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?

Mind you if you did the single means test I think you'd end up with really huge resentment towards the people who qualified for benefits & services. I think that socially it would cause more problems than it would solve.

Thank you, abdnbiker, but what if two people (both in full-time employment, no children, not seeking to claim any benefits- common enough scenario) do NOT wish to combine their incomes either on principle or because they are not sure that they wish to do so yet?

Are they penalised in some way? It seems absolutely fricking ridiculous to me if they are, tbh.

Seems to me this stupid bloody government are just putting out any random ideas out there and relying on the 'Sir Humphreys' of this world to point out the flaws (what's new?)

Riven AFAIK, it may be beneficial to be taxed as a couple.
But my point is this: a lot of people move in together on a casual basis not wishing to disclose financial details to the other, it happens a lot.

There are just too many anomalies in this ridiculous stupid policy. We all know about the single/dual income anomaly which sees a family on 45k lose child benefit whilst a family on 80k keeps it.

What about 2 single mothers. Both divorced. One receives virtually nothing from her exdh. She therefore goes out to work, earns, let's say 45k, and is a HRT payer. She also has to pay childcare costs. She loses her child benefit.

The other receives a princely sum from her ex - let's say a million pounds a year....(just for the illustration). He also pays all the childcare for her children. She doesn't work. She retains her child benefit, because maintenance payments are not taxable.

Riven It's not odd. Why is there the assumption that living with someone always means full-on commitment? It doesn't.
It just doesn't work that way. In my youth, I lived with a couple of guys- some of them feckless. It would have horrified me to be classed as financially linked with them!

But riven, what if you and your dh split up, and you had to move in with a friend for a bit - should their tax status affect whether you get child benefit or not? Because this is the sort of question that hasn't been answered. You might be flat-sharing, or you might be co-habiting (whether your friend is male or female).

You are right, Riven There is an anomoly between tax and benefits system. To be cynical, the government taxes people as individuals when it comes to tax and as couples when it comes to (certain) benefits.
The truth is that they maximise the amount of money they can screw out of people this way.
Perhaps taxing couples as couples would iron out the anomoly and as long as nobody was penalised when they're asking nowt from state, I wouldn't mind.

Personally, I would like to see everybody treated as individuals in their own right. Yes, it would mean that marriage in the financial sense would cease to exist and the principle if a couple divorced would be- you get what you came with/what you can prove you came with. But I think this would be preferable.

Horrific. That kind of s**t is one of the (many) reasons why I believe why people should be seen as people in their own right and not on who they are sleeping with.

I am married and know how much my DH earns but our finances are separate. We won't be effected by these changes as we both earn too little but I don't think it suggests a lack of commitment to not pool money jointly. We pay half of everything and whatever we have left is ours. I don't keep tabs on what useless geeky gadgets my DH buys or resent the fact that he spends his own money on these things. So long as we both continue to pay fairly for the things we share like mortgage, bills, food etc then we're both happy to keep things as they are.

So... I don't see why my wages should ever be linked to his by the government really?

LilyBolero Hey the actual gender of friend doesn't enter into it- after all, lesbian and homosexual people can now (RIGHTLY) marry now, can't they?

maranatha, that was my point, that you couldn't say that a friend of the same sex was not part of a couple, or that a friend of the opposite sex wasn't.