Married couples 'punished by tax system'

mumps

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 it won't matter if you retire and say "I have paid my NIC and tax" if there are no workers to pay NIC and tax when you retire you won't get a pension because there won't be any money to pay you.

By the way I have four children and yes I get child tax credit and child benefit but I also pay (and have paid prior to children) alot of tax and NIC, as does my husband. Maybe more than you? Did your mother collect her family allowance for you, did you get NHS treatment ever, did you get an education? Perhaps just look on it as paying back what you got and don't worry about what other people are getting now.

Kenny4315

It's Punishment Enough Being Married !!!

The Bar Stewards !!!

MiserlyMartin

cocktail wrote: »

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

If there was no welfare state then there would be no people breeding kids they can't afford to keep because they don't work. Problem solved. People now think hmmm extra kid = more money. I've even seen people who find their income has been reduced when the kids get too old for benefits so they have another one!

Get rid of the welfare state. If people didn't have a safety net then their generation would struggle and it would make them get up study, get qualifications, training, better themselves, get a job and you can be sure that the next generation would see how their parents struggled and would really be much better off as they grow up, study and do well.

In the USA you have to provide your own safety net in the form of savings, I think its suggested you should have 2 years net annual salary in the bank in case you lose your job - not expect the government - ie taxpayer to bail you out.

Mr_Matey

mizzbiz wrote: »

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.

$5k doesn't make much of a difference really. But at least the housing crash is happening here, the Aus bubble was bigger in terms of salary multiples and hasn't happened yet!

For me working and living in the UK is good financially. Good wages, good location for travel to Europe and loads of cheery smiley people on the tube every morning and evening.

chewmylegoff: I'm from Sydney originally and have heard similar stories from poorer areas. Not good, but I've heard similar tales from the UK of girls having children to get council housing. No system will be perfect.

Mr_Matey

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

Say I earn £60k. Then meet and marry a girl who earns nothing. Suddenly our joint incomes after tax go up under your proposal.

Surely this is unfair and penalises the alternate-universe single me, no?

Lotus-eater

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

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.

You think married people without children should get tax breaks, while unmarried people with children shouldn't?
Interesting morals you have there. If that's your family values, you can put them on a big stick and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Lets encourage family values. Umm, well lets encourage people to get married, spend loads of money they don't need to spend, on a wedding. What happened before people got married? Did the earth still turn?

Again I ask, what difference does marriage make?

chewmylegoff

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.

what those benefits really represent is what your wife would get if you did genuinely leave her. not some extra money you could get if you disingenuously (or rather, illegally) structured your relationship differently.

i'm assuming that your wife doesn't work if the benefit of you moving out would be that high. if that's the case then what do you think the appropriate system should be, should you decide to walk out on her? what benefits should she get to raise a child on her own if you genuinely left?

the only reason that the figure appears warped to you is that you are considering as extra money you could get if you broke the law.

cocktail

Lotus-eater wrote: »

You think married people without children should get tax breaks, while unmarried people with children shouldn't?
Interesting morals you have there. If that's your family values, you can put them on a big stick and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Lets encourage family values. Umm, well lets encourage people to get married, spend loads of money they don't need to spend, on a wedding. What happened before people got married? Did the earth still turn?

Again I ask, what difference does marriage make?

it screws ur life and the the tax breaks,etc is a govt. handout as compensation.:rolleyes:

Lotus-eater

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Get rid of the welfare state. If people didn't have a safety net then their generation would struggle and it would make them get up study, get qualifications, training, better themselves, get a job and you can be sure that the next generation would see how their parents struggled and would really be much better off as they grow up, study and do well.

Obviously said from a secure place in life.

The welfare state should be what it was supposed to be, a safety net, nothing more nothing less. All these extra tax credits and "make up your wages" extras are unsustainable and stupid. UK PLC should not be subsidising low wage businesses.

chewmylegoff

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

if you're that bothered about it ask for a 50% pay cut and send the mrs out to work.