Married couples 'punished by tax system'

1echidna

There is the old adage that two can live as cheaply as one. Carries a bit of truth as there are certain fixed costs which make two dwelling places more expensive than one. Not particularly defending gov't policy just putting the point of view that a bit of extra money in benefits is not likely to be a major factor why families break up.

pickles110564

whathavewedone wrote: »

I should add that clearly this government is only interested in giving away money to the people who are most likely to vote for them.

They have shamelessly courted the very rich and created a situation whereby their core voters are dependent on the state and won't be biting the hand that feeds any time soon.

No different to any other Government.

lynzpower

whathavewedone wrote: »

I should add that clearly this government is only interested in giving away money to the people who are most likely to vote for them.

They have shamelessly courted the very rich and created a situation whereby their core voters are dependent on the state and won't be biting the hand that feeds any time soon.

As a result of this we have economic meltdown and who is going to suffer most? The middle classes - especially married and cohabiting couples with children who have had to stretch themselves to buy a decent home for themselves and their families.

Not sure I agree on the first bit. Labour only managed to get into power for the sheer volume of people who voted for them- from all economic strata. Mondeo man now lookig to swing back to the Conservatives for some semblence of fairness.

As I see it there are scores of people like me ( me, my freinds, my relatives etc) who find themselves in a total double bind.

We have been to uni ( with government encouragement lets not forget) paid the debt off ( or are still doing so) into our 30s. We are trying to achieve- weve stuck at our education, and paid for it in order to build a career for ourselves so we can support ourselves without state help- and onwards- im 32 this year and would love to have children- well at least one- but quite frankly it looks like we shall never be able to afford that self sufficiency. Both OH and I work full time and save as much as we physically can- in order to be able to feather our nest when the time comes.

But that time simply cannot come- without us being reliant on state benefits or support of some kind from this ever decreasing pool of taxpayers. Whichever which way we look at it, that quite frankly, we cannot afford for one of us to drop to part time work in order to have children. But how can this be? Im a graduate ( not a particularly well paid one mind you!) - OH has been out of work for no more than 4 weeks in 14 years of working. We are not scroungers and nor would either of us ever wish to think that we could have a baby without being able to support our family. Its difficult to change jobs into something better paid ( particulalry in my industry which is shot to bits now) espcially given the fact that if I dont do a year somewhere then i wont get maternity pay from the employer.

Therefore it wont happen.

And herein lies the problem. Those of us who are sensible, conservative with the small c, and want to be able to look after ourselves- cant.

House prices is one problem, after all- if we were renting a small flat and paying council tax- and this is not even including utilities- would take almost 100% of OHs wage. Me part time on shelfstacking wages would simply not be enough to feed us and get OH to work and clothe us. Hence tax credits/ housing benefit top up and all the rest of it tots up and hurrah we might be able to afford to live.

If we cant afford to have children then, you know what Ill be fine, we have resigned ourselves to this possibility in any case. I did used to be a social worker and I saw,met and worked with some of these "baby-machines" as they are so called on here. Personally I would never swap places with them- no matter what- its my belief that these young women ( who were predominantly my clients) have such poor self esteem, that the lure of having a child love them unconditionally is the drive ( or keeping a dysfunctional relationship together) - not the money. Of course many would prefer to say "they need the money wheres my giro" in this brazen society- than actually admit that their lives are so empty- after all so many I met had never worked, and did not know anyone that had worked ( one teenage mum I worked with said the only person she knew who had ever worked was me, her social worker) Half of my clients would not be able to fill in a job application alone, let alone get to interview. Thats the problem .

And no, I dont think a married persons tax allowance is right. A flat rate is my personal favourite of all choices. It encourages people to work and encourages people to set up businesses and generally get what they can.

One tax break I can see being useful is that if you pay for your child to be educated privately then you should get a tax break, or if you have private medical insurance. Not a particualrly big tax break, but I think that those who can afford to pay not to use the system should get a bit of cash back to thank them for not putting more pressure on a system that simply cannot cope.

kennyboy66_2

martynh99 wrote: »

Well said!

We have the luxury that I earn a good wage, my wife doesn't work and has stayed at home to look after our kids.

I earn above the 40% tax bracket.

If we both worked and we both earnt 50% of what I do now, we would both be below the 40% tax bracket and would both have a tax free allowance aswell as more of the salary being taxed at the lower rate.

Our net income would increase by approx £8k

The tax rates should (in my view) be based upon the household income of a couple (married or living together). It'd be a nightmare to implement but would be a much fairer implementation.

I really doubt that there are circumstances where your take home would be £8k higher.

I reckon £5.5k would be the best anyone could be better off in similar cicumstances. That would not pay for nursery for 1 child.

neverdespairgirl

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.

Some women want to work, enjoy their work, and are good at it. (The word "fewer" is soooo needed in your post, really it is!)

The great thing now is that more women have choices about working or not working.

neverdespairgirl

Ember999 wrote: »

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.

No, it's not my opinion, anyway.

My Granny's father pushed off when she was 3, and never provided a penny thereafter. And life was pretty tough for a woman in her early 20s with no husband, two very young girls, and no benefits, in the early 20th century.

lynzpower

The great thing now is that more women have choices about working or not working.

Do you really think so?

I think women have the choice to work- but there are certainly none I know of that can afford not to.

martynh99

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I really doubt that there are circumstances where your take home would be £8k higher.

I reckon £5.5k would be the best anyone could be better off in similar cicumstances. That would not pay for nursery for 1 child.

Fair comment, I ran the figures about 2 months ago and thought they were £8k, just run them through again and it came out at £5993. (www.listentotaxman.com)

As for nursery fees, the kids are older than nursery age now so we don't need to take that into account.

neverdespairgirl

Yes. My best mate's pregnant, and not planning to go back to work after the baby's born.

PasturesNew

Tax mens' willies.