Married couples 'punished by tax system'

brummybloke

22k, that is in real terms AFTER tax, how much better my mrs and i would be if she moved out with our son.

that is per year in handouts, benefits, council tax reductions and so on, i know this because we worked it out, it almost made us seperate, 22k after tax is around £34k salary extra.

but it is what labour want, they want everyone to be single parent, state dependants, that way they are guarenteed to stay in power because they will always get the votes of those who are raking inthe money, this in tern lets all the labour mps line thier filthy pockets just like their mystical leader phoney B liar and the blair witch who still bleed this country of funds despite running like the dirty rat he is once he had plundered everything he could.

mizzbiz

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.

But what about all the NICS that those people have paid throughout their lives? They will have paid their pensions five times over so i don't think that your point is valid.

olly300

mizzbiz wrote: »

But what about all the NICS that those people have paid throughout their lives? They will have paid their pensions five times over so i don't think that your point is valid.

Unfortunately the UK system doesn't work like that.

You are currently funding today's pensioners. So if there is a dramatic decrease in birth rates and a decrease in the working population then your state pension and other things you require when you are elderly will be cut.

olly300

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

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.

By scroungers do you mean people with children?

MiserlyMartin

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Bring on a new allowance, couples with children allowance

Haven't we got enough bloomin' tax benefits for people with children already? Child tax credits etc. What do you people want from us, blood?

Seriously I think the idea of the married couple allowance is that people who are married are less likely to break up although thats debatable. Anything that encourges family values has got to be good because its the break down of the family that has contributed to the social and moral problems the country has today. If you can encourage the family through the tax system it helps. As I said before if a couple are not working no tax incentive is going to stop them splitting up but if the problems are money related it would be nice to see some help to a married family and not just single parents.

mizzbiz

olly300 wrote: »

Unfortunately the UK system doesn't work like that.

You are currently funding today's pensioners. So if there is a dramatic decrease in birth rates and a decrease in the working population then your state pension and other things you require when you are elderly will be cut.

Yes, absolutely. I realise this. But my response was to the comment that young, single people needed to contribute to benefit-wallers as they would be paying their pension. My point was that, regardless of where that NICS goes now, that persons pension has been paid over and over.

Also, if both parents are on benefits, it's quite likely the children see this as the norm and then go on to have the same lifestyle (except at an exponential growth to that of the parent generation). The message here is that benefits need to be cut now to prevent this happening. How much money will there be to pay Ians pension if the four-children benefit families get first dabs on the pot in 30 years time.

The_White_Horse

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

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.

i agree in principal. but the left won't stop paying out to scroungers. its their reason d'etre

MiserlyMartin

brummybloke wrote: »

22k, that is in real terms AFTER tax, how much better my mrs and i would be if she moved out with our son.

that is per year in handouts, benefits, council tax reductions and so on, i know this because we worked it out, it almost made us seperate, 22k after tax is around £34k salary extra.

but it is what labour want, they want everyone to be single parent, state dependants, that way they are guarenteed to stay in power because they will always get the votes of those who are raking inthe money, this in tern lets all the labour mps line thier filthy pockets just like their mystical leader phoney B liar and the blair witch who still bleed this country of funds despite running like the dirty rat he is once he had plundered everything he could.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The_White_Horse

mizzbiz wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. I realise this. But my response was to the comment that young, single people needed to contribute to benefit-wallers as they would be paying their pension. My point was that, regardless of where that NICS goes now, that persons pension has been paid over and over.

Also, if both parents are on benefits, it's quite likely the children see this as the norm and then go on to have the same lifestyle (except at an exponential growth to that of the parent generation). The message here is that benefits need to be cut now to prevent this happening. How much money will there be to pay Ians pension if the four-children benefit families get first dabs on the pot in 30 years time.

but their pension hasn't been paid at all, let alone over and over. People's tax and NIC are going towards pensioners today. If we all stopped having children, then no one would get a state pension in due course.

The_White_Horse

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

not at all. It is a scam in itself that hard working people are ripped off. if two people are on 30k each against one that earns 60k, they will probably be over 10k better off a year anyway, because they pay less tax. Then they get extra help when one goes part time, because they are now earning less that 60k as a household, but probably more that the household on 60k with only one earner.

its unfair.

it penalises the hard working.

it should be stopped.