Married couples 'punished by tax system'

martynh99

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Originally Posted by The_White_Horse
However, i firmly believe that I should be entitled to receive the benefit of her tax free allowance each year (if not all of it, then most of it). Its a crime that I am not entitled to.

You can, just go self employed and do it that way.

Not everybody works in an industry where they can just go self employed - and going down that route of 'employing' the wife for tax purposes is illegal.

SingleSue

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

When are we going to see benefits and tax advantages for a working single person with no kids? It's us that are paying the highest costs of all with no handouts. No Child Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Council Tax benefit (except a miserley 25% discount for sole occupancy), we have to pay for prescriptions, etc etc etc.

A simple solution would be to tax everybody the same and at a lower rate and give no state benefit to anybody. That way, if you can't be bothered to work and spend all day in bed producing more offspring, you have to earn something to keep them.

A simplistic view but it works for me.

What happens if you are unable to work?
And I don't just mean personal illness....

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

SingleSue wrote: »

What happens if you are unable to work?
And I don't just mean personal illness....

They'd need to rely on family and friends or learn to adapt to bring in an income.

JayZed

martynh99 wrote: »

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.

It shouldn't be that difficult to implement. The US has the option of joint filing for married (but not co-habiting unmarried) couples.

The_White_Horse

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 agree 100%. I have many self-employed friends who halve their salaries by employing the wife. therefore, despite earning less than me, they take home more after tax. very unfair.

Married peoples taxes should be calculated differently to those who aren't married. Nothing to stop those living together getting married, if they want to benefit.

this lousy govt wouldn't do it, in case a islamic fundamentalist lesbian dwarf was offended by it.

martynh99

JayZed wrote: »

It shouldn't be that difficult to implement. The US has the option of joint filing for married (but not co-habiting unmarried) couples.

Was thinking more of our govts track record in implementing (and choosing the supplier) any new systems :rotfl:

shandypants5

I can understand that SOME benifits should be means tested, but why did my wife and I have to fill in several Tax forms full of information that the tax man already knew, so that they could decide howmuch childtaxcredit we were allowed??

And why should I have to CLAIM it ? they know who we are where we live where we work and how much we earn (they tax me on it so they must know)
Surely if its child allowance everyone should get the same ?
Why should we get less just because I try to earn as much money as I can by doing more hours.

The money I earn should be ours to keep, and any child benifit should be paid the same to everyone.
You have 1 child you get a set amount, 2 children a bit more,3 abit more,4 nothing extra...you are becoming a drain on everyone else

Mr_Matey

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

When are we going to see benefits and tax advantages for a working single person with no kids? It's us that are paying the highest costs of all with no handouts. No Child Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Council Tax benefit (except a miserley 25% discount for sole occupancy), we have to pay for prescriptions, etc etc etc.

A simple solution would be to tax everybody the same and at a lower rate and give no state benefit to anybody. That way, if you can't be bothered to work and spend all day in bed producing more offspring, you have to earn something to keep them.

A simplistic view but it works for me.

It works for you because you think you'd be better off.

Your taxes also pay for roads, hospitals, schools to be built. You may not use these things but they are needed for society. As are children.

I feel that your views will change if you have kids. They are a lot of (unpaid) work and I'd rather a few tax bucks go into making sure they have the basics than GB fluffing it on some poor economic decision.

Simply put, single people with no kids don't get as many benefits because a lot don't need them.

I don't have kids, and I don't think the welfare system works as it should, but no system at all would be a disaster.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

shandypants5 wrote: »

The money I earn should be ours to keep, You have 1 child ...you are becoming a drain on everyone else

That's the opinion of the hard working, single, childless people of this Country.

The_White_Horse

i get no child credit at all. this is because the lefty govt thinks i am rich. i am persecuted for having the cheek to work. No one should get LESS for working.

my child was given 250 by the govt when born. However, if i didn't work and claimed benefit, the child would have been given 500. Why does the child lose out because the parent works?????? its nonsense.

after paying all my bills, i have next to nothing left each month. i am not rich!!