Married couples 'punished by tax system'

chewmylegoff

brummybloke wrote: »

i think you are missing the point, rather conviniently

the point is, as im sure you are fully aware, by living as a family we are getting whacked, where as if we split up, for what ever reason, financially or what ever, we would be financially£22k cash better off .

ignore it all you want, they are the facts.

i completely understand that. however, the fact is that the purpose of those benefits is to provide a safety net to a single parent who genuinely needs them.

and you wouldn't be £22k better off if you split up anyway, as your calculations include you renting out the house you currently live in for £9k a year. if you actually broke up then you would still be living in it.

you would be £22k better off if you defrauded the system.

if you genuinely split up, then your oh would get social housing and a bit of tax credit - hardly "better off". you would benefit to the mighty tune of a 25% saving on your council tax, although obviously the CSA might come calling.

London05

Married couples used to have both their incomes taken together for tax puposes. It was blatently unfair to penalise people for getting married.

Lets face it tax credits are a job creation scheme anyway and the benefits system is out of control. What happened to the NI scheme ? If we only paid benefits to people who had paid into the scheme the claimants would get a more realistic amount.

Also child benefit should not be universal - lets face the Royal family could have claimed it for their kids, and cap it at 3 children if you want anymore you need to pay for them yourself.

My mum said you never used to get it for the first child in the 1960s.

Lets just pay the genuine, and not the baby machines who have never worked a day in their lives .:mad:

odowdchr

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.

The other way was to take it a step further....."single" mother in flat continues to produce children, then applies for and is allocated a larger council property, preferably a house, hopefully detached with land and in a better area more suited to families.
Mother transfers to large property, miraculously then finds "partner" and they purchase the property in the occupiers name on "right to buy" scheme.

Somebody i knew did just this and received 60% discount off market price (paid about £42,000 instead of £120,000ish)...immediately built an extension adding 2 bedrooms and a playroom, a new walled garden and double driveway....now worth about £170,00 (but dropping )
After 5 years they can then sell it privately, clear about £100K profit, increase the mortgage and move into a bigger house in a better area.

That's the problem with our transformed society today.....morals are only for reminiscing about. If you live by those morals you'll probably finish a distant second to those who work the system. Every man for himself etc..

DW123_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i completely understand that. however, the fact is that the purpose of those benefits is to provide a safety net to a single parent who genuinely needs them.

and you wouldn't be £22k better off if you split up anyway, as your calculations include you renting out the house you currently live in for £9k a year. if you actually broke up then you would still be living in it.

you would be £22k better off if you defrauded the system.

if you genuinely split up, then your oh would get social housing and a bit of tax credit - hardly "better off". you would benefit to the mighty tune of a 25% saving on your council tax, although obviously the CSA might come calling.

I don't want to take sides but I agree with brummy bloke. If I moved out of this house she would be entitled to council tax discount and all the other benefits that go with having no job and a family to look after. I would offer to pay her a fixed amount per month to support the child. I then move back in with her and take advantage of the extra cash. It's fraud i know, but until the tax system is made fairer it is tempting. The other alternative is to move her and the son out, apply for a council flat (children go to the top of the list) and when she gets that rent the flat out to some immigrant. I know this will annoy everyone who reads it. I wouldn't dare do it but like I say the tax system is unfair.
Incidentlly my family gets free medical insurance from my employer. I have to pay tax on that too even though my employer is saving the NHS thousands.

olly300

DW123 wrote: »

Incidentlly my family gets free medical insurance from my employer. I have to pay tax on that too even though my employer is saving the NHS thousands.

Not necessarily.

It depends on what you use your health insurance for.

If it's for say sports injuries then it's near impossible to get treatment on the NHS unless you are completely broken. So if your sports injury is a twist or sprain you will have to pay for physio treatment out of your own pocket if you don't have insurance.

DW123_2

olly300 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Sorry I didn't understand your point. You mean not necessarily saving the NHS thousands? My experience is Private Medical Insurance is great except for the tax.

Anyway who would own up to having a sporting injury if you knew you wouldn't get treatment on the NHS? And if you do have one it's much quicker if you make a claim on your health insurance.

chewmylegoff

olly300 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

It depends on what you use your health insurance for.

If it's for say sports injuries then it's near impossible to get treatment on the NHS unless you are completely broken. So if your sports injury is a twist or sprain you will have to pay for physio treatment out of your own pocket if you don't have insurance.

the bleedin' NHS wouldn't treat me for a torn ACL, on the grounds that i could still limp.

robsta_2

When i met my (ex) girlfriend a couple of years ago, she was receiving single-parent benefits, tax-credits, etc. With two children and a low income, she received enough in benefits to live a resonable life and bring her children up the best she could.

When i moved in, my wage took the combined income over the tax-credit threshold and the biggest part of the benefits stopped. However, because of my own relatively low income at the time, and my financial situation, i couldn't afford to replace the money that she had lost in benefits and still maintain a reasonable lifestyle that i was able to afford us before moving in.

Over three years this started to create a lot of strain and animosity, eventually spelling the end of our relationship. So i agree, that being in a couple significantly penalises that couple in comparison to being single.

And also, why should my income be taken into account when deciding what child benefits/EMA/university grants are metered out? I loved her kids to bits, but at the end of the day they weren't mine- they have a dad, and am i wrong in thinking that it should be the parents income that these funds are assessed on, and not a new partner who comes into the childs life 15 years later? This is also an issue that can create a lot of resentment, despite the best intentions.

A friend of mine works full time for his dad, doing over 45 hours a week, however he only takes a wage for and declares a 16 hour week, because to take a wage for the work he actually does would make him and his family worse off. Go figure.

chewmylegoff

DW123 wrote: »

I don't want to take sides but I agree with brummy bloke. If I moved out of this house she would be entitled to council tax discount and all the other benefits that go with having no job and a family to look after. I would offer to pay her a fixed amount per month to support the child. I then move back in with her and take advantage of the extra cash. It's fraud i know, but until the tax system is made fairer it is tempting. The other alternative is to move her and the son out, apply for a council flat (children go to the top of the list) and when she gets that rent the flat out to some immigrant. I know this will annoy everyone who reads it. I wouldn't dare do it but like I say the tax system is unfair.
Incidentlly my family gets free medical insurance from my employer. I have to pay tax on that too even though my employer is saving the NHS thousands.

unfair unfair, everything's so unfair isn't it.

i get free medical insurance from work - i pay no tax on it. it's only taxable when it extends to your family. there you go, you can complain about how unfair that is as well.

the fact is that anyone who is taxed will perceive it as being unfair. it's just tough. i pay 40% tax on a good deal of my income, i think that's unfair because i don't see why i should get taxed more for earning more, but the fact is that i can afford to pay more tax so i get clobbered with it.

i don't really see why i should pay even more so that your family can have some free money. it doesn't sound like you're on the breadline - your combined income must be over £58k to exempt you from child benefit. stop moaning, you're perfectly fine.

DW123_2

iWhen i met my (ex) girlfriend a couple of years ago, she was receiving single-parent benefits, tax-credits, etc. With two children and a low income, she received enough in benefits to live a resonable life and bring her children up the best she could.

If you had received her tax allowance as well as your own would it have made a difference? You would have been allowed to keep a further £5k or so without paying tax. That was the point in my previous posts.