Do you support the married couples tax break?

WelshGandalf

economum wrote: »

This won't benefit a young married couple both working full-time on minimum wage and it won't benefit couples unable to get full-time work where both are earning under £9500.

These people will almost certainly be eligable for help currently, even more so if they have kids (and helping such people is fair enough imo). This proposal starts to address the unfairness of 1 parent earning £25k with the other parent at home being significantly worse-off compared to 2 parents both earning minimum wage.

It's hard to see how it will benefit families at all

Then you clearly haven't read my post...

I don't understand why the government (HMRC, DWP) are happy to class Marley & me as a couple for the purposes of tax credits and benefits, yet insist we must marry to take advantage of this tax break. We are either a committed couple, or we are not.

Yeah it's all inconsistent. I think in the US you are treated together for all purposes for example (though, I believe, you are treated slightly better if you are married than if not).

JimmyTheWig

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

I don't understand why the government (HMRC, DWP) are happy to class Marley & me as a couple for the purposes of tax credits and benefits, yet insist we must marry to take advantage of this tax break. We are either a committed couple, or we are not.

I agree.
If one half of a couple isn't working then either they should be entitled to means-tested benefits because they have no income or, if their partner's income means they won't get these, their tax-free allowance should be made available to their partner. There shouldn't be the situation where they get nothing - either because they are not married or because the partner is in the higher tax bracket.

Twopints

"Patronising drivel" - about the only thing Nick Clegg has got right.

JayWalker

molley wrote: »

Shame we don't know the marital status of each voter ..

Very good point. Did anyone vote against the interests of the group they belong to? I'd be interested to see forumites' personal status along with their comments.

#pro long-term commitments
# 23rd wedding anniversary this month

Tiglath

I voted that I didn't care, but then I'm married and we're both higher rate taxpayers.

rinabean

JayWalker wrote: »

Very good point. Did anyone vote against the interests of the group they belong to? I'd be interested to see forumites' personal status along with their comments.

#pro long-term commitments
# 23rd wedding anniversary this month

Yes, I'd benefit from this, but that doesn't make it right.

Benefits (which tax breaks are) are supposed to make things fair because of unequal circumstances, they're not supposed to just be equal.

This is nothing to do with money or even with childcare or women's careers. It's a way to make divorce more expensive, because low divorce rates makes the government look good. (And a £1000 tax break seems more important than the £200 you'd actually get.) But look at people celebrating because finally they'll get something, after they've gone without for so long, unlike those single mothers who live the high life. Pathetic.

This is coming at the same time as tax cuts for the super rich, how can anyone honestly think 'oh wow now the government finally cares about me, they finally remembered that I need money too'. Transparent vote-buying.

SandraDJ

Living alone is tough enough, I have to bear the cost of all of the household bills myself.

If someone else is getting a tax break, then the rest of us are subsidising it.

I have no problem in tax breaks for people with children, or people with disabilities. It just seems that this is a reward for being married, but a punishment for being divorced!

stuatch

Getting Married (or any other derivation of such, co-habiting, civil partnership, etc.) is a lifestyle choice; similarly with having children (in the main).

Why does the Government feel the need to 'reward' these people? If someone is getting a tax break, then someone else is losing out!

If you can't afford to be married or have children, don't do it!
What is the MSE mantra, "if I am skint, do I need it, can I afford it?"

If I am a carer for a dependent (a child or an elderly or disabled relative), I can ask my employer for time off to deal with emergencies. If I have a pet dog, who is dependent on me, and they are sick and need to be taken to the vets, I don't get time off work!

JimmyTheWig

SandraDJ wrote: »

Living alone is tough enough, I have to bear the cost of all of the household bills myself.

If someone else is getting a tax break, then the rest of us are subsidising it.

I have no problem in tax breaks for people with children, or people with disabilities. It just seems that this is a reward for being married, but a punishment for being divorced!

Remember that it isn't a tax break for _all_ married couples. Only a tax break for those where one partner is not working.
If you, as a single person, weren't using your tax-free allowance (e.g. if you weren't working) then you would receive means-tested benefits.
My wife doesn't use all her tax-free allowance (as she doesn't do paid work in order to look after our children) but doesn't receive means-tested benefits because we are means-tested as a couple.

bugslet

JayWalker wrote: »

Very good point. Did anyone vote against the interests of the group they belong to? I'd be interested to see forumites' personal status along with their comments.

#pro long-term commitments
# 23rd wedding anniversary this month

I am

# pro long-term commitments
# been with, but not married to, Mr Bugs 28 years in July

Being married is not the only way of expressing commitment, as I pointed out to an about to be married for a third time:eek: in his mid-40s client, when he said marriage was all about commitment:question::p

As Mr Bugs is now in full time residential care due to illness, I am sort of single, so yes I voted in my interest, which was not fair on single people. Not whinging, but it's a fact, life is tougher on one income ( not to mention paying care home fees).