The begining of the end of independant taxation?

[Seabright]

If I recall correctly, independant taxation for women was finally gained in the late 1980's/early 1990's?

And now, due to the child benefit cuts, women will have to tell their partners about part of the income (the child benefit), so their partners can declare it on the tax return (assuming the partner is a higher rate tax payer - let's face it, of a couple, it's usually the man, unfortunatly).

I am worried that this is the thin end of the wedge and once implimented other tax policies will be put through combining a couples tax affairs and ending independant taxation.

Any thoughts?

same for men who claim the CB is it not?

Yes, it would be the same if the male/female situation was reversed, but in how many cases is the CB paid to the man whose partner is a higher rate tax payer?

I don't like independant taxation being removed from either party in a relationship. I don't want women forced to disclose CB to the man, I don't want men forced to reveal they are higher rate tax payers to women.

Yes, in an ideal world all couples would know about the whole family finance situation, it's more the principle behind this policy that concerns me, and where it might lead.

i agree, i was just throwing that point in because it isn't just women but i do agree that teh overall majority affected will be female. i hate the whole idea of independant taxation vanishing. it's going back to the dark days of women having to justify their spenditure to their partner, asking for money for this that and the other. i am such an independant person that the thought of having to do that is terrifying.

The tax credits system has combined couples tax affairs since it was implemented. Similarly the benefits system treats you as a couple in deeply unfortunate ways. I really don't see why this is such an issue, since poorer women have never really been financially independent. Even CB can be claimed by either parent, so it doesn't necessarily guarantee financial independence of any kind.

I didn't realise that the tax credits and benefits system also did this. In that case, consider my initial outrage to be enlarged to cover these matters to!

Yeah, you're assessed as a couple for tax credits so all your details are provided on the assessment. There's no scope to hide any earnings from one another. That's why people can benefit from not declaring a live-in partner, etc.

Loads of benefits are assessed as a couple. My DH couldn't get income-based JSA while he was unemployed after university because I have a job. The state was quite happy to leave him entirely dependent upon me. I was really angry at the time (on the principle of him being allowed no financial independence when I could be financially abusive etc, rather than because of the money).

Seabright, I disagree with you, I'm all in favour of family-based taxation - when I was a SAHM it was shocking that DH couldn't use any of my tax allowance and it's unfair that the government considers you a family for benefits and an individual for taxation (of course they benefit from that arrangement).

A taxation system that looked at the number of individuals (children and spouses) being supported from a total combined income pool would allow us to tax appropriately. After all, we all eat etc. And as for the argument that the really rich society wife would benefit - just lower that 50% higher higher earnings threshold to compensate!

as for the feminist aspect, maybe considering families as a whole is a good thing - childcare, finance, etc, it should all be a joint problem!

To be honest, I do not see how the govt can do this: I understand how they can treat people as couples when the couples are asking for money from the state (although I tend to think this is wrong), but I cannot see how if a couple cohabit (not marriage) are both in employment and are asking for no benefits they can be forced to be taxed jointly.
I, for one, would deeply resent this imposition.
Anyone shed light on my scenario?

Isn't it the case that they can't (at the moment) force the situation - hence the idea of an 'honesty' tick box on the form?

I agree with LG - this might be fine if all else was equitable, but as it isn't this would be a huge backward step and the implicit message it sends is worrying.

I'm afraid the backward step happened years ago when Labour extended the family credit scheme to cover the vast majority of households with young children through tax credits. I didn't see much bleating then about the loss of independent taxation for women. Can't have it both ways.

If you read further up the thread some people didn't realise that and would have 'bleated' had they known. I read somewhere (on here) that arguably the difference is that you claim tax credits and therefore you choose to make dual income statements to HMRC. This is a benefit we used to all universally receive (if we had children) and now we are being asked to make dual income returns in order not to receive it IYSWIM. If you want to go back to married tax allowance yada yada so be it, but then you have the issue of co-habiting couples.

No I don't think they would. I think people are quite happy about any given situation when it means they receive something (i.e. tax credits due to their partner's income) but not so happy when the same situation means they lose something (i.e. child benefit). It's called hypocrisy and it's quite common.

Co-habiting couples is not an anomoly to a married couples tax allowance (provided such an allowance is available to those in civil partnerships too which it should be) because co-habiting couples can marry or enter into a CP if they wish. If they don't want to do that they don't get the tax breaks.

