Breaking News: £1000 married tax allowance

gazter

michaels wrote: »

Can we just confirm it applies to all couples and 'married' is just a bit of media mischief making?

I hope not. If you want it, put a ring on it.

Loughton_Monkey

BobQ wrote: »

......I just find it absurd that the party that advocates less state interference in our lives uses taxation to impose its values on a population which (rightly or wrongly) is getting married less and less.

It's the Nanny State again. Cameron is trying to re-indroduce 'family values' of good wholesome marriage.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but I am convinced that back in the 70's, a married couple could transfer the whole tax free allowance between them. But it may have been just a generous "Married Couples Allowance" that was given to both, but could be transferred.

Given the high divorce rate, I can see a huge load of bickering over all this. It is quite 'ordinary' these days for X to be married to Y, but X is living with Z [who could also be married to someone else] and with up to 6 years of bickering and acrimony I can't see the £1,000 being sorted out. If X was letting Y have it, and now wants it back, is she going to allow it to go back? What if they disagree? Who sorts it out?

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Cameron is trying to re-indroduce 'family values' of good wholesome marriage

Some might say that the government would like to re-introduce a whole raft of outmoded social norms.

One of which would be that the 'working classes' should know their place, and be grateful for small mercies.

As somebody said on the radio recently, zero hours contracts are no different from the days when dockers had to queue up every morning in the hope of being 'picked'.

TruckerT

michaels

gazter wrote: »

I hope not. If you want it, put a ring on it.

I do like it so I did put a ring on it and I personally think it matters...but I am also liberal (small l) enough to think that everyone should be allowed to make their own decision on the matter.

It does seem unfair that benefits are worked out by household but taxation
is done by individual and that both of these benefit the govt but sorting out that anomaly is probably too complicated to ever resolve.

zagfles

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Just read the report, and learned that there is no "extra" £1,000 tax allowance at all. Just the ability to transfer it. So (like me) if we both have income >£10K-ish then transferring is of no value.

Yes. Though the BBC got it wrong as usual in their report where they say "The tax break would apply if couples are both basic rate tax payers", which is rubbish as it wouldn't apply at all. One has to be a non taxpayer so they aren't using all their allowance.

[Am assuming that I would not be allowed to transfer it simply to avoid one of the couple going into the higher rate band.]

Doubt it.

newbutold

AndyGuil wrote: »

A move in the right direction. Would be better if it was full allowance transferred which is representative of a mother's sacrifice.

Or even that the £1000 allowance was available to couples with higher rate tax payer. :cool:

zagfles

michaels wrote: »

I do like it so I did put a ring on it and I personally think it matters...but I am also liberal (small l) enough to think that everyone should be allowed to make their own decision on the matter.

It does seem unfair that benefits are worked out by household but taxation is done by individual and that both of these benefit the govt but sorting out that anomaly is probably too complicated to ever resolve.

It's not complicated, the French do it, the Americans do it, and so do a lot of other countries. It's just it would cost the govt a lot of money which they'd need to raise elsewhere eg through higher tax rates. And they've all been obsessed with lowering tax rates.

Jennifer_Jane

TruckerT wrote: »

I guess a single person living with a single parent of the same sex (possibly as a carer?) will be able to enter into a civil partnership or a marriage in order to be able to claim the marriage allowance?

It is probably illegal for a son to marry his mother, but I doubt whether the legal system has yet got around to banning a father from marrying his son.

TruckerT

Am pretty sure that what you are suggesting is illegal and impossible to accomplish. I certainly hope so!

I've never been married and dislike "tinkering" with society, but if a Government is going to, then I'm happy with this one. Marriage is generally a good thing. It's that little piece of paper which means that families grow up within a legal framework. Statistics show that families are stronger within marriage (apparently - I have no research).

Anything that protects women and children, I am for. If this encourages people to marry, then so be it.

zagfles

BobQ wrote: »

I agree it may help provide more cohesion but so would banning one parent from working so they could look after their children, and few would advocate that.

I just find it absurd that the party that advocates less state interference in our lives uses taxation to impose its values on a population which (rightly or wrongly) is getting married less and less.

And it's absurd that those who want more state interference are complaining about it

We've had over a decade of Gordon Brown interference in families, trying to get parents who want to look after their own kids out to work instead, though various schemes like childcare subsidies, tax credits favouring couples who both work, abolishing the married couples & additional personal allowance.

Jennifer_Jane

TruckerT wrote: »

Some might say that the government would like to re-introduce a whole raft of outmoded social norms.

One of which would be that the 'working classes' should know their place, and be grateful for small mercies.

As somebody said on the radio recently, zero hours contracts are no different from the days when dockers had to queue up every morning in the hope of being 'picked'.

TruckerT

Yes, true, but also very little different from when I was here in 1998 and had to wait till Thursday every week to see if I was working for any days the following week as an admin "temp". OK I didn't have to actually travel anywhere, it was just done by telephone, and thus didn't have travel costs which are heinously high, but I cannot see much difference, quite frankly.

This was a shock to me, I'd thought I would get a permanent job in the fields I was qualified in and worked in, not in Administration, but I worked, made myself available, and eventually received longer contracts (a week, then two, then months, etc, until I was finally made permanent in a Company).

To me, the zero hours policy is wrong, but if it helps Companies take on more people and helps more people get into permanent work eventually, then we should allow Companies some freedom to get out of this recession.