Married couples 'punished by tax system'

MiserlyMartin

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?

Yes I do. A married couple without children is not usually going to stay childless. Some married couples are medically unable to have children, some may not want to have them through choice. They should not be penalised through tax due to this. The married couples allowance was there quite openly accepted and welcomely claimed for years before Labour came along to destroy the family unit and encourage the single parent through tax. As regards costs, nobody is forced to spend anything on a posh wedding, they can just turn up at the registry office.

SingleSue

The other point to consider is that loads of couples have children when they CAN afford them and then years down the line, something goes horribly wrong and they find themselves at the mercy of the benefits system.

We could afford all of our children, I was working and earning more than the national average salary per year at the time (way way more) plus also had a husband who worked.....now look at me.

I may be using tax payers money now but I was once a very well paying tax payer for many years and I hope to be once more in the future.

Oh and I have never voted labour, never will, so it sort of puts holes in the theory that all benefit claimants will vote for them.

chewmylegoff

Mr_Matey wrote: »

$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.

yeah that's true enough. i think they're changing the aussie system so that it is staged payments and means tested next year, rather than an upfront cash payment. might improve it.

MiserlyMartin

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Obviously said from a secure place in life.

Actually no my job could go any day now. If that happens I'm off to work at Mc Donalds or temping. I'm not going to claim, I don't think I could even get anything anyway by the looks of things. Unless I arranged for some kids to pop out, blew my savings.......

neverdespairgirl

Cat695 wrote: »

Sorry NDG I can't marry you now if I'm going to be 20% worse off

The govt has ruined my life!

jamesd

The headline should really have been "Parents pretending to be single cheat benefits system and stay in poverty".

"It found, in one case, that where a lone mother earned £10,000 a year, and her partner earned £25,000, they were £5,473 worse off if they decided to live together. If the lone mother did not work, they were £4,522 worse off for cohabiting."

Easy solution: stop the benefits for the mother to stop the gaming of the system. The benefits she's getting are supposed to be for those who need them, not to reward her for pretending not to have a partner. What she's doing is unfair to both working couples and single parent families.

"One in five of those who stopped receiving benefits did so to move in with a partner, it said, suggesting that more couples might live together if they were rewarded in tax breaks."

And that's the honest one in five who aren't trying to game the system to take benefits that they don't really need and weren't intended for them.

"The report found that marriage combined with full-time work was the best way out of poverty for couples with children."

We clearly need to do something about this abuse of the system, so we can help the couples and their children out of poverty. I suggest that the traditional Conservative values are used, to try to eliminate gaming of the system so that hard-working married couples aren't worse off than benefits system gamers. Surely that's a cause the Conservative Party will support?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with those who need means tested benefits receiving everything the benefits system entitles them to, of course. The only problem is when those who don't need them stay in situations just to get the benefits, so the benefits system ends up harming them instead of helping them.

Lotus-eater

SingleSue wrote: »

The other point to consider is that loads of couples have children when they CAN afford them and then years down the line, something goes horribly wrong and they find themselves at the mercy of the benefits system.

We could afford all of our children, I was working and earning more than the national average salary per year at the time (way way more) plus also had a husband who worked.....now look at me.

I keep trying, but you repeatedly refuse to sent me the photos with the custard creams :rolleyes:

I hope your hypothetical couples were married when they had these children, otherwise MiserlyMartin would have branded them and made them walk the streets carrying a placard saying, I dared to be unmarried and have children, look at my sin.
And on the back.
"By doing so, I brought down the morals and values of this country"

neverdespairgirl

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

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.

Don't be silly. Throughout history there have been children who starved, died, were sold into slavery, worked from the age of 5, or were abandoned, when there was no welfare state.

DW123_2

mizzbiz wrote: »

People do what is best for themselves. It's human nature and has been going on for centuries. Conscience and guilt rarely come into it when bringing up a family are concerned. If the ability to do something exists, it will be exploited. Ask any accountant, lawyer, sole trader or benefit 'thief'.

And before I get hounded, no I do not claim benefits of any kind, have children or a council house. I just see it from a more rational perspective.

Hear, hear!!

I live with my partner who cannot work due to a serious disability. Having worked for 17yrs her employment was terminated through ill health. My salary is the sole income (she does get incapacity benefit though & DLA). Here's where some of you will disagree with me. I am a 40% taxpayer and with what's left over when the treasury has taken their share is used to pay mortgage, household bills, etc and raise a 5 yr old. The couple across the road both have jobs (both lower band tax payers). My gripe is they are allowed to keep a larger proportion of their cobmined income even though they earn slightly less than our total household income. This cannot be fair. Income tax should be based on gross houseehold income.


Furthermore because the cmbined income is more than the threshold for child tax credits we get nothing. They get something.

SingleSue

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I keep trying, but you repeatedly refuse to sent me the photos with the custard creams :rolleyes:

I hope your hypothetical couples were married when they had these children, otherwise MiserlyMartin would have branded them and made them walk the streets carrying a placard saying, I dared to be unmarried and have children, look at my sin.
And on the back.
"By doing so, I brought down the morals and values of this country"

Believe me, you would choke (in horror) on any custard creams if you saw a pic of me with or without the biscuits!

And hehe to the second paragraph.....