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

pegginout

YES!
(Message has to be 10 characters or more)

mcgazz

There's a good article on the Financial Times website explaining why transferable tax allowances are a terrible idea: http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2010/01/05/the-idiotic-debate-over-marriage-tax-breaks/

For the record, I'm separated, so could claim a married person's tax allowance even though I'm not living with my wife.

qetu1357

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Because marriage is a religious thing, not a political thing (despite the politicians meddling with it)?

Why should a couple be 'discriminated' against because of some religious ceremony, in which the - let's be honest - religion doesn't really mean that much to many people these days?

You can get married without it being a religious thing.

You can get married at a registry office or indeed the registar can marry you at an approved place, for example a hotel.

unimatrix0

You shouldn't be rewarded or penalised financially based on the lifestyle choices you make. Not just on the question of marriage. Children too. Why should parents be rewarded for having kids? If you cant afford them don't have them. Dont expect the rest of society to pick up the tab for you.

cw18

The option I want isn't listed.

If a couple are both working, then they get two tax allowances.
But if one works and one runs the home (so not taking a job that can then be taken by someone else, which could mean someone coming off benefits), then they only get one.

I can see an argument for making the 'stay at home' partners tax allowance transferrable - but only if they can't use it. It shouldn't be movable so that ones pays a lower rate of tax on 100% of their income while the other avoids paying higher rates by using the 'additional' allowance.

cw18

Spendless wrote: »

I've no idea what the rules were when you were a child Martin, but I know when my SIL became a single parent (thru divorce) in the early 90's she was able to claim what was then the married man's allowance, so you could have the extra amount as a single parent.

Yep, I used to get that - the additional amount on the tax code was exactly the same, but when paid to a single parent it was called 'Dependants Allowance'.

I got it from late 84 (when I started paying Tax) until the end of the 92/93 Tax Year, (when I lost it due to getting married). Not sure when it was removed, but think it was a few years after that

Trunk_z

Personally, I think that marriage is an outdated institution. Why should married people get a reward, and others not? It's simply not fair.

I've heard statistics thrown around here, at Uni, the news etc... That children are more likely to be more "useful" to society from a married family.

However, I think that this, as well as a lot of statistics are misleading, for example:
There was less global warming hundreds of years ago, and far more pirates. Now there that there are fewer pirates, there is more global warming? Coincidence? No, not really, it's just rubbish.
I do however think that most children do need strong family values (not necessarily from a standard definition of a family however) to 'make it'.

Anyway, if I had to marry to get a reward, then I would do so just for that. I don't need to be married for my relationship to be more meaningful to me, and I'm not bothered how others see it.
Perhaps I'm 'breaking' the traditional values of marriage... but maybe silly ideas shouldn't be thrown around.

Paul_Herring

qetu1357 wrote: »

Paul_Herring wrote:

Because marriage is a religious thing, not a political thing (despite the politicians meddling with it)?

Why should a couple be 'discriminated' against because of some religious ceremony, in which the - let's be honest - religion doesn't really mean that much to many people these days?

You can get married without it being a religious thing.

You can get married at a registry office or indeed the registar can marry you at an approved place, for example a hotel.

Not really you can't - you're missing my point. You can get a marriage licence (the government's meddling part) without it being a religious thing, and it is the marriage licence that people think of when discussing 'marriage' in this context.

Now, apart from the sex of the two participants, explain to me the difference between a civil partnership and acquiring a marriage license without a religious marriage? Bearing in mind that some people for beneficial tax laws (back to government again) for those with a marriage licence are against the same tax laws applying to those with a civil partnership (See Post #4 for example.)

To preempt the (irrelevant) "for the children" arguments, we already have allowances for them. For example if you have 14 children (another article,) you can get the equivalent of a £51,000 wage in state benefits alone. (She has a 15th on the way, and he won't work[1]) And, not that it matters in the slightest in this case, they are married.

[1] They say:

And although Mr Cain is able, he's definitely not willing. He and wife Dawn admit their New Year's resolution is never to find work, because no job they'd get in Britain's recession-hit economy will come close to paying the same. They're sticking with the gift that just keeps on giving - benefits.

coco1980

claire5005 wrote: »

Sorry but I think that teenage single mums are the !!!!less ones

do you think all teenage single mums chose to be that way, and would i be more !!!less if i became a single mother when i was 20 instead of 19?

minted007

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Poll started 05 Jan 2010:

Should married couples get a tax break?

It's hit the political headlines, but is it right for the tax system to reward the institution of marriage?

Which of these is closest to your view?

A. Yes. Marriage should be rewarded.
B. No. Though stable relationships, married or not, should be rewarded.
C. No. Relationships shouldn't play any role in the tax system.

Please vote here, or click post reply to discuss below. Thanks

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

I think B. But can anyone suggest a fairer system.?