Breaking News: £1000 married tax allowance

zagfles

CC-Warrior wrote: »

The £9.940? I was hoping for something more substantial to help me pay everything as I have no-one to split the costs with.

So share with someone. With a friend, take in a lodger, or there are loads of ads for house shares. If you want a whole property just to yourself then a choice you'll have to pay for, just like if you want a car to yourself, or anything else

A 50% reduction in council tax sounds fairer.

Do you want a car tax reduction if you don't share your car? Or an excise duty reduction if you don't share a bottle of wine?

zagfles

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I can think of no more "worthy" thing to do that what you're doing. You're subsidising all those other singles with children, and then you're subsidising all the couples with children who quite clearly cannot afford them without all the handouts.

Logically, I feel, it should almost be the other way around.

Single people should work, earn money, and pay a certain % of it in tax above a tax free allowance. If they get married, then both people could arguably have slightly lower tax allowances (per head) since to some extent, two can live as cheaply as one.

That would be fair enough provided it is fully transferrable.

Once the first, second, and third children start arriving, then tax rates should ramp up in order to extract a partial contribution to the education and health burden up to adulthood.

What utter rubbish, you do realise that when the children grow up and get jobs they will become the next generation of taxpayers, who will be paying for the pensions, healthcare costs etc of the previous generation now in retirement.

Those who don't have children should then perhaps not get any state pension or NHS treatment etc as they've not contributed towards the next generation of taxpayers!

Finally, everyone should have another X% 'tax' which is taken, accrued, RPI+linked, and then re-presented to the individual at age 65 (or somesuch agreed age) to form their pension income for the rest of their life.

Such fund as is not used due to death before retirement, or emigration should be used for a very basic safety net for circumstances beyond control, and a more substantial amount for disability.

To me, that would be a much fairer society.

Or maybe if parents have to pay the cost of their children's eduction, healthcare as well as everything else like food etc, that subsidy should be returned, and once in retirement, pensions and healthcare costs etc of pensioners should be paid for by their grown up children. That would be fair, a return of the subsidy.

Obviously those who don't have children would have to save hard, or starve.

System

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

.

But Osborne will be quaking in his boots when I demand my help to buy subsidy, even though I'm not moving house.

And of course you are denied the inheritance tax allowance just because you are not dead yet.

Kennyboy66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's the rub. Under the previous administration the public sector grew by around 500,000. The cost of administering the wheels of the state grew enormously. The process of dismantling the bureaucacy has already commenced.

Obviously you like to push the fiction that Labour just increased the number of Whitehall bureacrats filing paperclips.

Most of the increase was in the NHS.

The number of full time equivalent posts increased by just over 300,000 between 1998 and 2010 and while the number of managers did increase, its really made up of extra doctors, nurses, support to clinical staff and qualified scientific staff.

In education (primary and secondary) there were roughly 200,000 more staff in 2010 compared with 1997 (80,000 teaching assistants in primary was a significant driver).

Now this may be well unsustainable, it may mean less productivity and it may be wasteful - buts lets not make out that all the additional public sector workers were 5 a day co-ordinators and transgender counsellors.

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

....And how can a male MP be charged with 'raping' another male? My dictionary defines rape as forced sexual intercourse, and I can't see how anal penetration can be classed as sexual intercourse..

Because s1(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as follows:-

"A person (A) commits an offence if — (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

You need a new dictionary.

abankerbutnotafatcat

zagfles wrote: »

So share with someone. With a friend, take in a lodger, or there are loads of ads for house shares. If you want a whole property just to yourself then a choice you'll have to pay for, just like if you want a car to yourself, or anything elseDo you want a car tax reduction if you don't share your car? Or an excise duty reduction if you don't share a bottle of wine?

Council charge pays for services that a single person will have less ability to use by virtue of only being one person than a household with more people.

CLAPTON

abankerbutnotafatcat wrote: »

Council charge pays for services that a single person will have less ability to use by virtue of only being one person than a household with more people.

is that because single people spend more time cleaning behind the fridge?

Loughton_Monkey

zagfles wrote: »

....What utter rubbish, you do realise that when the children grow up and get jobs they will become the next generation of taxpayers, who will be paying for the pensions, healthcare costs etc of the previous generation now in retirement.

Yes, I revert to that language now and again. But you didn't pick up that these kids would not be paying the pensions of their parents. That was the point.

Once you adopt this commonly accepted position that today's children are tomorrow's 'chequebook' for the older generation, and they should therefore be encouraged by subsidies, you are, in effect, creating a great unsustainable 'Ponzi Scheme' which must, at some point fail disastrously.

The current system of unfunded state pensions was ill founded, unsustainable, and is virtually impossible to 'correct' without another 60 years of 'transition'. We should make a start.

lostinrates

CC-Warrior wrote: »

The £9.940? I was hoping for something more substantial to help me pay everything as I have no-one to split the costs with. A 50% reduction in council tax sounds fairer.

Some of us marrieds only have one income too. And no help.

Kennyboy66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Sometimes you have to think out side of the box. NU labour spent 13 years creating an unwieldy benefits and tax system. Perhaps going back to basics with more simplified approach is the way forward. The country won't need to pay for hundreds of thousands of public sector administrators to redistribute wealth.

Only 15% of families with children will get any benefit from this.

Only 28% of people either married or in civil partnership will benefit.

A married person (with a non earning partner) will be better off earning £42400, than earning £42500.

The maximum gain is £4 per week.

Does this really count as "thinking outside the box" or a "simplified approach".

It looks to me like it could have been devised by Gordon Brown as a "sweetie giveaway" of which he was so fond.