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

davidrholmes

Should go even further - Tax break for families.

When my kids were younger, my wife couldn't work full time so my income had to support all of us - hard times.

Now my kids are older I still have to bail them out because of University costs, low wages, etc... fortunately my wife now works, though due to the long break in her career and despite having gained an OU degree, her salary is much less than women who continued in their career and she has little time to build-up a pension of her own.

Our children will have the additional tax burden of paying for the care of an increasingly elderly population, with over-the top house prices, and increasing cost of higher education, they will need better tax breaks that even we had!

hethb28

Very, very interesting debate. I too am quite surprised, although perhaps I shouldn't be, at the prejudice people have shown on here.

I personally believe the only reason the Tories are suggesting this is to encourage couples to marry a) because they believe that this is the only way to have a stable and successful relationship and family unit, and b) because they think it will win them votes - judging by the poll results on here they're right!

I believe it's discrimination and that they are living in the past. I do not believe that marriage is still the best way to have a stable family unit. I believe that's dependant on the extended family. Whilst I do think it's important for children to have parents who love one-another and that they have, where possible, both male and female role models in their lives I don't believe marriage is the answer to this.

I think one of the biggest problems is that over the past couple of decades parents have chosen not to, or have been unable, to spend quality time with their children in all areas such as play, learning and discipline. I don't think that's anything to do with marriage - it's to do with increased pressures as they are working longer, or in some cases they just don't realise the importance so leave their kids to play etc. on their own. (I know this from work I was involved in at a charity to do with family learning and the impact it has on children's development).

In my own situation I have been with my partner (opposite sex) for nearly 13 years. We have a mortgage, share all of our bills etc. and plan to start a family as soon as possible. We choose not to marry for several reasons including: we aren't religious, can't afford a traditional wedding, don't really see why a piece of paper is required to show our love and commitment for each other. Pls note that i'm not against marriage but I do get annoyed with some married couples' holier than thou attitude especially if they've been together less time than my partner and I have.

Oh and for those who have said that there's no way to prove someone's in a stable co-habiting partnership then can you explain why, after only 6 months, my partner and I were assessed for council tax (he was out of work) and were told that we were classed as co-habiting so would receive nothing because I was working?!

Navvie

I am surprised there are so many naysayers.

The effort a lot of money savers go to everymonth to make a few extra pound, and yet some of the money savers who are in stable relationships won't get married if tax relief were available?

Hypocrites.

WelshGandalf

hethb28 wrote: »

I personally believe the only reason the Tories are suggesting this is to encourage couples to marry a) because they believe that this is the only way to have a stable and successful relationship and family unit, and

No, they're saying it's the best way. There are exceptions but the statistics back this up. Labour's view is "have your relationships any which way you want, they're all the same in our book."

b) because they think it will win them votes - judging by the poll results on here they're right!

Yup, that's democracy. If they act on the will of the people, the people will vote for them.

I believe it's discrimination and that they are living in the past.

Well there's 66% of us living in the past then :rotfl:

I do not believe that marriage is still the best way to have a stable family unit.

I can find some numbers for you if you want?

I think one of the biggest problems is that over the past couple of decades parents have chosen not to, or have been unable, to spend quality time with their children in all areas such as play, learning and discipline. I don't think that's anything to do with marriage - it's to do with increased pressures as they are working longer, or in some cases they just don't realise the importance so leave their kids to play etc. on their own. (I know this from work I was involved in at a charity to do with family learning and the impact it has on children's development).

Ah, I agree with you here! Do you not think, if they had more money, they wouldn't be under so much pressure to work long hours?

In my own situation I have been with my partner (opposite sex) for nearly 13 years. We have a mortgage, share all of our bills etc. and plan to start a family as soon as possible. We choose not to marry for several reasons including: we aren't religious, can't afford a traditional wedding, don't really see why a piece of paper is required to show our love and commitment for each other.

Would you marry if there was a tax break available?

Saetana

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

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: 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).
M_o_3

Oh dear, Matchmade (who, by the way, I completely agree with) has offended you so now you are offending me (amongst others I would imagine). A registry office ceremony is the only choice possible for those of us who have either no religious beliefs at all or whose faith is non-Christian to get legally married. And what on earth has the cost got to do with anything? In my experience people are no more likely to stay together because of children or mortgages than those of us without either (and I am grateful every day that I have neither, but that is just my personal choice), just look at the number of single parent families these days. I am not saying all single parent families are that way from choice, my husband comes from a single parent family due to the early death of his father.

