'Should married couples get a tax break?' poll discussion

harryhound

I know of several legal unions where 130,000 was enough of an incentive to tie the knot.

I even know of an example where females A & B lived as a household with male C (and D & E who were teenage children).

A gave the household's building (a 100 year old terraced house but inside the M25) to B.
B got diagnosed with cancer.
B married C.
B died leaving property to C.

Result A C D & E kept the roof over their heads.

By the way don't try this at home as the A to B transaction no longer works.
Gordon Brown now calls this a gift with reservation.

My conclusion is that in the 1960's the government spent about 25% of our money on our behalf, it now spends more like 50% of our money on our behalf -- I don't feel twice as free, twice as secure and living in an economy that is twice as dynamic.

When you subsidise something, you get more of it.
Need more single parents - subsidise them.
Need more people who give up trying to earn a crust - increase sickness benefit.

Perhaps we need less tax and less benefits.

Personally I would educate young people to realise we are living in an unsustainable global economy, living in a country which has squandered its natural & intellectual advantages, and is now running an unsustainable borrowing policy from the rest of the world .
So, if you, as a member of a household, cannot pay your way, you are facing a grim future. Benefits can only be cut in real terms. If you have a negotiable skill consider emigration.

Harry

PS A was the widowed grandmother worried that the household members would lose the roof over their heads trying to pay the InHeritance Tax.

qetu1357

harryhound wrote: »

When you subsidise something, you get more of it.
Need more single parents - subsidise them.
Need more people who give up trying to earn a crust - increase sickness benefit.

I expecially agree on this.

We need more people with children to be married for the benefit of the children, the parents and society

Hence the need to encourage people to be married and just one way to do that is to offer finanical incentives to married couples RATHER than encouraging people to be single parents.

Bobl

qetu1357 wrote: »

I expecially agree on this.

We need more people with children to be married for the benefit of the children, the parents and society

Hence the need to encourage people to be married and just one way to do that is to offer finanical incentives to married couples RATHER than encouraging people to be single parents.

I think you are missing the point, being married does not signify a stable happy relationship and therefore the perfect environment to bring up children. A couple in a loving stable relationship is the best option for children, whether married or not. A State licence does not come with a guarantee of a stable relationship.

qetu1357

Bobl wrote: »

I think you are missing the point, being married does not signify a stable happy relationship and therefore the perfect environment to bring up children. A couple in a loving stable relationship is the best option for children, whether married or not. A State licence does come with a guarantee of a stable relationship.

And a relationship is much more likely to be stable if the partners are married as parents who are married stay together (on average, not always) longer than those who are not.

Bobl

qetu1357 wrote: »

And a relationship is much more likely to be stable if the partners are married as parents who are married stay together (on average, not always) longer than those who are not.

Staying together for a long time does not constitute a stable relationship, it could just be a long term unhappy relationship where the woman and children are terrorised by an abusive male and is too frightened to leave (for example).

A state licence proves nothing.

qetu1357

Bobl wrote: »

Staying together for a long time does not constitute a stable relationship, it could just be a long term unhappy relationship where the woman and children are terrorised by an abusive male and is too frightened to leave (for example).

A state licence proves nothing.

True, but on average marriage is better than non-marriage for children, adults and society.

peterwaine

Inheritance tax

davyhulme

The true meaning and morality of marriage is not and should not be based on financial issues so imho there is no sound reason for tax breaks to encourage marriage.

It appears to me like the suggestion of tax breaks is a misguided easy option to "solve" a social/ morality issue. Taking the easy option is very prevalent in all recent social behaviour issues. Ban it or tax it but the problems are never addressed.

No_more_usernames

Sequeena wrote: »

Why shouldn't stable couples get a break?

Or even single working parents?

I'm new to this, please forgive me for sounding a bit daft

Why should you get a tax break for being in a "stable" relationship (married or not)or for having children?

Parents already get a handout from the child trust fund. They also get
Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits. Means tested benefits always have a child component. Family concessions are frequently available at visitor attractions. What more do you want?

You could just as easily also argue that as single childless tax payers are financing many systems that they do not actually use - such as schools, playgroups etc. it should be they who get the tax break!

Ultimately I do not favour any one section of society getting a tax break over another.

I am a parent in a stable relationship by the way.

adriantanis

The tax system currently is almost on the verge of discriminating against married couples. Recognising marriage in the tax system will level it slightly. Please let me explain.

1) As a married couple, the two of you can only consider one main home to be capital gains tax free. If you're not married, you're allowed two homes cgt free.

2) For tax credit assessment, it's the joint incomes of the couple that's being taken account of. This means that each of the couple doesn't have to earn significant amounts for them both to be over the £60000 ish threshhold. For the single person they can individually earn up to the $60000ish threshold before being refused tax credit.

3) Similarly for jobseekers allowance, housing benefits, council tax relief etc you name it, again it's the joint income being assessed. For the individual they can each earn up to this allowance.

If you take the above into consideration, the married couple probably lose out to the tune of hundreds if not thousands of pounds a year compared to an equivalent couple who are separated or not married. Is this fair?