Link tax codes for couples -- epetition

[theblancos]

I hope you would like to sign this epetition to the goverment. epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/63221

Couples who co-habit are assessed as a couple where benefits are concerned but are treated as an individual with regards to income tax. This is unfair and penalises those who make the efforts and sacrifices to stay together as a family.

Many couples who only have one partner working for whatever reason are financially penalised by the refusal of benefits due to the level of income from one person even though other families are still able to receive benefits when their joint income far exceeds that of the lone worker.

The individual tax allowance allocated to stay at home, unemployed or low earning partners is not used as they do not have sufficient income to put against it.

This petition is to ask that Married and Civil Parnership Couples should be entitled to claim any unused tax allowance from one partner to the other. This would create a fairer system of taxation that recognises the bond within a family in the same manner that the benefit system already uses.

That's your distinction though. I don't see my financial affairs as different from my husband's because they aren't. We are a legally joined team. We still have to pay the mortgage and bills irrespective of whether the money comes from one source or two.

If we are separate then we should be separate for all things. If I am separate for tax purposes, I should be separate for child benefit, tax credits and everything else but we don't do that. We don't base HB on one income and not the other. I should get free prescriptions but I don't because my partner earns more.

The reason we don't do those things is because we treat people according to their household income. It would be ludicrous for a millionaires partner to claim HB because they had no income.

As I said, I can't see a way of changing the current system without shifting the disparity to someone else. However there is an absolute difference between assuming money and tax relief is the property of a man and me personally deciding to transfer my tax allowance to my husband on an annual basis.

Unless as a woman I'm incapable of making such big decisions. Yes there are issues to do with the overall status in society of women having lower pay or not working at all but I don't think that is solved through not allowing tax breaks to be shared. Mainly because this things are happening now.

Are memories really so short that people are proposing silly petitions like this? OP go back and read your history books on why it's so important that we are all taxed as individuals.

And if you think the benefit system is unfair, then why don't you campaign to have that reformed? Don't start messing around with fundamental principles of the income tax system.

Where would the money come from to fund this? It would have to come from somewhere, and I'd be interested to know what you think would deserve to be cut in order to go ahead with your proposal.

I think this is incredibly self-centred and smacks of "this would benefit me financially, so let's do it, with no regard to the consequences for anybody else". Couples, whether with or without children, are (usually) in a better financial situation than single people, with or without children. Couples have twice the earning potential, whether they choose to take advantage of that or not.

Think of this scenario, and tell me if you think it's fair:

• Couple with two children, one partner stays at home and the other works full time, earning £50k. No child care costs, as one parent is at home, so take home pay is approx £3k per month.

• Single parent with two children, working full time, earning £50k. Let's say one child's at school and the other's in nursery, and estimate that child care costs are £275pw (a conservative estimate). Take home pay would be £3k pm, minus £1192pm childcare, plus about £240pm tax credits = £2k per month.

In what world would it be fair to give the working member of the couple a further £10k tax allowance?

Matilda I don't think that the tax system can be made fair to all groups but that still doesn't make it fair now.

I don't think central taxation should take into account what people may or may not spend their money on. We were a 2 income family but didn't need to pay for child care. I am now a stay at home parent but if I didn't have close family nearby I may still need to pay for childcare. Surely it would make more sense to put funding where it is needed by offering subsidised or reduced childcare costs for the people that use them?

This certainly isn't about getting more money or screwing somebody else over. I just think it is inherently unfair that if my family and your family have the same income, you get to pay less tax.

This certainly isn't about getting more money or screwing somebody else over. I just think it is inherently unfair that if my family and your family have the same income, you get to pay less tax.

But what you're proposing would result in this unfairness just being switched, with two people potentially doing exactly the same job, earning exactly the same amount, with one being taxed less simply because they have a partner who does not work.

As other people have said, this is a feminist issue that was fought hard for, and I certainly wouldn't support undoing it so a group of people who have the luxury of not having to work can become even richer. If you want to take advantage of both partners' tax allowance, then both partners need to work. Use it or lose it

I don't agree with this I'm afraid. If a person chooses not to work then that is their decision and they are not paying tax so why should they have a tax allowance transferred.

I really object to this.

I would not support it. My ex was financially abusive and would have used this as yet another lever to keep me at home and not working.

My mother used to pay the married woman's stamp. She and other other women like her were denied benefits as a result and it has impacts on their pensions.

This would give an abusive man another financial stick to beat me with.

No thanks.

Matilda I did say repeatedly that I couldn't see a way around it without transferring the unfairness to somebody else so unless somebody could come up with a plan. I doubt it could be implemented.

However don't make assumptions that I've given up work because we have so much money lying around that I just didn't have to work anymore. That really isn't the case.

It's not my distinction that you go to work as an individual rather than a family. It's the way that my employer sees it too. My employer didn't hire one half of a couple; they hired me as an individual for my individual experience and talents. They pay me as an individual and determine whether to promote me or whatever based on my individual performance.

