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

salvador01

Why should a childless couple, married, civil partnership or otherwise, get an extra tax allowance. They already have two personal tax allowances, and are potentially living more cheaply than two can live individually.

The real debate should be over whether a couple with children, married or otherwise and living together, should get a further tax allowance.

There is also debate to be had over whether it should be possible to transfer personal tax allowances between a couple with children, if one parent chooses to be a "home maker", and looks after the children rather than working outside the home.

blue_shift86

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Poll started 05 Jan 2010:

Should married couples get a tax break?

This is so unfair. It's unfair on those of us that are socially inept and find it hard to get into relationships in the first place! However the whole "single parents" thing should be avoided because I don't think that is good for kids so...should a relationship involve kids, tax breaks for couples with children would be a good idea to encourage they to stay together. I think it's really unfair on kids who live with single parents not to be brought up with a father (or mother)

torbrex

*Wanted*

Single woman for tax relief sham marraige, all ages and conditions considered as it will be a one-time meeting only to sign paperwork.

Come on girls get your tax reducing marriage certificate while the going is good.

Mum_of_3_3

Here you go Torbrex take your pick http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8444360.stm

Of course according to lots of people posting in this thread these people engaging in sham marriages are more worthy of getting tax breaks than me & my long-standing partner or my friend who is happily singe at the age of 37, because everyone marrying are more educated, have more morals and would bring more stability to the country :rolleyes:

M_o_3

torbrex

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

Here you go Torbrex take your pick http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8444360.stm

Of course according to lots of people posting in this thread these people engaging in sham marriages are more worthy of getting tax breaks than me & my long-standing partner or my friend who is happily singe at the age of 37, because everyone marrying are more educated, have more morals and would bring more stability to the country :rolleyes:

M_o_3

I saw that hence the reason for my 'advert'
I am 50 and single and grudge paying more tax than someone just because they decide to get married.

Mum_of_3_3

matchmade wrote: »

Married people are currently penalised by the tax system, because you cannot claim two sets of Principal Private Residence allowances if you own more than one house. In other words, an unmarried couple can each claim to be single, so if each owns a property in their own right, neither will pay capital gains tax when the properties are sold. If you marry, however, you are only allowed one house between the two of you, so the other property is now exposed to CGT.

Myself, I think marriage should be encouraged in the tax system and in wider society. I have no spiritual or moral axe to grind here - I'm a practising atheist and humanist, and pragmatic. Survey after survey shows that unmarried couples are less stable and more prone to breakup than married couples. Marriage is not just a piece of paper, as people say: it's a social and psychological contract that says to the social world and each other that you're serious about sticking together..It also still has a few legal benefits that offer protection and security - guaranteed inheritance when one partner dies, for example, and guaranteed insurance and pension payments on death, and a presumption of the right to deed of attorney. These are not impossible to obtain if you are partners, but they are harder, and I think correctly so, because whatever partners themselves claim, it's clear from the evidence and from common sense that most people who remain long-term partners and don't get married do so because they secretly want a get-out clause. They don't believe in the benefits of marriage, they don't want the burden of the responsibilities, and they want the convenience of switching partners or going single when it suits them.

I'm not saying married people are saints, or that all partners are fickle, but the evidence shows that on balance, marriage is better for social stability, psychological health, and bringing up children within extended families and peer networks. Government is not just about revenue raising and spending: it also makes judgements about social priorities and cultural balance. The prevailing rhetoric is all about "vulnerable" people and "protecting the child", but no-one ever talks about ways to support ordinary adults, to encourage them to be better people without the heavy-handed social engineering that the current exhausted and played-out Government unfortunately indulges in. Based on the evidence and longstanding social norms, to me it makes sense to do more to encourage marriage, including use of the tax system.

Terry_D wrote: »

Spot on Matchmade - I'm with you! (just coming up to 31 years married - 2nd time around for both of us):T

Matchmade - If my partner & I were married and owned 2 houses, I really wouldn't care about CGT on selling the second, I would just count my blessings that I was wealthy enough to afford 2 houses at the same time

I take great offence at the way you automatically think that the reason my partner & I are not married is because we want a get-out clause :mad: It is just as easy to leave your wife/husband as it would be for me to leave my partner. I know 3 of my married friends have split in the last year and have got divorces no problem. In fact after a quick Google I have found a company that will do it for £69 http://www.quickedivorce.co.uk/ :rolleyes: We have wills to state that we leave everything to each other, our pensions state that the money will go to each other, unfortunately we are not wealthy enough to fall into IHT bracket so that doesn't count.

By having a mortgage with my partner & far more importantly by having children with my partner I judge that as more of a binding contract than a quickie marriage down at the registery office for £43.50 (cost of 'ceremony' + licence).

Also how can marriage make my partner & I more stable? Here are my recent experiences of marriage: -My brother got married 4 years ago after 2 years of being with his girlfriend. He divorced after 18months of marriage because his wife ran off with another man. -My partner's parents are still legally married although they haven't lived together for at least 30 years! -Friends who got married last year are now in the process of getting divorced as they can't stand each other any longer. -My friend has just left her husband after years of domestic abuse that she has covered up.
I know that if the above people hadn't got married they would've still split, but what I want to emphasise is that divorce is no longer a social stigma and is readily available. If you divorce or split form a common-law partner the considerations of the custody/access of children and share of assets are exactly the same, so what are the benifits of marraige??

But how can anyone say that any of the above relationships deserve a tax break more than my partner & I or a single person working hard to pay bills on one salary.

Terry D - I think being married twice doesn't really speak of the quality of marriage does it :rolleyes:

Why are people confusing a good marriage with good parenting? If you so wish I bet you could Google thousands of cases where children of married parents have been sexually, emotionally or physically abused.
Imho the breakdown in society has come from bad parenting (from married & non-married families), the 'me culture' that has grown since the 80's and the lack of community spirit that seems to be prevalent in so many places in the UK.

Rant over

M_o_3

corinne14470

The system presently is stupid and rewards people for not being in a couple...I split from my partner and then we are back together but I was better off single. Now that is stupid:mad:

ericthebrave

the most stable environment for kids to be raised in is marriage (or couples openly committed to each other long term) Whilst they care and provide for their offspring - the state doesnt need to spend much money helping them. But 'lose' living and relationship arrangements tend to be mory transient and give rise to greater relationship fall out.....so....... men...love yer wives and yer kids... And goverment - if you have to give out money in tax relief to encourage couples to stay together and get wed... then do it.

jrawle

Saetana wrote: »

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.

I'm glad we agree on most things. But what would you do to help those people who are unhappy being single (and may well wish they could be married and have a stable family life) but have no choice? After all, in many cases, these are people who are responsibly avoiding entering into an unsuitable relationship just for the sake of it (too many people feel pressured into being in a relationship just for financial and social reasons). Surely such people should be rewarded for not adding to the statistics of broken relationships.

jrawle

ericthebrave wrote: »

the most stable environment for kids to be raised in is marriage (or couples openly committed to each other long term) Whilst they care and provide for their offspring - the state doesnt need to spend much money helping them. But 'lose' living and relationship arrangements tend to be mory transient and give rise to greater relationship fall out.....so....... men...love yer wives and yer kids... And goverment - if you have to give out money in tax relief to encourage couples to stay together and get wed... then do it.

But that money only has to be for couple with children, surely, not just for married people who might never have children.

Also, what would you do to help single people who are unhappy being single and maybe also wish they could be married/have kids? Is it fair to penalise people by denying them a tax break when they have not chosen their current situation?