Married couples 'punished by tax system'

auximinies

So lets get this straight - the argument is that tax breaks for married couples would keep people together?

So darling wife who has been having an affair, I may hate your guts but I can't afford to lose the £200 a year tax bonus I get for being married to you so I can't afford a divource. Yes I know that it would cost me thousands anyway in legal fees and a settlement to you, but that £200 in tax really is the thing that makes it unaffordable.

Yes, abolishing tax relief for married couples really is evil.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Mr_Matey wrote: »

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.

Lower taxation would still cover all these costs of supplying roads, hospitals and schools if there wasn't so much paid out to people who are on benefits. Why, for example, do people get Child Benefit if they have very big incomes and don't need the money? I often see on these boards that people say they don't touch the Child Benefit and it goes into savings for the kid. That's not the reason for Child Benefit!

Mr_Matey

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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!!

Persecuted? Don't be a drama queen.

Are you really worse off for working, or are you just complaining about not getting a top up from the government?
i.e. If you had no salary + benefits is that greater than your current salary?

Mr_Matey

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Lower taxation would still cover all these costs of supplying roads, hospitals and schools if there wasn't so much paid out to people who are on benefits. Why, for example, do people get Child Benefit if they have very big incomes and don't need the money? I often see on these boards that people say they don't touch the Child Benefit and it goes into savings for the kid. That's not the reason for Child Benefit!

Like I said, I don't think the welfare system works as it *should*. Means testing is the answer, not removing the system entirely.

chewmylegoff

ideas of couples being able to transfer tax free salary bands around are all very well, but this all has to be funded. the govt would have to cut the zero rate band to pay for it, or increase the income tax rate, or raise extra tax from you in other ways.

as for introducing a new allowance called "couples with children allowance" - what? in addition to the child tax credit is that?

you shouldn't have children that you can't afford.

shandypants5

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

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

I suppose I agree in a way.... If child benifit was abolished altogether then at least everyone would get the same..

The part I dont like is "oh your earning your own money", "well you wont want any handouts then will you"

We will just pay it all to the people who cant be bothered to earn more.

Lotus-eater

chewmylegoff wrote: »

as for introducing a new allowance called "couples with children allowance" - what? in addition to the child tax credit is that?

you shouldn't have children that you can't afford.

I totally agree.

I said that as an alternative to the married couples allowance that was being suggested. Don't take my posts out of context please.

cocktail

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.

I agree. get rid of all the benefits and make people earn their own money. The only exceptions should be the disabled and the elderly. only this can stimulate people to go out and earn a living,gain qualifications and earn some self respect. people who rely on state handouts in the third world are called beggers

chewmylegoff

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I totally agree.

I said that as an alternative to the married couples allowance that was being suggested. Don't take my posts out of context please.

i don't think i did take your post out of context. there is no need for an extension to child benefit, whether as an alternative to reintroducing a married couples allowance or anything else. households earning less than £60k or whatever already get state handouts in this area and there is no justification for any more on any pretext.

on a bit of a tangent, australia is currently paying $5,000 in cash to anyone who procreates. i hope we never end up in a situation like that. utterly bonkers.

Lotus-eater

chewmylegoff wrote: »

on a bit of a tangent, australia is currently paying $5,000 in cash to anyone who procreates. i hope we never end up in a situation like that. utterly bonkers.

Blimey, I could go there, have a really good holiday and make a fortune!