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)?

@qz yes it is legal. just 'warned against' if you are an MP.

Lots of (rich) families do it.

of course they're rich, they're saving 40% a year! (plus NI contributions)

why is it rude to state obvious
you're housewife

that's my point @QZ. Why don't more people do this? Or my idea of employing another sahp as as sole trader just below the tax credit threshold?

That's ok daffodilly, was a bit at first but then realised you weren't talking to me.

sm- oh I don't know, doing the bookkeeping or customer relations or something

let me spell it out
you're saying boo hoo dh work loads. you don't
as result you think he should get your tax allowance essentially a £9k jolly
...why don't you work some?ease his burden,use your own tax allowance

Scotishmummy if only life was that simple, you can't simply walk into a job if you've been a SAHM for years.
In any case my working would make DHs life far more stressful not less.

We're looking into it atm (am not sahm, wohm ft).

but feels like tax avoidance, and therefore wrong to me.

It is tax avoidance. But so is paying into a pension fund.
I know I am being faceious, but after the budget i am thinking if you can't beat them join them?

yes and that's the risk if one takes the risk of dropping out work
frankly anyone (male or female) with no recent work exp will struggle to get employment

that's my point @QZ. Why don't more people do this? Or my idea of employing another sahp as as sole trader just below the tax credit threshold?

But what would be the point? Surely people SAH because they want to look after their own children. If they "swap" with another SAHM, they would no longer be doing this, would they?

If they pay each other the same, they wouldn't actually be earning, would they - so the personal allowance is meaningless, wouldn't it? And they wouldn't get working tax credit as these are based on family income, so their DHs' earnings would be taken into account as well as their own.

I get that some couples might benefit through paying themselves through a company, though.

housewife is private unwaged arrangement,watch own dc.not to external standards not quality controlled

watching someone else children for cash is cm,self employed for profit
lets not pretend there could be a cuddly wuddly mums watch not for profit network

Actually, it wouldn't be that much of an anomaly for the Uk to introduce transfer of allowances between spouses (either way). We already treat transfers of assets between spouses as "no transfer" for inheritance tax and capital gains tax purposes, so the law sees them in those cases as a single economic unit.

Therefore, there's already a lack of consistency so I imagine lack of transfer of allowances is purely financial

Gideon claims that his ministerial salary is all he gets - despite renting out a house in Notting Hill & owning 15% of Osborne & Little - yeah, right

is it all in his wife's name or what?

@Ponders you don;t pay tax in a trust fund. That's the point of it I think.

scottishmummy - you have a bizarre view of the world. Looking after own children "not to external standards/quality controlled". What?!

do keep up
a cm is externally regulated
housewife isn't subject to any regulation

non comparable modes of childcare

not bizarre
statement of fact

@scottish mummy you would make profit due to working tax credits, which you would not otherwise get. Notg much, but the poitn is the principle. I f you want to be paid, charge people for your work.

@Ponders you don;t pay tax in a trust fund. That's the point of it I think.

And yet he thinks tax avoidance is morally repugnant.

Not sure about morals, but I certainly find Gideon repugnant.

My god, you sound like you've stepped out of George Orwell. They are her (or his) children! Their responsibility, their decisions, no one else's business how they do it. Can't be bothered to argue with you over it though.

@scottish mummy you would make profit due to working tax credits, which you would not otherwise get.

But surely you wouldn't, as your DH's earnings would be taken into account and you wouldn't be eligible.

Springchicken's idea could work if they employed each other as nannies. No paperwork, no requirement to register with Ofsted (though if they were they could use childcare vouchers to pay each other!) and they'd be employees not self employed.

Not sure what the benefit would be, but it would work better if they were nannies than childminders if anyone is planning on trying it!

do quote and ascribe properly
don't know tax credits,never had them
address your query to whomever raised it

Yes, but still don't get what the benefit would be. And even if there is some minor economic advantage that I can't see, wouldn't you earn more by just going out to get a job? (since you wouldn't be at home with your kids anyway.)