Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

212 replies

HohohoBumperlicious · 05/01/2010 15:19

Am I right to feel a bit - for want of a better word - icky about marriage tax. I am married but it just seems wrong to put a financial and moral (as after all the root of the tax is surely a moral one) premium on marriage.

It's not always the best state and certainly isn't one that should be the default, it is, after all, a purely social construct designed to fit in with perceived views on what is 'moral'. I'm sure people can be perfectly happy and good members of the community without being married.

Am I missing the point somehow?

OP posts:
mvemjsunp · 05/01/2010 19:59

Taxes are a government's way to influence behaviour. If a tax rebate influences marriage, and consequent stability of society, then that can only be a good thing.

Let's face it, since living outside of marriage became acceptable, standards of behaviour have gone down the pan.

HerHonesty · 05/01/2010 20:19

head in hands, despairing - are we back in the dark ages?

morningpaper · 05/01/2010 20:20

It IS a waste of money, the reward will largely go to the middle classes

And as a working mum, I don't WANT to transfer my tax allowance to DH - it would effectively mean that anything I earnt would be automatically taxes, whereas at the moment I can earn up to 6k without it being taxes, which at least feels as though it's worth doing - if that money was ALREADY tax-free it would definitely disincentivise me

HaveItAllMummy · 05/01/2010 20:51

"Taxes are a government's way to influence behaviour. If a tax rebate influences marriage, and consequent stability of society, then that can only be a good thing."

Taxes are to pay for the things we need as a society, not a glorified Nectar Point scheme with rewards for individuals who do as the nice man in gvt says.

Those of you who support this proposed tax break on 'moral' grounds: do you mean marriage as opposed to single paernts? Mumof2, is that what you meant?

mvemjsunp · 05/01/2010 20:55

But taxes do have a dual purpose.

HaveItAllMummy · 05/01/2010 21:17

Well I believe that they should not be used in that way. Especially for spurious purposes like promoting marriage rather than co-habitation, because of ill-founded moralistic beliefs based on no true comparison between committed co-habiting and married couples.

You believe that marriage is a good thing - that doesn't mean that a gvt making it a tax concession will make any significant improvements to the lives of those who need it. As mp points out, certaon couples will benefit most, many feckless married pelpe will laugh all the way to the betting shop, etc etc. Even if you believe in the process of getting married (as opposed to living together)

mvemjsunp · 05/01/2010 21:19

Governments have always used taxes to influence behaviour. It is not a knee-jerk reaction to the loose morals of this generation.

HerHonesty · 05/01/2010 22:09

no, you are a right its not a knee-jerk reaction to the loose morals of this generation.

its a knee-jerk reaction to the need to the tories ever more desperate attempts get the middle class vote wavering voters in the bag.

ScowlingOtter · 05/01/2010 22:11

abra1d i find your attitude offensive

MmeLindt · 05/01/2010 22:20

This system is already in place in Germany and I can assure that noone I know there gets married or remains married to save tax money.

My BIL delayed his divorce for this reason, but they were split up and living in separate houses.

MP is right though, about the transference of tax allowance to the higher earner. This means that women go to work and have hardly anything to show for it at the end of the month. Very demotivating.

When we were in Germany, I stopped working a year before DD was born. DH automatically earned so much more that I was able to take a part time job (one day a week) and we had an income not much less than when I was working full time.

UnquietDad · 05/01/2010 22:23

It seems weird, not because of what it is but because of what it will replace. As I understand it, it'll take the place of the benefits for families with children which Labour have introduced? Surely the Tories are the "party of the family", not of the childless married couple...

ScowlingOtter · 05/01/2010 22:24

too angry to comment

CitizenPrecious · 05/01/2010 22:29

We were supposed to be getting married in June-ish this year- after about ten years of generally fannying about...

now we're not keen because David Cameron so obviously wants us to

Ewww. puts me right off

[idiotically bloody minded emoticon]

CitizenPrecious · 05/01/2010 22:31

...this is a novel thread for me as is first time have ever even mildly disagreed with Riven

mateykatie · 06/01/2010 01:21

Not sure about this one.

Benefits for marriage in the tax system is one of those things that is completely illogical, yet works. It's like Wikipedia - it only works in practice, not in theory!

In theory there is no reason why unmarried cohabitatees have any less stable relationships than married couples - and of course, there will be countless examples of exceptions in both directions - but the fact is, that in practice, it does seem to work in other countries.

Having said that, surely the priority should be paying down the national debt instead of tax cuts.

