Married couples 'punished by tax system'

olly300

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

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

No it's not.

It may be strange to you but some people have more than just a nuclear family.

Though the tax and benefits system is a complete mess.

olly300

auximinies wrote: »

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.

Good point.

I presume the posters arguing for joint tax allowances want to go back to the days where men controlled all the finances in marriage. Oh well at least it helped stop women divorcing them...............

Mr_Matey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

The baby bonus in Australia is an interesting one. The generation it's targetting (mine) has been ripped off financially in almost every other area by this and previous baby boomer governments.

We have to pay for uni courses, they didn't (I left uni with over $20k in debt), rents and property is much more expensive than when they grew up, and we have to fund the age pension and increasing medicare costs of the ageing population. And by the time we hit 65 we will have saved a lot due to compulsory superannuation so the age pension probably won't be as good for us.

The end result is that a lot of couples put off having kids until they're financially secure, and that's now age 30-35, not early 20s. The baby bonus tries to reduce the debt and falling birth rates.

So far it's worked to an extent, but it's not means-tested which means everyone pockets it. Still anyone who has a baby for the bonus is a fool, as kids cost a lot more than $5k to raise!

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

olly300 wrote: »

No it's not.

It may be strange to you but some people have more than just a nuclear family.

Though the tax and benefits system is a complete mess.

I'm not sure what you are saying? Surely the childless, hard working, singles would prefer not to have to fund other peoples families regardless of their size!

The_White_Horse

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Yes, but there is a vast difference on how much tax you pay if one person earns 60k rather than two people earning 30k!!! can you not see this?

chewmylegoff

Mr_Matey wrote: »

So far it's worked to an extent, but it's not means-tested which means everyone pockets it. Still anyone who has a baby for the bonus is a fool, as kids cost a lot more than $5k to raise!

my GF's brother works in a hospital in brisbane. he's got some stories about new teenage mothers asking for the $5k within seconds of the baby being born, and other similarly depressing scenarios

i'm not a huge fan of the tax credit method of distribution of benefits - but personally think the $5k baby incentive might have worked better as a tax credit than a cash handout, in terms of targeted encouragement.

The_White_Horse

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are saying? Surely the childless, hard working, singles would prefer not to have to fund other peoples families regardless of their size!

But these singles won't complain when other peoples children pay their pensions for them, look after them when they are elderly, become their doctors, carers and volunteers.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

The_White_Horse wrote: »

But these singles won't complain when other peoples children pay their pensions for them, look after them when they are elderly, become their doctors, carers and volunteers.

If people were taxed less and not allowed to be dependent on the state in later life, then they could afford to take out a pension or other investments. The taxes that are taken would cover the costs of doctors and health care if they stop throwing money at scroungers.

chewmylegoff

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Yes, but there is a vast difference on how much tax you pay if one person earns 60k rather than two people earning 30k!!! can you not see this?

yes i can. i don't think it's got much to do with anything though. that's how the tax system works - income tax is a tax on individuals income, it's not a tax on household income. you don't get to save thousands of pounds in tax just because you got a certificate from the registry office.

all that would result in would be people trying to scam the system to get the married couples allowance, rather than people scamming the system to get the single mothers benefits.

mizzbiz

Mr_Matey wrote: »

The baby bonus in Australia is an interesting one. The generation it's targetting (mine) has been ripped off financially in almost every other area by this and previous baby boomer governments.

We have to pay for uni courses, they didn't (I left uni with over $20k in debt), rents and property is much more expensive than when they grew up, and we have to fund the age pension and increasing medicare costs of the ageing population. And by the time we hit 65 we will have saved a lot due to compulsory superannuation so the age pension probably won't be as good for us.

The end result is that a lot of couples put off having kids until they're financially secure, and that's now age 30-35, not early 20s. The baby bonus tries to reduce the debt and falling birth rates.

So far it's worked to an extent, but it's not means-tested which means everyone pockets it. Still anyone who has a baby for the bonus is a fool, as kids cost a lot more than $5k to raise!

It's the same situation in the UK for my generation, except the baby bonus is about £250, and the parents don't actually receive it. We've been raped and hammered from every direction financially. TBH at least Australia has the weather to take the edge off. Apart from family, I can't see any benefit to living in the UK for young, hard working people.