Married person's tax allowance

[sillyoldfool]

So as I understand it they're suggesting a higher earner in a couple should be able to reduce their tax burden by assigning a portion of their earnings to their lower earning spouse?
Does that mean that in a couple where one has tipped over the threshold for losing CB they'll be able to 'give' some of their earnings to their spouse, get out of the higher rate tax bracket, and so get CB back?
Or have I totally misunderstood?

I don't know but I'm increasingly getting the feeling of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is going on, ie money given in one hand and taken out with the other.

Totally. They don't really believe in people being helped by the state, but have to do some things to win votes...
I wish someone would come up with a coherent plan, instead of lots of tinkering.
None of this will really affect me btw, just pondering.

I agree sillyoldfool. It's tinkering.

The implications if it lets people have their CB back though could be big. Might be a good time to open a wedding based business!

At the risk of being flamed. Marriage is really important to me and my family. There is lots of evidence that children do better when parents are married and together. I constantly hear people who choose to have children but wont make the committment to get married. Surely that is the wrong way round

I read it £3 a week and thorght whats the point? what did people get before blair scrapped it? probably more than 3quid a week.

I really don't care whether other people get married or not. I'm married, but had dd1 before we were married and married mainly because it simplifies so many legal things if something goes wrong.
I have massive reservations about the history of the 'institution of marriage' and it's horrible treatment of women, I have a lot of respect for the people I know who don't want to be a part of that.
I think straight couples should be able to get civil partnerships.

But if it allows people to get CB back it'll be worth a lot more than that... I've probably misunderstood though.

silly old fool wont be anywhere near what people on cb lost 80quid month child 1 more if have more than 1 child.

I know, I was just pondering if taking the higher earner out of the higher rate tax bracket through the married tax allowance would then allow that couple to claim CB again, therefore the tax allowance being worth £3 a week+£80 a month because you're getting CB again.

I thought that this wouldn't apply to Higher Rate Tax payers anyway. So you wouldn't get the tax break in the first place so you wouldn't be able to apply it to get you under the threshold for CB.

I would suggest to DP that we get married, but we would only be better off if we slunk off and got married in secret as £3 a week until the tax allowance gets changed back would cover the cost of a wedding, but not anything fancy like wedding rings, a bridesmaid's dress for DD or lunch in Pizza Express after the wedding for DP, 2 children and 2 witnesses.

The Tories have lost a lot of votes (especially women's) by removing child benefit from those earning over £60k. It makes sense really as a couple both earning £49k each would keep it but a single mum earning £60k would lose it. I don't agree with it as it is divisive and punishes those who have done well but don't think of themselves as wealthy (and in London £60k let alone £50k after tax is not wealthy). I think it should remain a universal benefit.

Married person's tax allowance seems like a terrible idea.

Why should people get a bonus for being married in this day and age? I am married, and we both work, so will presumably benefit, but I still think it's terribly unfair. Won't be winning my vote.

surely unmarried people with children could do with some help more than double income married couples without?

As a divorced mother who has to pay my own way I am biased but heavily against it. It penalises single parents yet again.

As a cohabiting person I like the fact that our relationship status is taken in to account when it comes to claiming tax credits but not when it comes to getting a tax allowance.

No-one's going to get married for £150 a year or whatever it is.

Yes you can get married relatively inexpensively if you really try and have it small, but still the average wedding costs £8 squillion quid of similar.

Plus why do they think marriage is "magic" - and will cure all of societies ills? Bizarre.

And I just thought - aren't the tories rather devaluing the institution of marriage itself by saying that people will do it for a £150 bribe? Doesn't that imply that they think it not much of a big deal? Doesn't add up.

Whole thing is stupid.

Am married BTW

I see on BBC news it is saying this is for couples who are both basic rate tax payers. Does this mean SAHMs will be able to benefit or not? It is not clear.

Families where one person is a SAHM and the other a basic rate taxpayer will benefit. Although I'm assuming the tax break will actually be paid to the tax-paying spouse (not quite sure on that one but as it's a tax rebate I would assume the person who is a tax payer will get it)

It would not affect entitlement (or otherwise) to child benefit. Your entitlement to CB depends on having one or more children subject to a cap if you earn over a particular income.

A married person's tax allowance is just that, an allowance against your income.

I hate the double standards re this. I am not married and never would and yet we are considered as a couple for tax credits etc yet not for this.

It's not tinkering, it's rearranging the deckchair's on the Titanic.

We're still borrowing £100billion a year to meet existing spending commitments. We've been told we're in financial dire straits yet the Tories & Lib Dems are making stupid vote winning deals with each other.

Tories with this tax allowance and the lib dems with their school meals.

Neither of which really does a thing to address the elephant in the room.

Just to be fair I think Labour would be just as bad if not worse given the 'policies' announced over the previous week.

Wonder what UKIP are proposing........

Even if dp and I had been married an extra £3 a week would not have made him stay so what is the point? I would then have lost the magical £3 and still become a lone parent.