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

pfantasmes

griffo74 wrote: »

why should you pay less tax when your bringing in 2 incomes? makes no sense to me. I think its a very old fashioned idea and in a way a penalty for being single!

I fully agree. The old married persons tax allowance was for originally meant for one income households where one of the adults stayed at home to look after the kids. If both are working full time why should they pay less tax just because they are married.

There is already enough tax breaks for couples with kids

jrawle

qetu1357 wrote: »

Women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than wives to be abused. In one study, marital status was the strongest predictor of abuse-ahead of race, age, education or housing conditions

Again, there is no proof that cohabiting is a cause of domestic violence. To suggest so is a misuse of statistics.

As it says, marital status is a predictor, in other words, if you look at the whole population, women in unmarried relationships are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. I would suggest that's becasue certain types of people have been more likely to marry, e.g. people in higher socio-economic groups.

In years to come, if marriage continues to decline in popularity, and therefore becomes less popular among a wider range of social groups, the statistics you quote will change. Marriage will become a less good predictor of domestic violence becasue it is not a cause.

BVM_2

Topics like this get me down. I'm a single male, no children (my choice), low income, but not low enough for any form of benefit, and a mortgage. All I'm doing is to try to support myself the best I can.
With increasing population and the strain that this is placing on resources, maybe I should have a tax break for not having children?
Their is a fantastic emphasis on family and children in the UK, but what about the individuals struggling and couples that chose not to burden the system by choosing not to have offspring?

harryhound

BVM.

................but who is going to choose your care home ?

BlueAngelCV

I voted C.

Why should it matter if you're married? Or in a stable relationship for that reason?

Let's reward people for useful things which help society as a whole rather than something completely arbitrary like being married.

Saetana

jrawle wrote: »

Because they are being financially rewarded for good luck, as if having a much happier life wasn't already reward enough.



No, not everyone who isn't married chooses to be unmarried. You are assuming everyone is either (1) in an unmarried partnership or (2) married. What about the people who are single, not through choice, but becasue they haven't met the right person? They don't even have the option of marrying.

Also, state benefits are intended to support people who are really stuck, hard up and in poverty. Too many people just see benefits as money they are entitled to as a reward for being unemployed, rather than emergency money to keep them going if, and only if, they need it. If your partner brings in enough money to see you through periods of unemployment, you don't need money from the state, which should be a last resort. People with savings face the same situation. If two people earn the same for years and A spends it down the pub every Friday while B saves it all, when they are both made redundant, A will get means-tested Jobseeker's Allowance and B won't. So how about an extra tax break for savers (it's high time tax on savings was abolished, but that's for another thread...)

Maybe I could have been a little clearer - when I referred to people having choice of whether to marry I was referring to unmarried couples who are living together as some people seem to object to the idea of married couples being treated differently from unmarried couples.

As for unemployment/sickness, I find it sickening that those who have never worked get the same amount of benefits (I'm not talking about people who have always been incapable of working) as those of us who have contributed taxes, and I've known more than a few over the years. My husband and I spent a year in The Netherlands when we were younger and, whilst they have a basic amount for people out of work/sick, benefits for those who have been working are based on the wages they earned.

Something needs to be done to restore family values in this country, admittedly it is arguable whether tax breaks are the answer but I don't think its a bad thing.

dktreesea

I thought this tax break was going to mean that if, for example, there is just the one person working, this would be regarded as joint family income and therefore the overall rate of tax would be lower. Say someone was on £50K and the partner was staying at home. Then they would declare an income for tax purposes of £25K each. The overall tax paid would of course be much lower, because both people's tax free allowance would apply instead of just the earning person's.

If this is how it is going to work and if it will only apply to married couples, then it is possible that you could get a whole lot of sham marriages. I lived in a place where it worked like this once, and when I was at uni I knew quite a few people who got married to high earning people just so that they could split the income. They then shared the resulting tax break. The higher earner was better off because he/she ended up paying a lot less tax overall, and the student was better off because they got a share of the savings, which in some cases were quite considerable.

roddydogs

SimbaK2K wrote: »

Anything to keep single parents from being single parents and claiming far too much benefit! I think its a great idea. There are so many broken homes especially around poorer areas these days, it would increase the likelyhood of people trying to stay together.

To be honest I'm sick of the sight of single mums getting far too much benefits around my area. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a single mum, but certain areas have very high numbers of single parents, not working, and just sitting on the dole having more babies. Its a crazy world we live in.

How many more times? Single parents with dependants got the Married Allowance!!

alerton

Molotovjack wrote: »

Why not give single people a tax break? Obviously it's harder to get a mortgage and run a car as well as a host of other things while single. A married/ co-habiting couple have two wages coming in so it's a lot easier so why do they need a tax break? I ask you.

I agree totaly Molotovjack. As a single childless guy I fail to see why I have to work over 60 hours a week to make a living (on minimum wage) just to subsiedise the lifestye choices of others. As a rule we tend not to be a drain on any services (NHS, schools, benefits system etc.) We have nobody to share out living costs with and now it seems we are being asked to pay even more into the tax system than any other group :mad:

qetu1357

jrawle wrote: »

Again, there is no proof that cohabiting is a cause of domestic violence. To suggest so is a misuse of statistics.

As it says, marital status is a predictor, in other words, if you look at the whole population, women in unmarried relationships are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. I would suggest that's becasue certain types of people have been more likely to marry, e.g. people in higher socio-economic groups.

In years to come, if marriage continues to decline in popularity, and therefore becomes less popular among a wider range of social groups, the statistics you quote will change. Marriage will become a less good predictor of domestic violence becasue it is not a cause.

Yes the people who get married are people who are more likely (not always) to be responsible but the very fact that people are married must also change, and on average improve, their behaviour.

We need to encourage people to have the behaviours that most, not all, married people have versus unmarried people.

We can do this by financial benefits and also as a society by encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves, for their families and for others.

Currently the system/society actively encourages people not to take responsibility and indeed, for some, to be postively irresponsible.