Do you support the married couples tax break?

mirmac

I think the whole of the single person allowance should be transferable within a household. How can we be treated sometimes as a household and other times as a single person for tax or benefit purpose?
France looks at the household income. A child is worth 1/2 a single allowance. Thus a family of 2 adults + 2 children would get 3 single tax allowance, whether married or not / both adults working or not.
This means a French household on average income pays a lot less direct taxes than a British one.

Ultrasonic

poppet17 wrote: »

This is very true, and it should be brought back in, that way woman could stay at home to look after the children and it would free up more jobs for all those unemployed people who have families to support and want to work but can't get employment, and nursery places for those who do want to work. However, I should add I am not against a two income household but there are families out there where one of the adults need or want to be at home.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying is 'very true' but none of what you wrote has anything to do with marriage, it relates to children and household income. To achieve what you want to see the government could introduce tax incentives based on these criteria. Whether or not a couple are married is irrelevant.

harz99

Trouble with this proposal is however you feel about married versus single it is to far in the future with too little detail to decide.

For instance, my wife does not use all her tax allowance BUT does not have a full £1k left to transfer, so unless the actual mechanics of the scheme allow for a lower then £1k amount to be transferred across at the end of the tax year it will be useless for us.

Ultrasonic

I suppose we can't absolutely take this for granted but it would seem to me at least highly probable that it would a case of transferring UP TO £1, 000.

Whether or not the proposal is right should not of course depend on whether you'd personally gain from it financially though. I'd benefit from a tax break for tall people for instance...

patanne

Just cynical vote buying in my opinion. Or if you want the paranoid version then it is another way to get information linking people together which are not already linked in their records as they have no children. Also when a future government tries to remove it they will end up having to give everyone the 1000 extra allowance

sharnad

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So they have the choice to marry (or civil partner), don' they? If they want to benefit from the legal bits, they should BE legal.

(42nd Wedding Anniversary today )

So you would be okay with it if it was a tax break only for purple living together for a certain amount if time but it excluded married couple. Well if you want it you have the choice to divorce

seven-day-weekend

sharnad wrote: »

So you would be okay with it if it was a tax break only for purple living together for a certain amount if time but it excluded married couple. Well if you want it you have the choice to divorce

If I wasn't eligible for it I would not expect to get it, the same as I no longer expect a salary from my job because I am retired.

If you want the benefit, you have to fit the criteria, the same as if I want a salary I would have to go back to work.

I think unmarried couples have made that choice NOT to make their union legal, so why should they have a tax break intended for legal couples? There should be perks for being legal, imho. (And yes, I do know several couples who co-habit, including my son and his partner, although most couples I know, young or old, are married).

Ultrasonic

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I think unmarried couples have made that choice NOT to make their union legal, so why should they have a tax break intended for legal couples? There should be perks for being legal, imho. (And yes, I do know several couples who co-habit, including my son and his partner, although most couples I know, young or old, are married).

I must have missed something. Since when were unmarried couples illegal?

I urge you to consider the justification for the tax break.

sharnad

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If I wasn't eligible for it I would not expect to get it, the same as I no longer expect a salary from my job because I am retired.

If you want the benefit, you have to fit the criteria, the same as if I want a salary I would have to go back to work.

I think unmarried couples have made that choice NOT to make their union legal, so why should they have a tax break intended for legal couples? There should be perks for being legal, imho. (And yes, I do know several couples who co-habit, including my son and his partner, although most couples I know, young or old, are married).

Why should there be a difference for people who can afford the piece of paper to make it a legal union to those who can't. Maybe to make it fair to couple who live together free marriages should be offered to all couples.

seven-day-weekend

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I must have missed something. Since when were unmarried couples illegal?

I urge you to consider the justification for the tax break.

Not illegal, just not gone through the procedure for a legal union.

Why shouldn't one sector have the tax break? It happens all the time. I can't get any Child Benefits because I don't have young children. I can't get Disability Benefits because I am not disabled. I can't get Housing Benefit because I don't rent. People under State Retirement age can't get their State Pension because they are not old enough. Therefore why should unmarried couples get a tax break intended for married people? Especially as they have the choice to marry or civil partner if they want the break.