Married, SAHM - why don't I get to use my personal allowance?

[Daffodilly]

Can someone help me understand this. DH earns a good income (higher rate taxpayer). Partly because he works long hours to earn this, and also because we can fortunately afford to and I want to, I am a SAHM.

My question is that because I don't work I don't get to claim any of my tax free allowance. Why can't I give him my tax free allowance as he is working to support me?

I'd genuinely like to understand the rational as it seems unfair (though I realise just one of many things that aren't fair in our tax system)?

I think I must be missed something re: the "trapped at home" concept. In the scenario that I could give my tax free allowance to DH he could earn an additional 9k ish free of tax. If I then chose to return to work I could earn that £9k ish per year tax free. We wouldn't be worse off if I returned to work (child are costs aside, which are the same I either tax scenario).

Presumably you would also pay higher rate tax, then? But for women earning less than their DHs, it might not be so straightforward, as they might be paying tax at 20%, whereas their DH's would get the tax relief at 40%. So it wouldn't be the same scenario after all.

it's not independent taxation any more, is it, now the SAHP loses CB if the WOHP earns more than whatever it is

so they should go back to transferable tax allowances. that's how it used to be.

Yes he works loads and so do I raising 3 children under 5. It's real picnic.

you don't work
he does

& there is still the 2-earner anomaly, only now it's 2 earners on £50K, ie a £100K income household will still get CB

that's wrong by anybody's standards

Genuine question - I don't think the changes to CB are fair, and I totally understand why SAHPs are worried about pension implications, but why do so many SAHPs see CB as their income, rather than family income or money for the children? I just don't get it.

I am guessing you are not a SAHM given that comment. But that was't the purpose of this thread. Cheers to those that had useful valid perspectives to share. Off to bed now as my unpaid 12-14 hour shift starts tomorrow at 6am (and I'm on night call)!

Sorry, what I mean is that, surely it is the family which loses the income, and not just the SAHP?

The other way of looking at it is why should married men get twice the tax allowance and single mothers get one.

I don't have children so my situation is a bit different, but I pay A LOT to get to work and to live within a commutable distance of both mine and DP's work. I don't feel that people who don't work should get the same tax breaks. Paid for by me. Sorry.

However, I do feel families should get proper benefits. In Belgium you get £300 per child per month and childcare is tax deductible. That's how it should be imo.

well yes it's child benefit not parental slush fund

The real reason is because Margaret Thatcher thinks SAHMs lack gumption. According to Nigel Lawson. He said as chancellor he really wanted to bring in a totally transferable tax allowance, but she said no, because all woman should aspire to be like her.

Why is 9k being thrown around? the personal allowance is £7475.

If you want to be able to use your personal allowance then you need to have taxable income to set it off against, which you don't.

take the chip off your shoulder youll get a better sleep op
you're not in penury
you're in private familial and social arrangement with your husband.
he works
you dont

also, tell me if this is mad....

if two sahp decided to swap kids and do that as paid work for 23hours a week, could they then claim working tax credits and get a personal tax allowance.

They could pay each other the same amount (as a sole trader) so it would even out.

lily what, you mean married to a millionnaire?

it will be £9K next year

& personal allowances used to be transferable, it's not a new idea

springchicken- they would also both need to be registered with OFSTED, and jump through a lot of hoops.

yes, but no more hoops than many men jump though to pay themselves through their own limited companies surely?

spring in your scenario both would be self employed
and the op sceanario wouldn't apply
child minders are self employed

I understand from the childminding board that there is a lot of paperwork...

But nothing is stopping Daffodilly setting up a company, and all husband's income going into that, then pay them both a 'salary', surely that's legal?

yes, but my point (and I am being a leetle bit ironic here) is that they would overcome the issue of not being paid for their 12-14 hour shifts of wife work.

Think like a man! (or Ken Livingstone)

she doesn't work a company doing what?fluff and fold

Jinsei- sorry the "not a SAHM" was aimed at scottishMummy's rudeness not you.