But if they don't get the tax breaks why should they declare joint income?

Okay may be people are hypocritical, but take that one step further and this policy won't work because people won't be 'honest' enough to tick the box...

They should declare joint income for the simple reason that those will be the rules. And if they make a false declaration they will be fined and have to pay it back, just as people do if they fail to declare changes in their income which affects their tax credits entitlement.

I will be losing my child benefit as I am not a higher rate tax payer but my husband is. I can't honestly say it will be a struggle to lose that money, but no one wants to be £81 quid a month worse off, of course they don't. I don't see any reason though why single mothers on benefits should suffer cut backs and I should get to keep my CB.

I abhor the idea of universal benefits and the middle class "buy in" to the welfare state - my buy in to the principle of taxation and welfare is that I can afford to contribute and the state will provide a safety net if I need it. The whole "what's in it for me?" mentality encouraged by universal benefits is wrong wrong wrong.

Not sure how I feel on this one yet - looking forward to lurking. In principle, I can see an argument for independent taxation. But, OTOH, we are finally getting income splitting here in NZ from next year (I think) which will be a godsend to many families where one person is a higher-rate tax payer and the other is a SAHD/SAHM or only has a PT job. Presumably that requires joint tax assessment to work?

So what you are actually saying is get rid of universal benefits? What you are saying (re declaring) is going to take a lot of work (and predictions are will take a huge chunk out of what will supposedly be saved..) My concern is not over the money (I, too will lose it, becuase dp is a higher rate tax payer), my issue is more to do with I don't see why I have to reveal my finances to dp or vice versa. (This is a principle thing, dp knows my finaces and I know his). I certainly don't have a 'whats in it for me' attitude (for whats it is worth for the time we could have claimed tax credits we didn't bother because it was such a pain in the arse)

So you don't actually mind your partner knowing your income, you just object to it "on principle"?

I gave up taking academic stances on things I didn't really care about and which didn't affect me in sixth form.

That's a shame Georgimama - we could do with some half decent politicians the world over.

Thanks for the patronising comment Georgimama - I was trying to have an adult discussion about it and if you don't care about it why are you on this thread? May be it doesn't affect you but it does affect an awful lot of women.

My point is my partner and I know about our income, but why is it any business of the tax system UNLESS we move to a household income system, or joint tax system which we currently do not have. The government claim they will fine people who fail to disclose this info, my question would be can you personally be fined for failing to disclose a benefit you personally are neither claiming or receiving? Seems to me they need to scrap child benefit totally and use the tax credit system instead.

what happens when you have a woman claiming CB for children who live with her, has an ex husband/partner who contributes via the CSA and a new partner/husband living with her who earns £50,000+. Who's tax do they take into consideration RE the CB?

marantha, if both couples work, joint taxation should still be a positive - basically you're combining the incomes and doubling the tax allowances/thresholds. It makes no difference if both people are in the same tax bracket but if one person is a higher earner and the other isn't at the higher earnings threshold, then you benefit.

Blackduck: I'm actually shocked that people don't think they should have to disclose their finances with their dp/dhs. That actually scares me - when you marry or co-habit with someone in many ways you are taking on their finances, their debt, their spending. I think it's much more of a feminist stance to insist on knowing...

But I agree that the tax system as it stands doesn't take joint finances into account and their handling of the child benefit is going to be a muddle.

I think abdn that it is actually the other way round - that men don't want/won't reveal to the woman. I do think you are right re knowing finances, my issue is more about being joint taxation being brought in by the back door and I would still argue it should be a personal choice.... If joint income taxation is to be used, then couple should also have joint access to lots of other things (pension righs, death in service etc. etc.)

Abhor universal benefits?

State pension, NHS, libraries, everything?

I suppose you could have a single means test, and everyone below the threshold could access things for free / receive them and everyone else would pay/buy insurance.

It's not a suggestion I've heard before but it has a merit of simplicity and is at least coherent (unlike many of the suggestions I read on here).

Child benefit was brought in to provide some income for women to look after their children, if they had a feckless or nasty husband who didn't give them any of their wages, wasn't it.

Is their evidence to show that this situation is now rare enough to warrant the abolition of this?