Tory Marriage Tax - makes me feel a bit icky

[HohohoBumperlicious]

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?

I agree with it rewarding married couples. The current system penalises us, for example the rules on principal residence and tax, and it costs the state more to support couples that split up than those that stay together. Cohabiting couples are statistically more likely to break up than married couples.

There's data that is relatively objective and scientific out there if you search on google scholar, but you will have to go and read the primary literature yourself.

Ivykaty - I am somewhat amused by the idea that the tax system is such a burden for those single parents earning under 16k, of course the fact they are getting a great wodge back in benefits is irrelevant.

it

Agree with tisfedup (to a point). Those couples who want the 'advantages' of marriage, well they can just get married. If they don't want the commitment of marriage then what are they doing having a child together. If they don't 'agree' with marriage then don't agitate for the benefits (and costs) of being married.

quite, darcymum

I think that a SAHP should be able to transfer their personal tax allowance to the working partner.

I don't agree that a couple should be able to do this unless they have children, if you don't have a child to look after then there is nothing to stop you going out to work.

blackduck... (you are a tad patronising),

to whom blackduck, it was a mere statement of fact.

but i agree you are right we are talking about this tax ... point taken.

HerBeatitude, I agree that there are far more things that will help children progress than a slip of paper signed by a registrar.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, is this really about children or is it about the Tories imposing their morals on the country? If it was about children then why isn't the tax break limited to couples with children?

I thought Nick Clegg made a good point - why should the parent whose spouse leaves, or who loses their spouse to cancer or a car accident, or to the war in Afghanistan be denied this tax break?

Well if they can't keep their man, then obviously they deserve not to have a tax break. What is Nick Clegg thinking of, imagining that a lone parent is just like any other mother? The idiot.

Simple solution which totally avoids all of this judgemental crap about who's better than whom - allow parents to claim a small tax allowance for the number of dependents (not just their spouse). Obviously this would need to be capped to prevent people from having 10 kids to avoid tax and it wouldn't be the full tax allowance. Even if they just added £2000 for each spouse/kid up to a maximum of £5000 it would be more fair. And then single parents would benefit just as my family would. And it would represent the cost of feeding and housing those family members.

I agree with mrsjammi. A transferable tax would have been incredibly helpful to us while my husband was disabled with depression leaving me holding the baby, holding down the job, and everything else. And gay couples I hope are showing the way: stable committed relationships should be put on a legal footing, to display to the world the commitment. the 'in sickness and in health' clause certainly concentrated my mind on what my duty was. A marriage is only as good as the people who make up the couple - so it is nothing to do with whether anyone beats anyone else. Why not marry? It seems like a very good idea to me, and emotionally to pass through a celebratory gateway in front of family and friends, en route to creating a family seems like a very good idea. There are no guarantees in this world, but taking a more formal approach to a relationship may mean (and the statistics back this up) taking a more responsible approach to any resulting children. I'm all for it, particularly if children are educated about committed relationships and responsibilities in school from an early age.

I think the problem is that no one knows if getting married makes people take a "more responsible" approach to relationships, commitment etc., or whether people who tend to take a more responsible approach to relationships, commitment etc., tend to get married. No one has yet established which bit is chicken adn which is egg.

Similarly, married people tend to be richer than co-habitees. But is that because marriage makes people rich, or because richer people are more likely to marry than poorer ones?

And some people get married because they fancy a jolly party, not because they're more committed.

Either way, I just don't see why other tax payers should subsidise them for their lifestyle choice. Once it comes to subsidising their children, that's fine, I have no quibbles with that and believe that children should be subsidised. But all children, not just the ones with married parents.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia

i resisted the urge to swear badly at you

your somments on here are offensive

better get back to my broken back britain partner of twenty years and six bastards

flockwallpaper /darcymum et al

dp and i are individuals not statistics

because we have not commited to a 'legally' binding contract belies the fact that after 20 years we have evidently commited very strongly to each other and our children

both sets of our shit parents made that lovely legal commitment of which you refer and both sets ended in divorce

both of our mothers ditched their kids....we chose another route for our own children - based on what we knew

I see your point though. Tax breaks and all. Cohabiting is not a respectable option as you say 'contributing to broken back britain' and therefore we should be penalised. I'll explain that to my kids - I am sure they will see yours and Camerons pov

I feel certain Cameron has a good insight and experience of grassroots Britain when he is thinking up these middle class vote hauls policies

Bramshot good point

free tax break here

Aagh, I was disagreeing with tisfedup and being sarcastic. i see that hasn't worked at all well, and will slink off in shame...

I got it Heathen! Don't run away!

I'm married ut am opposed

My friend is married but we are trying tomeprsuade her to get divorced. Well she may as well, the twat she ahs been apart from for many years has been recently arrested and is awaiting a ten stretch for sex trafficking!.

Her only hope to ever get away from him financially (he used her name a loton fraudulent stuff) is a divorce,but we have one thread on MN saying single mums shouldn't get housing benefit,and the tories saying she shouldn't be treated as well as a marriedmum

IMO the fact she'skept her dd'swell,loved and stable marks her out as an excellent example of parenting, she's not well herselfwither.

Are the fifties in vogue again? marriedaprents getting more, baking trendy and mag articles on thrift.

What HerBeatitude said:

By HerBeatitude Thu 07-Jan-10 08:10:49 I'm not against a transferable tax allowance for couples where one wants to stay at home to look after the children; what I am against, is the tax burden of a single parent being higher than that of a married, childless couple.

Taxes and benefits should support children, not give childless adults extra money for another holiday just because they happen to be married.

very outdated and sort of daily mailish - luckily i think this country is more intelligent that to bring that in

I don't really think this should, or would, be a tax break for marriage (even if that's how it'll be painted by both proponents and opponents). Rather it would be a way of transferring the tax and benefits system wholly to a system based on family/household incomes rather than the current mess where sometimes you're an individual and sometimes you're a household.

All adults in this country are (theoretically) entitled to a tax free personal allowance annually. However, in practice stay-at-home partners (who may or may not have chosen to stay at home) don't get the benefit of theirs. This would be fair enough, if it weren't for the fact that their partner's income counts as their income for a whole host of purposes. As it is they vicariously gain an income (what their partner earns) but the tax system does not acknowledge that the income pertains to two adults.

Marriage (and civil partnership for same-sex couples) is the most simple and logical way of distinguishing between single adult 'households' and two adult 'households' for tax purposes. This is more a practical issue than a moral imperative as far as I'm concerned.

The fact that a tax allowance transfer would tend to benefit the middle classes more (but far from exclusively--plenty of lower income couples get married) is a red herring. Shifting the system to base all taxation (and benefits) on household units does not preclude the government addressing income disparities through tax credits. It just means that the system cannot choose to treat you as a household or an individual wherever it suits the system best.

NotanOtter, you seem hellbent on taking every comment on this thread (even jokes) personally!

We don't know you. We don't know your situation. Stop looking for offence where none is intended. Or hide the thread before you drive yourself nuts.