SueW · 06/01/2010 01:45

I spent years at home earning nothing whilst my tax allowance went to waste.

I sincerely wish I had been able to transfer it to DH.

I didn't want to go out and get a part-time job, any job, just to earn my tax allowance every year. I wanted to look after our child.

DH worked away so it was me or a nursery/childminder/other childcare.

No contest.

I've gone back to work since she started school so it's not like I don't work.

Why shouldn't we have benefited in those years? Why should I have felt pressure to go back to work?

SueW · 06/01/2010 01:46

I don't thnk it should necessarily be 'in marriage' btw but it should be related to maternity/paternity/SAHP and maybe that's where the cold feet are coming in wrt to political parties.

sarah293 · 06/01/2010 07:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

SueW · 06/01/2010 07:57

The old version was completely different - DH & I got it in the early years of our marriage. It was an additional allowance which was given to couples who were married. Either husband or wife could have it, or it could be split between them. You could change from one tax year to another how it was allocated.

The new allowance is different from what I understand.

morningpaper I don't follow your logic at all. It wouldn't mean all your money was taxed. But it would mean that if you weren't working, you would have more total income to the house.

Simple sums:

Current situation (fictional limits/tax rates.) Say tax limit is 5k before tax is paid and income tax is 20%

Working spouse earns 20k
Limit is 5k so pays tax on £15k at 20% = £3k tax.
Non-working spouse earns £zero.
Limit is £5k. Pays no tax, as earns nothing.
Total tax bill for household = £3k.
Total income - £5k untaxed income plus £12k of taxed income after tax - £17k

With limit transferance
Working spouse earns 20k
Limit is 10k (£5k own limit plus £5k spouse's limit) so pays tax on £10k at 20% = £2k tax.
Non-working spouse earns £zero and limit has been transferred.
Total tax bill for household = £2k.
Total income - £10k untaxed income plus £8k of taxed income after tax - £18k

When non-working spouse goes back out to work, then they get their limit back. CBA to type all that up now - have to go chase up DD for breakfast.

Simples!

abra1d · 06/01/2010 09:11

Shrugs at Otter.

pacinofan · 06/01/2010 09:27

Would love some sort of recoginition for those, like myself, stuck at home while dh works unable to afford childcare. I would be returning to work on a low income, and we are not eligible for tax credits, etc, so returning to work and forking out for childcare in reality means I would work for nothing. For the moment, I have stopped looking at going back to work, it's utterly pointless and depressing.

HerHonesty · 06/01/2010 09:47

pacionfan we will be in the same position if i have two children. i dont class myself as a low earner, but it it seems utterly pointless to work for the fun of it.

but your point is about working parents not married working parents...

and i dont think its the states job to determine one set of parents is more worthy than help than another simply because they stood in front of a minister/registrar and pledged their undying love to each other.

Fossie · 06/01/2010 15:32

I think there needs to be some way to address the advantage given to single parents in numerous benefits.

There are financial disadvantages to getting married especially if the couple already each have children. Just one example, two single people get more money in child benefit for their eldest child than younger children but if they marry they can only have one eldest child between them and therefore lose out on a few pounds each week.

I can't be the only one to know of people who pretend to be single and hide the fact there is a partner living in the house to get better benefits. You can't hide a spouse so you can lose out on money and be put off marriage.

I also get annoyed that as a stay-at-home mum my husband gets taxed so much. There was a policy of transferring tax allowance between parents but that went.

If we both worked but only earned the same amount between us we would get a lot more money though we would have to pay for childcare which I have to conclude this government would prefer us to do as it does not trust parents to bring up their children themselves.

unavailable · 06/01/2010 16:54

Fossie - Child benefit is a universal and non means tested benefit. I dont understand the link you are making between Child Benefit and being married.

Your husband is not taxed any more than anyone else on his income level. As a family you will be elligible for child tax credits depending on the household income. Why is that unfair to married people?

shonaspurtle · 06/01/2010 17:00

"I can't be the only one to know of people who pretend to be single and hide the fact there is a partner living in the house to get better benefits. You can't hide a spouse so you can lose out on money and be put off marriage."

Yes, but that's called being a criminal.

Am loling a little bit (in disbelief) that you're jealous of the easy ride that single parents get. "Let's not get married/share our home, we'll lose out on £2 a week" (or whatever the difference is for the oldest child).

If you stay at home and your partner goes out to work then, as you rightly point out, you save £££ in childcare costs. You're quids in already! You don't need a tax break.