I have been happily married for twenty years and, like most people, we have gone through occasional bad patches. I am not so sure we would still be together if we had been living together. Regardless of this long-winded and increasingly acrimonious discussion there appear to be around two third of us who would like to see the married couples allowance reinstated.

qetu1357

Saetana wrote: »

Oh dear, Matchmade (who, by the way, I completely agree with) has offended you so now you are offending me (amongst others I would imagine). A registry office ceremony is the only choice possible for those of us who have either no religious beliefs at all or whose faith is non-Christian to get legally married. And what on earth has the cost got to do with anything? In my experience people are no more likely to stay together because of children or mortgages than those of us without either (and I am grateful every day that I have neither, but that is just my personal choice), just look at the number of single parent families these days. I am not saying all single parent families are that way from choice, my husband comes from a single parent family due to the early death of his father.

I have been happily married for twenty years and, like most people, we have gone through occasional bad patches. I am not so sure we would still be together if we had been living together. Regardless of this long-winded and increasingly acrimonious discussion there appear to be around two third of us who would like to see the married couples allowance reinstated.

You can also get married in an approved premise, such as a hotel, by the registrar.

It certainly makes getting people from the 'service' to the reception a lot easier!

roddydogs

adwat wrote: »

Births / Deaths / Marriages are recorded events in most societies. Therefore, can be used to allocate a tax break for couples.

How do you propose to record co-habitation? Do you really suggest that HM Government should be legally informed of every persons whereabouts in the country as a whole? In this way addresses could be cross checked for co-habitation as you suggest. Also, imagine the opportunity for fraud. All the means of "proof" you suggest are completely open to fraud.

Don't get me wrong, I think that couples co-habiting should get a tax break as well, as me and my wife did for years, but they should have to enter into a formally recognised civil partnership to qualify, otherwise anybody claiming to be a couple can defraud the system.

And excatly how do you prove that "Married" people are living together? Under the old system you had to be married AND living together.

roddydogs

The original question in the poll was totally biased to wards married people (The Majority) of course they will vote to pay less tax. How about another poll

---

do you think that unmarried people should subsidize married ones? OR "Do you think we should all pay less tax" vote now!

coco1980

i don't think alot of people on here are against married people getting the break altogether we just think that a couple living together or a cp should get the same treatment, many of you say that you deserve it as when you start a family one of you need to give up work etc, well the same applies for any couple starting out,
as i have said before i am classed as a single mother, i have always worked and the only benefits i have recieved are tc. since my partner(not my sons father) moved in with us this has stopped but if i had to stop work they would deny me any help because of his earnings

jrawle

wildthing01 wrote: »

there are many permutations of how couples with children manage to bring in money (e.g. one may have to give up work to look after the kids, as childcare so expensive, so they won't necessarily have 2 incomes as many are suggesting, or both may have to work, simply to keep a roof over their heads, and thus have to miss out on spending time with their children).

Quite right, and this goes to show why the proposed "tax break for marriage" is far too simplistic, as it would reward everyone who is married, regardless of their situation, and regardless of whether they have children. Most people on here say they support the measure because people with children deserve more money, yet that's not what this tax break is targeted at. Let's face it, this is just intended to pander to those with right-wing moral values.

davidrholmes wrote: »

Should go even further - Tax break for families.
...

That's not going "further", that's proposing a completely different tax break. The question was whether people should get a tax break simply for being married. It has nothing to do with families. I hope you voted no, because clearly you would prefer a more sensible system of tax breaks that rewards families not just married people who may well have no children.

Navvie wrote: »

The effort a lot of money savers go to everymonth to make a few extra pound, and yet some of the money savers who are in stable relationships won't get married if tax relief were available?

Hypocrites.

So what do you suggest ardent money savers do if they have been unable so far to find the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with? A sham marriage? A relationship with someone who isn't right for them, which will just end in divorce a few years down the line? Time and time again, people reply to here with the assumption that everyone has the choice between (a) being married, (b) living in an unmarried relationship with their partner or (c) choosing to be single. Please remember that there is a sizeable category (d), that is all the people who would love to have someone for companionship, but aren't able to. Many of those people already have to watch the pennies in order to survive on one income, yet you would now give then a kick in the teeth by supporting a tax break for couples who are often already better off.