Married couples 'punished by tax system'

DW123_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

I'm sorry but I find that offensive. I'm not asking you to pay more.

I'm not sure whether my family has anything to do with the tax I pay for health insurance. i just think it's a taxable perk regardless. perhaps some tax guru could clarify??

chunky79

DW123 wrote: »

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.

I understand your point, but thats just over £400 a month which to some/most people is alot of money. I am sure i would have been grateful for this tax relief in the past in fact now it would be quite nice. That would cover my mortgage payment and then some left over.

olly300

DW123 wrote: »

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.

If you didn't have Private Medical Insurance it's unlikely that you would bother going to your GP to claim for an illness.

DW123 wrote: »

Anyway who would own up to having a sporting injury if you knew you wouldn't get treatment on the NHS?

People don't know they won't get treatment on the NHS.

Some people don't know they need a physio to help them get back to proper functionality when they have twisted or sprained something. When they ask their GP what they can do their GP is evasive and doesn't bother to refer them as the waiting lists for NHS physios are long.

There as because I have been and am a member of sports clubs, and have access to physios, sport scientists and people really in to their training if I have an injury I know to ask them first for an treatment or if they aren't registered at least an opinion.

Then if I need prescribed drugs go to my GP and say I think I've done x and y.

DW123 wrote: »

And if you do have one it's much quicker if you make a claim on your health insurance.

Agreed.

However if you end up with terminal cancer or have a heart attack it will be the NHS who will treat you. If you have a private operation and something unfortunately goes wrong so you need intensive care it will be the NHS who treats you.

Ember999

Mr_Matey wrote: »

This article fails to mention that a couple living together saves money on a lot of things. Rent, gas, electricity, food bills etc are all lower for 2 people living together than 2 people living in different places.

House-sharing is cheaper as well, but it's not the same as living with a partner. If she's able to get council housing then him move in then that's a flaw.

White_Horse, I disagree that you should be entitled to tax concessions because your wife doesn't work. That would just discourage women from work even more.

When less women worked (which the Government have changed, they try to force women out to work) there was less family breakdown, less dysfunctional children, less women on anti-depressants, less knife-carrying teens and less of everything. The married man's tax allowance should be brought back and more women could then stay at home and look after their families themselves rather than being forced to pay childminders and nurseries to do the job they want to do. Also, if less women worked there would be more jobs for men, and less men on the dole.

olly300

Ember999 wrote: »

When less women worked (which the Government have changed, they try to force women out to work) there was less family breakdown, less dysfunctional children, less women on anti-depressants, less knife-carrying teens and less of everything. The married man's tax allowance should be brought back and more women could then stay at home and look after their families themselves rather than being forced to pay childminders and nurseries to do the job they want to do. Also, if less women worked there would be more jobs for men, and less men on the dole.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ember999

olly300 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why the smirk? I was brought up to believe the man was the provider? Is that not your opinion? When life was like this, men working and providing for their families, there were families and not reams of single parents on benefits.

The_White_Horse

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i don't really see why i should pay even more so that your family can have some free money.

the point is, most people don't want free money from you or anyone else. they want to keep more of their own money that they have earned. However, this govt is obsessed with tax and take and take and take to give to underserving scum bags on their 5th or 6th child.

The govt should not penalise the married couples, they should penalise the single mothers. children are better off being raised in proper familes. not in grotty council flats or houses with staffies, and fat illiterate mothers in tight leggings feeding the kids chips whilst smoking, all paid for by the likes of me.

help people who help themselves. don't help layabout social underclass scum.

roddydogs

What exactly is new in all this? its been known for years!

chunky79

Men are the providers and women run ragged running round after the kids the house and the men!!!

Sorry but i do have to disagree with you, what happened to pulling together and working as a team?

I have 4 children, a 20 hour a week job, and my partner works away Monday to Friday and this is only possible because we work as a team. I have a hectic life, no dysfuctional children and no antidepressants here.

As for the knife carrying teens you put this down to working mums? I put it down to lack of good parenting with rules and boundaries which is set out at an early age.

The_White_Horse

women, get back home and look after the kids. you lot having "careers" was a fun experiment, but the outcome of it all is that society is being ripped apart. stop being so selfish and make me my dinner.