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?

jux I fully accept that some married people do not look at the long-term possibiliites.

My point is this: the state can only assume that they INTENDED to be in it for life- you, me or nobody else can read people's minds.

Whereas with cohabitees, you can't judge the status of their relationship and how "stable" it is UNLESS they express it in some way via a document (why is this concept so controversial)- perhaps something cohabitees can sign to show they're in it for the long-term?

The government can't assume that a relationship is serious purely because a couple live together under the same roof- nor should they.

Sorry, that should be "CAN'T read people's minds".

"What is the point of a marriage tax break when marriage is so easily disposed of? "

What is the point of a marriage tax break full stop. When and if children appear or one parent needs to take time out of work for caring duties, then there should be a tax break. Marriage in itself is irrelevant.

OrmRenewed Perhaps so, but they'd have to prove it in some way.

I can see why the tories want to restrict it to the married only BUT my opinion is that, EVERYTHING ELSE being equal, there is no difference between an unmarried couple and a married one bar the marriage certificate.

But, I also think it is fair to say that a married couple nearly always at least INTEND to be in it for life, whereas cohabiting couples may be living together for a wide variety of reasons and that committment is not always the intention of cohabiting.

"a married couple nearly always at least INTEND to be in it for life, whereas cohabiting couples may be living together for a wide variety of reasons and that committment is not always the intention of cohabiting"

I still say 'so what'. Two people don't need more money because they get together than they did before. Until they have children. That is when the tax break might be needed. It's not hard to prove when a couple have children is it?

You are right, it isn't hard to prove when a couple have children.

I still think there needs to be some kind of declaration that they intend to bring the child up together, though, who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

If Mumnetters are going to swing the election, it looks like the tories may need to re-think this policy! No-one seems to agree with it.

If it does come in, it has to be restricted to a first marriage, otherwise serial marry-ers will benefit wherease committed co-habitees won't.

Let's leave aside the married and non married couples debate for a minute. This policy does not just discriminate in favour of marrieds against unmarrieds.

It also discriminates in favour of couples where one half earns very little (eg SAHMs) and the other earns a lot, against couples where both work and earns less.

In other words it benefits the 1950s model of parenting where mum stays at home with the kids and dad earns full time.

Whilst this may be some people's ideal, it isn't everybody's. Many couples would rather they both worked part time, both earned (albeit less than working full time), and BOTH got to spend time with the kids. Dare I say I think many kids might prefer this too.

However, if this new policy comes in, such couples may well feel forced back into the 1950s model simply because otherwise they will pay way more tax.

There are already enough factors that push couples into the 1950s model (for example, the cost of childcare; the fact that full time jobs offer disproportionately better pay and greater career prospects than part time). Do we really need another?

Minipie - I agree with you completely.

As you say, it encourages the 1950s model which probably left a lot of people miserable; men economically forced into staying in jobs they hated and women stuck at home.

As a family, we enjoy being able to share the work and family commitments. We both stay mentally challenged but both are able to spend lots of time with the children.

If a mum has been out of work for 7 years whilst bringing up young ones, then they are going to find it harder to start working again if they can a) only get a part-time job and b) make their dh pay more tax by reclaiming their tax allowance back off him.

Since a tax allowance of roughly 4000pounds is equivalent to 1600 pounds a year if that person pays higher rate tax, then it's not worth the SAHM taking any job paying less than 1600. And I know loads of mums who want to keep in with their career, even if they are earning as little as that per annum.

Minipie, you're completely right about the 1950s model. This is a regressive tax policy because society has changed. I earn a similar wage to DH and both of us work flexibly and/or part-time - but we wouldn't benefit despite being married. Yet we're both basic rate taxpayers so we are only getting 20% tax relief on our pensions compared to a higher rate taxpayer getting 40% back (earnings from about £40K to £150K). There are plenty of ways to innovate tax policy but this is not one of them (how about raising the threshold generally so that fewer people have to claim it back and save on administration?)

The reason that older pensioners still have this tax break is precisely because it was appropriate in that bygone age of stable manufacturing jobs, final salary pensions but also fewer rights and opportunities for women.

"The tax and benefit system should reward desired behaviours."

What that means is that because under the Labour government families in Britain get tax breaks in the form of child credits. And parents need the money, there is no denying that. Single parents get even more tax breaks because they have fewer funds than couples would.

Critics state that this system is actually discouraging people to be in a relationship because they get more money as a single parent. As bonkers as it sounds, if you are a single mother it makes more financial sense for you to not get married, even if you have found mister right.

So by rewarding marriage, the Tories would be encouraging rather than discouraging marriage in order to create stable family homes where future generations are being reared.

leilalacrosse.livejournal.com/#asset-leilalacrosse-2810

I don't think tax/benefits primary focus should be used to reward desired behaviours -it should be used to target need. The proposal doesn't do this.

People who are married aren't in more need (because they are married) than other people- low incomes, children, other resposibilities etc create need.
I'm in the position where i earn enough that my spouse can afford not to work- this would just benefit us unnecessarily.
If the Tories want to give away money they should look at means tested benefits and tax credits