'Marriage Tax Breaks: Did I rig the poll?' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Penelope

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "Marriage Tax Breaks: Did I rig the poll?" Blog.

Please click reply to discuss below.

bylromarha

Yes, you probably did rig the poll with the wording, but I don't think it would have been much different. I looked at the statement following the yes/no rather than the yes /no. If that makes sense? Yes/No ?!

In answer to the final question, I think sensible legislation will take account of the sort of situations you describe. My calculations mean you lost your mum around the same time I lost my dad in the early 80s? Whilst I don't have a clue if mum and dad had any tax breaks due to their marriage, I do know that mum got widows benefit when he died - I remember queuing 8am at the PO every Tuesday before school to get it (and getting lots of treats from the elderly ladies that also queued at this time of day). I'm guessing that, were there any marriage tax breaks at that time, then the input of the widows benefit would have covered the loss, as it should be if the Blues win and put this policy in place.

WRabbit

I know it was a long time ago, but I'm sorry to hear about your mum.

Your dad would have (probably) lost out financially in taxation after your mum died. The married couples allowance existed until about 10 years ago for all couples.

It still does exist for older married couples and my grandmother was severely impacted after the death of my grandfather a couple of years ago. I'm not using exact figures here, but it will show what I mean.

Before my grandfather died.
My gran was a nurse and has a reasonable pension from the NHS - £500 per month. She also had her state retirement pension of about £70 per week.

My grandfather was a bus driver and had a small private pension of £120 per month. SRP of £100 and Attendence Allowance of £40 per week. AA is tax free.

Due to their ages they were entitled to the married couples allowance. All of this was transferred to my grandmother resulting in neither of them paying tax. Due to my gran's pension they weren't entitled to tax credits or any other benefit help.

They had an annual houseold income of about £18000 tax free

After my grandfather died:
His attendence allowance stopped.
His SRP stopped, although Gran's SRP increased based on his contributions - it rose £30 per week.
His private pension converted to a widows pension of £90.
She's entitled to a single person's reduction in the council tax (saving of £30 per month)
Still no entitlement to any other benefits due to her own pension.

Annual household income is now £12000 - a £6000 drop.

But the real kicker is she now has to pay tax on both her own NHS pension and her widow's pension from my grandfather's pension as she is now only entitled to the standard personal allowance (age related) of £9640 which eaten up by her SRP and part of her NHS pension. So she loses about a further £100 per month in tax (this is all from memory remember so figures are estimates). So take home income is down to £11000. I had to explain this to an elderly, grieving woman. It wasn't fun. Essentially her personal income increased due to his death, but then due to tax her actual personal income decreased.

Utilities are the same (probably more as my grandfather's not there to turn down the heating ). Her food bills are slightly less.

So yes - a married couples allowance can be a boon. But there's a big impact when it goes.

Paul_Herring

Well at least the question generated a fairly lively discussion thread ;D

jagu

There is a wider problem with the questions in that they don't clearly distinguish two separate issues.

The first is: "should the tax system recognise relationships?".

The second is: "who should be in control of whether the tax system recognises your relationship: you or the state?".

The second question means should HMRC make assumptions about your relationship, if you're not married, that you don't necessarily make yourself?

I believe everyone should have the option of being in a state-recognised relationship or not. The best way would seem to be for marriage or civil partnership to be the state-recognised option.

Errata

Did you pilot the poll, say, amongst staff / colleagues ? If so, the clumsy wording should have been picked up at that point. If you didn't, perhaps that's something that needs to be given some thought; what you write and the way you write is one indicator of ability, skill, knowledge and experience. Giving the right impression important.

A good subby would also have picked up the clunk.

Paul_Herring

jagu wrote: »

I believe everyone should have the option of being in a state-recognised relationship or not. The best way would seem to be for marriage or civil partnership to be the state-recognised option.

Which requires expenditure to get a bit of government issued paper to say it's there. And more expenditure to get another bit of government issued paper to say it's dissolved 7 months*/6 years* later.

How about using the council tax register? If two (3?/4?) people live at the same address fr more than x days/weeks/months they're 'eligable' to be considered 'together' if they apply for a license to say that they are? (not that different from applying for a marriage license or a civil partnership really)


* chosen at random.

Richard019

If you're wanting to try wording the poll differently to see how words bias the result why not a straight Yes/No question like this:

Should there be a tax on being single?

---

The whole principle of a couple's allowance only ever seems to be looked at from a starting position of being single, entering into the relationship and seeing a saving on tax. If your starting position though is in a relationship then what it amounts to is "if you seperate we'll increase your tax bill".

It seems particularly nasty on single people when you consider the vastly reduced costs of two people living together as a couple compared to the same two people living single lives. Half the mortgage cost (I've a 2 bed flat, if I was living with my gf we'd still only need a 2 bed flat), half the gas/elec costs, only one TV licence, one phone package, one broadband package, only paying 2/3 on council tax (2 properties at .75 = 1.5 as opposed to 1.0 as a couple living together), etc.

You could argue it's to help raise a family, is that not what child tax benefits should do though rather than a couples one?

WelshGandalf

I think it's more likely your personal viewpoint made you surprised at the results...?

I think you could've added more options though, eg "Yes but only if they had kids" would've been the option I would've ticked. This is more-or-less what the Tories are offering so would've made it more topical too!

artumi_richard

If changing the No to a Yes in the question alters the poll then there is a bias, and you can't tell which one is the 'wrong' one. They both are. Perhaps a question like "Should tax breaks be given to: (tick all that apply):

Married couples without children.
Married couples with children.
Single people not caring for children.
Single parents, caring for their children.
Co-habiting couples without children.
Co-habiting couples with children.
Widows and widowers with children.
Widows and widowers without children."

Then "Which one of the following are you:

Married couple without children.
Married couple with children.
Single person not caring for children.
Single parent, caring for their children.
Co-habiting couple without children.
Co-habiting couple with children.
Widow or widower with children.
Widow or widower without children."

This combination would allow you to determine how many "I deserve a tax break" replies there are, how many "Everyone deserves a tax break" replies there are, and lets you deal with them in your final analysis.

anthony_hunt

When the current bunch got in, they took away the "Married mans" tax allowance (worth around £4200 in 1997) and gave me the "Children's tax allowance" worth around £400 now.

So the government took £40,000+ from me in the last ten years to finance a goverment department that never needed to exist!

Not only that but my wife who is raising our children, cannot work as term-time only employment is virtually non-existant and her tax code lies idle.
Why can't couples with children (married or not) carry over their spouse's tax code?