Losing 1400 when partner moves in

zagfles

anguk wrote: »

Just out of curiosity do you know how much the married man's tax allowance was? We didn't have tax credits when my kids were young, my husband did get the married man's tax allowance but I don't remember it making a huge difference to his pay packet. This was abut 25 years ago though so I can't really remember but I would think people are better off on tax credits than the married man's tax allowance?

The married couples'/additional personal allowance varied but was usually about 50% of the personal allowance. Also prior to about 1981 there were child allowances of around 30% of the personal allowance per child.

So a man supporting a wife and 3 kids would get well over double the allowance he got when he was single. In today's money terms, an allowance of about £19500. A "real man's" allowance!

People on average/above average incomes were much better off with allowances than they are now with tax credits. On low incomes tax credits are much better.

See http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/Income Tax Allowances.htm

Sixer

zagfles wrote: »

The married couples'/additional personal allowance varied but was usually about 50% of the personal allowance. Also prior to about 1981 there were child allowances of around 30% of the personal allowance per child.

So a man supporting a wife and 3 kids would get well over double the allowance he got when he was single. In today's money terms, an allowance of about £19500. A "real man's" allowance!

People on average/above average incomes were much better off with allowances than they are now with tax credits. On low incomes tax credits are much better.

See http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/Income Tax Allowances.htm

On a tangent, people should also remember that low income welfare top up payments have also always existed - as Family Income Supplement, amongst other names. These were less generous than tax credits (particularly for children) but, in conjunction with higher tax allowances, the "package" was broadly similar.

The only things that have *really* changed are the delivery and the propaganda.

It's called benefits dependency today. It used to be called the poverty trap.

Gloomy_Past_Bright_Future

Then the choice is easy choose money over love it will obviously make you happier.

Then when in the not too distant future your teenage children have gone and the ctc and wtc stop and you are on your own.

You will then be old and lonely.

Think about it, a man who is willing to take on your children, you are very very lucky.

Dunroamin

zagfles wrote: »

The married couples'/additional personal allowance varied but was usually about 50% of the personal allowance. Also prior to about 1981 there were child allowances of around 30% of the personal allowance per child.

So a man supporting a wife and 3 kids would get well over double the allowance he got when he was single. In today's money terms, an allowance of about £19500. A "real man's" allowance!

People on average/above average incomes were much better off with allowances than they are now with tax credits. On low incomes tax credits are much better.

See http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/Income Tax Allowances.htm

But, surely, the major difference between that system and the current one is that increased tax allowances only benefited people who actually worked and paid tax?

We used not to encourage people with a family to support to only work part time and let the state do the rest.

Taadaa

krisskross wrote: »

With a huge amount of help from taxpayers!

I'm glad someone else said this. I fail to see how you cam say you are independent when you clearly rely on the state to survive financially. I was a single parent and l have always found a way to work full time because l knew that was the best way out of my predicament. Lost family tax credit years ago but never relied on it - and never had a significant amount from the CSA, nothing for the past five years. And l have a mortgage.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

The married couples'/additional personal allowance varied but was usually about 50% of the personal allowance. Also prior to about 1981 there were child allowances of around 30% of the personal allowance per child.

So a man supporting a wife and 3 kids would get well over double the allowance he got when he was single. In today's money terms, an allowance of about £19500. A "real man's" allowance!

That "real man" comment of mine seems to have hit a raw nerve with you. It was intended as one of those "if the cap fits, then wear it" type statements.

So in my stepfather's case, who took on a new wife who was working full time, plus 3 daughters' (two were working full time), he would not have made any money because (as I said) he paid for all my sister's wedding just after he married my mother. What I didn't say (but have said before) is that he also gave them a 10% deposit to buy their first house. My younger sister was only at school for about 2/3 years after they married.

I never once heard my step father moan about how the state should give him more money because her had taken on stepchildren, quite the opposite in fact. He always made us feel that he was privileged to have us in his life and nothing was too much trouble for him. He loved my mother and we were part of the deal that came with marrying her. He would have given her and us, the shirt off his back.

TBH, it makes me cringe when I hear/read men moaning about having to pay for stepchildren or stating that more money should be given to them from the state (other taxpayers) as the children aren't their children. A real man will stand up and be counted; the other type will be asking for more state handouts.

EDIT; I forgot to add that my stepfather paid for my wedding too, 8 years after he married my mother. Even though I was earning more than him then, he wouldn't let me pay a penny towards it as he said it was a father's right to pay for his daughter's wedding.

Anubis_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That "real man" comment of mine seems to have hit a raw nerve with you. It was intended as one of those "if the cap fits, then wear it" type statements.

So in my stepfather's case, who took on a new wife who was working full time, plus 3 daughters' (two were working full time), he would not have made any money because (as I said) he paid for all my sister's wedding just after he married my mother. What I didn't say (but have said before) is that he also gave them a 10% deposit to buy their first house. My younger sister was only at school for about 2/3 years after they married.

I never once heard my step father moan about how the state should give him more money because her had taken on stepchildren, quite the opposite in fact. He always made us feel that he was privileged to have us in his life and nothing was too much trouble for him. He loved my mother and we were part of the deal that came with marrying her. He would have given her and us, the shirt off his back.

TBH, it makes me cringe when I hear/read men moaning about having to pay for stepchildren or stating that more money should be given to them from the state (other taxpayers) as the children aren't their children. A real man will stand up and be counted; the other type will be asking for more state handouts.

100 percent agree. In fact, putting my children first, I would never accept a man who is not prepared to stand by my children and I as a family unit.

Producing sperm is one thing, being a father is entirely different. The "not my children" doesn't wash if a man decides to move in with the mother. He has to, in my eyes, be prepared to be a father role and love my children unconditionally.

If that is not possible then goodbye. The first thing I told my husband was that my child will always come first no matter what. If you don't like it then go now before anything goes deeper. Thankfully he is a real man, stood up and was counted, (I expected no less given that he was serving his country at the time.), and not only that, he dedicates his life to having to care for me now, as I am not able to do much of anything, which certainly was not the case when we met.

heathcote123

This has got to be a troll thread.

OP can't seriously think she should get to keep her benefits when a couple who havn't claimed benefits on the same combined income wouldn't get any?

Surely?

MissMoneypenny

Anubis wrote: »

The first thing I told my husband was that my child will always come first no matter what. If you don't like it then go now before anything goes deeper. Thankfully he is a real man, stood up and was counted, (I expected no less given that he was serving his country at the time.), and not only that, he dedicates his life to having to care for me now, as I am not able to do much of anything, which certainly was not the case when we met.

You have a good one there. I use to think that was the norm, but the more I read this board, the more I realise that husbands like yours are rare.

Mojisola

Anubis wrote: »

Thankfully he is a real man, stood up and was counted, (I expected no less given that he was serving his country at the time.), and not only that, he dedicates his life to having to care for me now, as I am not able to do much of anything, which certainly was not the case when we met.

This is why the OP's attitude has to change if she wants to make the commitment to being a couple. If you're living in the same house and having to split everything 50/50, you're in a house share, not a relationship.

If you're in a relationship, both of you have to be ready to fully support the other if they become ill, unemployed, a SAHP or if your incomes become very different.

Incomes and health can ebb and flow through life. We started out as equals but have had spells when he earned more or I earned more. For years now my health has been poor and the only money coming into the house has been my OH's earnings. If the position were reversed, I would support him in the same way that he does me - and it encompasses far more than just the financial side.