11/04/2025 17:01

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.

DeskJotter · 11/04/2025 17:04

Glasscabinet · 10/04/2025 17:26

I wonder if you read my post just now on the thread about giving benefits to entice people to have kids (or something along those lines).

I am a SAHM (by choice) and therefore DH’s salary/income is paid into our joint account. He does a bit of consultancy on the side too so that’s why ‘we’ have to fill out tax returns each year. By ‘we’, I mean they’re DH tax returns but as I manage the finances, we complete the forms together.

DH really isn’t a high earner but we keep our living costs as a low as possible for me to stay at home. We currently have DD(1.5 old) and would like at least two more. To be honest having three isn’t for certain as it depends on how we’re doing financially in a few years. I’ll definitely be going back to some sort of paid employment once the kids get to school age but in the meantime I was surprised that my income status wasn’t tax deductible off DH’s tax (I think he might have got an extra grand tax free for us being married, but that’s barely worth considering).

We get £25(ish) a week child benefit, and I’d never want to rely on benefits but if we could have some more tax relief on the basis on how many people DH income was supporting that would be grand :D

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.

DeskJotter · 11/04/2025 17:07

Bellyblueboy · 11/04/2025 12:37

I am a high earner in single female. I think it would be unfair if my male colleague (and let’s be honest this will mainly be males) suddenly had a much bigger take home salary because his wife chooses not to work.

Show quote history

100% agree

DeskJotter · 11/04/2025 17:10

Newfun · 11/04/2025 13:47

I think there's a lot wrong with the tax system for shared households/single.

DP died. We each earned approx £50k so were both basic rate taxpayers.

Since he died, my costs are basically the same. I get a small pension from his employer which puts me in the higher tax bracket. The household income is much less, but I pay more tax.

Everything else costs more when you're single too, from food shopping, to days out, train travel and holidays.

And the child benefit thing is absolutely bonkers.

I'm sorry for your loss.

I'm not sure how your costs are the same for one person compared to two. If that were the case, the point being made on here by some others (i.e. "my husband has to support me") would be redundant - because it is equally cheap to support a second, non-earning partner as it is to be single?

DeskJotter · 11/04/2025 17:11

Scottishskifun · 11/04/2025 13:49

It's not that unusual for women to be on the same or higher salaries then their partners.

From the women I am friends with this is the case for about 2/3rds of being on the same or more.

Also treating as a single unit unless they are going to significantly change the thresholds would leave a lot of families worse off. So you would end up with more women quitting and making less tax which makes zero sense!

Show quote history

I agree, it is really not unusual for a woman to be the higher earner.

DeskJotter · 11/04/2025 17:14

Flutterbyby · 11/04/2025 14:33

It's really simple and easy to change around. I earn more than my husband so I use part of his tax credits to offset my taxes, and take some of his rate band too. This maximises our allowances

Show quote history

But why should a married couple pay less tax?

zoemum2006 · 11/04/2025 17:14

💯 should be an option.

DH and I run a business together and we effectively share the tax burden.

you are treated as a unit for benefits so why not tax?

being able to share lower tax brackets is so helpful for a family.

DeskJotter · 11/04/2025 17:17

Flutterbyby · 11/04/2025 15:49

Doesn't work like that in Ireland. We have more benefits, fairer benefits system, more protections for women, better services on the whole, and joint taxation which saves us money, not costs more.

Show quote history

I was with you until the "better services". I'm Irish living in the UK, and the services in the UK far outstrip those in Ireland. Particularly the NHS, but also public amenities, refuse collection, etc.

Cynic17 · 11/04/2025 17:20

Oh for goodness sake (polite version!)...... Women have fought for years to be treated as individuals in our own right, and now the OP wants to go back to the stone age. My finances are nothing to do with my husband's, and vice versa. We have been happily married for 35 years. These two things are not coincidental!