why is there no uproar over our civil liberties being infringed in relation to Child

The_White_Horse

i think it is fundamental that people remain separately taxed and responsible for tax. However, if they want to trample on this, then at least have the decency to do it so it works both ways, not just the way where you pay more money.

i don't know how people have the gaul to argue with me on this. i am clearly 100% right and the state of peoples marriages is not the issue. the point is, one person should not be responsible for another.

an unemployed person married to a multimillionaire should be entitled to benefits that they require. If they are SEEKING work, then they are entitled to job seeker allowance - if they are not and are just people of leisure, then they shouldn't. If they are living in the house, then they will not need housing benefit or similar. If they are homeless, but married to a millionaire that throws them out, should they have to live on the street?

The_White_Horse

MacMickster wrote: »

I think the real point is that if you are going to claim means tested handouts from the state (which child benefit now is) you have to be prepared and able to declare your total household income and savings (ie your means) to the state. A means tested benefit is what it says on the tin.

Like everyone else, you are entitled to your privacy, but just won't be able to claim means tested benefits.

Does your privacy have a sale price?

Again you miss the point. One person can claim the benefit without having to declare anything. The other person is then solely responsible for paying tax on it - despite maybe not even knowing it is being claimed.

Here is an example - a man works abroad for better money. he says to wife, here is £x a month for house keeping and children, do not claim CB as I am abroad and don't file taxes in UK.

the wife claims CB anyway and doesn't say. she likes to have the extra cash because she can go to starbucks and get her hair done with her pals.

there are billions of contations that can arise.

CLAPTON

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Never mind that despite the millions the only personal income the other person may get is a benefit they could well have paid tax for. No one knows the circumstances of others relationships and how they manage money.

well of course in my example the unemployed person may qualify for JSA if they had built up an entitlement but maybe many would think they shouldn't be eligible for say housing benefit on their 6 bedroomed mansion while they idled their days away in the heated swimming pool

to me, it's not a matter of principle, it's more a matter of money

The_White_Horse

CLAPTON wrote: »

well of course in my example the unemployed person may qualify for JSA if they had built up an entitlement but maybe many would think they shouldn't be eligible for say housing benefit on their 6 bedroomed mansion while they idled their days away in the heated swimming pool

to me, it's not a matter of principle, it's more a matter of money

it is stupid because they don't need housing benefit if they have a house to live in. if that person was kicked out in the street, but not divorced, should she not be entitled to housing benefit because she is married to a millionaire?

Torry_Quine

The_White_Horse wrote: »

exactly, because there is nothing wrong with it. what if the husband and wife are both directors at rival companies and it would be a contractual conflict to disclose incomes?

In your world maybe. I think your scenario is not a common one and even then think it ridiculous.

unlucky67

This annoys me too ...I'm not married but live with someone - at the moment I'm at home looking after the children but have applied for suitable jobs - just (for various reasons) after my career break and with responsibilities... I'm virtually unemployable in the job the state have paid a fortune to educate me to do! (When children are older I may have more chance - but then I'll have been out of my field even longer...)
After being financially independent for most of my life I'm now reliant (apart from CB) on whatever money my OH decides to give me - and once I am seriously looking for work I wouldn't be able to claim JSA...as we are considered to have joint incomes...
So if that is the case - I think I should have the option to allow him to use my personal tax allowance too...
I'd get married if they bought in a married person's tax allowance again...

CLAPTON

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it is stupid because they don't need housing benefit if they have a house to live in. if that person was kicked out in the street, but not divorced, should she not be entitled to housing benefit because she is married to a millionaire?

surely it would be a fundamental principle that both parties sharing a house would both be responsible for equal share of the cost; so the unemployed person should surely be allowed to claim housing benefit to pay their share of the rent

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

Don't take the money then. Problem solved.

Is it? I would imagine that the new tax rules will simply look at a couple's income and family and increase the tax due by an amount intended to be equal to the Child Benefit payable. It seems unlikely that they'll pay any attention to whether benefit is actually being paid.

SingleSue

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I find it ridiculous that you can be man and wife but not know how much each other earns.

No wonder our divorce rate is so high if they cannot be so honest as something as trivial as earnings then what hope do we have for the long-term survival or relationships? Love is way more important than money.

My mum never knew how much my dad earned....they have been married 52 years next Monday and together for 54 years.

I ALWAYS knew what my ex hubby was earning, he delegated all the financial stuff to me. He would be informed what I was earning but would forget just as quickly......

SingleSue

The_White_Horse wrote: »

See, this post sums up the ignorance - because the husband earning the money, would not claim the benefit and may not even know that the wife had claimed it, if she doesn't tell him.

however, the wife could claim it, not tell the husband and he will then have a tax liability he knows nothing about.

utter nonsense situation.

Me and now ex hubby registered the birth together and then filled out the form for child benefit together, he was usually the one who sent it off. It was the normal thing to do when a couple had a child.

Just last week, my brother and his wife filled in the form for child benefit together for their new born daughter.