I might put that money into my family, but I earned it as an individual. It wouldn't be at all fair for a colleague doing exactly the same job to pay thousands of pounds less in tax than me just because his family have chosen for his wife to stay at home and my husband goes out to work.

I have to pay higher rate tax on a (admittedly small) portion of my income. I don't stamp my feet and wail because a couple with my combined income pay less income tax than me because that would be stupid. It's equally daft to stamp your feet about the unfairness of it when it's your husband paying more tax than the couple on the same combined income as him because you've chosen to make that your family's whole income.

I'm not sure I'm understanding that everyone who doesn't work does so out of choice. Long-term illness and unemployment and, in my case, low paid work (TA) would all be valid reasons for transferable personal allowances.

What happens if and when you get a better-paid job?

If we're talking about people in low paid work we're really talking about people working part time, yes? If you work full time of 35 hours earning minimum wage then you will use all of your 10k tax allowance across a full year. Women are more likely to work part time and earn less so, I have to say again, this is a policy that is for the most part about women transferring their no-longer personal tax allowance to their husband. It would provide more incentives for men to increase their earning power at the expense of their wife who is not working or working part time/in low paid jobs which fit in with her childcare and home responsibilities.

Also, can I make the point that it's the thin end of the wedge? Previously married men would get paid more, more again if they had children. Nobody wants to go back to that system surely? I feel that this would be a step in that direction.

Of course this is a policy that would benefit some people. However, I think the negatives heavily outweigh the positives.

I'm 58 and not looking for a career, I did that pre-children and enjoy my 25 hours in a school based job. My own family situation would be 2k better off as dp would be able to reduce his taxable pay down to 40k and avoid the 40% tax bracket (which I think is applied too low but that's another matter). I'm obviously looking at it as a positive in my own situation and can see that in a relationship that was one sided it might be open to abuse.

What would be better is to make commuting and all childcare tax-deductible. I'd definitely sign a petition for that!

YANBU the situation with respect to CB and higher rate tax for single/one much higher earner couples is a disgrace.

I don't know if we'd have been better off if DH and I had both earned 1/2 his salary, because we'd have to have paid full wrap round child care.

However, for us and millions of other couples where the man is older and more established in his career when DCs come along, this wasn't ever going to happen.

3.5 years is a life time, when you've both been postgrads and you get PG without ever having a job and he's just got promoted.

Couple with two children, one partner stays at home and the other works full time, earning £50k. No child care costs, as one parent is at home, so take home pay is approx £3k per month

Single parent with two children, working full time, earning £50k. Let's say one child's at school and the other's in nursery, and estimate that child care costs are £275pw (a conservative estimate). Take home pay would be £3k pm, minus £1192pm childcare, plus about £240pm tax credits = £2k per month

good point. This is a huge discrepancy and one that should not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Sadly, I note the OP's comment about the current system, This is unfair and penalises those who make the efforts and sacrifices to stay together as a family

I don't think that the tax system can be made fair to all groups
there will always be winners and losers but to the extent described above? Wow. Single parents really are seen as the scum of the earth, aren't they? I guess we deserve everything we get - we made bad partner choices, got ourselves beaten and abused and deserved to be cheated on and left with nothing. How we work hard and our lives be worse off to the tune of £12k a year compared with a hard working family on the same money. Unbelievable.

FYI www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/8365211/Britain-worst-place-for-tax-burden-on-single-earner-families.html

As others have said, I'm more concerned where households have no choice but to only take advantage of one personal allowance/tax bands.

As well as single parents this affects households where one parent has to be a carer, e.g. for a disabled child, or one parent has a disability or illness that restricts their ability to work.

I believe single parents should be in the same tax code as a family unit, having themselves a bigger allowence. Only concern is that now it seems to be a tendency of people "not living together" to be able to claim more benefits, so I would love to see these people trackdown so the real single parents can get the real benefits.

What would be better is to make commuting and all childcare tax-deductible. I'd definitely sign a petition for that!

This. The OPs original post is, in my opinion, a bad idea. There are so many reasons why it wouldn't work and would only benefit a small percentage of people. It completely ignores the cost of working. A couple earning 30k each will have far higher expenses associated with working than one partner earning 60k a year and the other not working, even if the couple earning jointly pay less tax, their take home will be much lower.

You got a point and think they should work towards, but still having a family tax unit could help in general, (optional).

Loving this thread...

Also inheritance tax. If I die my children are homeless as I am single. If I were married the state would not steal 40% of everything we have. Very unfair. Also because I am kind enough to house an adult (student age) child I pay 100% council tax as if I were living with a high earning partner.

Thinking about single parents..

Having an optional joint tax code for family units, this will be a single tax code for single parent families. So for example the threshold of ie 70k will be the same for one family unit or a single parent.

All commuting expenses and childcare should be tax deductible, so if both parents work can benefit.

Any household should be able to register as a family.

The well being and individualism of each partner should be respected and promoted, hence the optional of the joint tax and matching benefits of a single parent.

Nevertheless should be a better way to tracked down not real single parents, so the benefit goes to who needs it.