Married couples 'punished by tax system'

bubblesmoney

was just wondering what the general view on the board was about tax disincentives for staying together and whether that is fair.

see this article

Dylanwing

Totally true - There was a problem with lone parents struggling, so Gordy fixed it and created a new problem. The trick is for single mother to get Council house, then working partner moves in, but stays registered at an alternative address, usually parents. Single parents benefit PLUS a wage = very comfortable lifestyle. It is wrong, but no different from the way that the wealthy exploit tax loopholes, or MP's exploit unaudited expenses. It will get worse as Gordy continues ending child poverty, as he fails to realise that 'child poverty' is caused more by incorrect expenditure (drink, fags etc) rather than lack of income.

shandypants5

I find it annoying that having a "normal,ish" family (Both working, married, 2 kids buying our house) I am finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

But I know of several people/families near us who choose a "Different" lifestyle and seem to be better rewarded for it.

ragingbass

I think the article just confirms what everyone knew already doesn't it? I try not to think about it too much beacuse I just end up getting annoyed and wonder why I go out to work

Cat695

Sorry NDG I can't marry you now if I'm going to be 20% worse off

Pennywise

Dylanwing wrote: »

Totally true - There was a problem with lone parents struggling, so Gordy fixed it and created a new problem. The trick is for single mother to get Council house, then working partner moves in, but stays registered at an alternative address, usually parents. Single parents benefit PLUS a wage = very comfortable lifestyle. It is wrong, but no different from the way that the wealthy exploit tax loopholes, or MP's exploit unaudited expenses. It will get worse as Gordy continues ending child poverty, as he fails to realise that 'child poverty' is caused more by incorrect expenditure (drink, fags etc) rather than lack of income.

You fail to see the real difference which is the law. It is against the law to continue to claim single person benefits when a partner moves in. It isn't against the law to utilise tax loopholes or take expenses. They can't be compared at all. Rather than turning a blind eye to benefit fraud, I'd rather people kicked up more of a fuss about the legal anomalies to get them stopped.

SingleSue

Dylanwing wrote: »

Totally true - There was a problem with lone parents struggling, so Gordy fixed it and created a new problem. The trick is for single mother to get Council house, then working partner moves in, but stays registered at an alternative address, usually parents. Single parents benefit PLUS a wage = very comfortable lifestyle. It is wrong, but no different from the way that the wealthy exploit tax loopholes, or MP's exploit unaudited expenses. It will get worse as Gordy continues ending child poverty, as he fails to realise that 'child poverty' is caused more by incorrect expenditure (drink, fags etc) rather than lack of income.

But that is just plain wrong! I would never be able to live with myself..but then I am far too honest for my own good at times.

I used to say the odds were stacked against being a married couple and there was no actual incentive for couples to stay together but it isn't just about money. Yes, I do receive benefits but we were better off before as I could work and do extra shifts and hubby would receive bonuses (very decent ones too!) but it is the company in the evenings, the cuddles, the adult to talk to, the free childcare that I miss most.

We had at one point been at the same level as those claiming benefit but we also had the scope to improve our lot and climb away from those levels by hard work and applying ourselves which made it worth it.

wymondham

Surely there should be no tax incentive to either live together or apart. It could be worse if people live together purely as it costs less - not really a good enough reason in itself to have a family etc...

chewmylegoff

bubblesmoney wrote: »

was just wondering what the general view on the board was about tax disincentives for staying together and whether that is fair.

see this article

i don't really think there should be any fiscal incentive for being married. i don't see the need or the logic behind that. it's not the government's job to say how people should legally structure their relationships.

the point the article is making is basically about the loss of benefits for a low earning or non-working mother if she cohabits with a more highly paid partner.

it is not clear from the article how they have calculated this; however, i suspect in their pursuit of making a point they have completely ignored the savings made by only having to maintain one home rather than two, which would probably more than offset the "lost" benefits.

Dylanwing

You fail to see the real difference which is the law. It is against the law to continue to claim single person benefits when a partner moves in. It isn't against the law to utilise tax loopholes or take expenses. They can't be compared at all. Rather than turning a blind eye to benefit fraud, I'd rather people kicked up more of a fuss about the legal anomalies to get them stopped.

The point is the definition of 'moving in', and gathering sufficient evidence to prove the case. Most of these people know exactly how to play the system to make it hard to gain a conviction. My comparison is based on the fact that they exploit these loopholes for personal gain. I agree about not turning a blind eye, but similarly, we should not turn a blind eye to tax avoidance as this costs the UK far more than benefit fraud, nor to the excesses of MP's as they should be setting an example. Benefit abuse really pi**es me off, but then you see smug scumbags like Cooper & Balls fiddling the expenses system, and the wealthy doing exactly the same with tax dodges, and you realise that they are only doing the same as everybody else who gets the opportunity, and yet only benefit abusers get demonised in tabloids and on forums.

Andy_L

Having seem similar articles before, ISTR that most of the "better off" is because the separate couple get 2 lots of housing benefit and 2 lots of council tax relief and the like. Whilst they are 20% better off in total cash terms they aren't in terms of disposable income.

As far as transferable tax allowances I don't see why a married couple (with no children) should be able to pay less income tax than anyone else.