Do you support the married couples tax break?

seven-day-weekend

sharnad wrote: »

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.

This from North Lincolnshire's Website although I'm pretty sure it is standardised across the country:

Cost for services - 1st April 2013
Fee type Cost

Booking Fee (non refundable)
£25.00


Marriage / Civil Partnership Notice
£35.00

Marriage / Civil Partnership Ceremony (Register Office only) £49.00

Not exactly going to break the bank, and then you can have your tax break!

Prothet_of_Doom

Fliss_M wrote: »

Maybe wrong but mum tells me in the 80's your could transfer your whole allowance to the spouse. So a stay at home mum could give her whole allowance to her husband. Sounds more like it to me ;-) (not that we would benefit as we both work)

Indeed. How many couples would be able to choose (if they wanted) a more traditional (as in old fashioned) set up, with one adult (traditionally the mother, but doesn't have to be), staying at home to look after kids rather than being forced by financial constraints to work.

Transferrence of £1000 of tax free income is only worth £200 a year to most people...£4 a week...Some might say not worth the paperwork.


If it were the full tax code, (a smidge under £10K...) .thus saving £2K a year. That might give couples a real choice.

A friend of mine constantly complains about having to work full time, and if you work out the outgoings, the travel, the work clothes, the child care, the extra money spent on takeaways (because both parents are 'too' frazzled to cook) I reckon that her working full time is not making a positive contribution to the household income of £2K a year.

Have to say if you add in the unnessecary spending on fancy handbags, and a flash car on easy credit, the latest Iphone and a full sky package - all justified because "we work so hard we deserve some luxury".......and you were able to transfer the whole tax code, then there would be no reason why she couldn't be a full time mother.

Is it fair that it's a) only £1000, b) Only Married couples. c) available to couples with no children ???

No. No. and maybe. :T:T:T

sharnad

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

This from North Lincolnshire's Website although I'm pretty sure it is standardised across the country:

Cost for services - 1st April 2013
Fee type Cost

Booking Fee (non refundable)
£25.00


Marriage / Civil Partnership Notice
£35.00

Marriage / Civil Partnership Ceremony (Register Office only) £49.00

Not exactly going to break the bank, and then you can have your tax break!

More expensive up here but cheap
For the government to
Pay for everyone then and they can make there tax breaks more equal

lazer

I agree with it but I think it should be extended to inlcude all couples "living together as a couple" - ie: anyone who is treated as a couple for benefit purposes should be treated as a couple for tax purposes - they should have the option to not claim the allowance alos if they choose to keep their tax affairs seperate.

I also think it should be the full PA that is transferreable.

Ultrasonic

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why shouldn't one sector have the tax break?

You rather missed my point about justificaiton. I'll address each of your examples in turn but essentially I believe there is a huge distinction between what are essentially welfare payments, and a tax break purely for being married.

I can't get any Child Benefits because I don't have young children.

Child benefit makes sense because raising children is expensive and it is in the national interest for people to have children. If people didn't because they couldn't afford to do so, the country would be in trouble.

I can't get Disability Benefits because I am not disabled.

That is a welfare payment, and one which I would certainly hope most members of the population would support on this basis.

I can't get Housing Benefit because I don't rent.

No, you can't get housing benefit because you can afford your own housing. Housing benefit is a welfare payment for those who can't afford basic accommodation. On that basis it seems totally jsutifiable.

People under State Retirement age can't get their State Pension because they are not old enough.

A welfare payment paid to previous taxpayers, in part funded by national insurance contributions. Totally justifiable in my book.

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.

The question in my eyes is why should married couples get a benefit, not why shouldn't unmarried couples get it as well. Either way, all of your above examples are easy to justify, but I can't see any reason why a couple should get a tax break purely for being married? Can you?

Mazzie

Why shouldn't my husband get my tax allowance if I don't or can't work? The wages in the UK are ridiculously low and the cost of living is much higher than any wage increases and that's only if there are any. The UK Government like to lump married people together and treat them as one person when it suits them. So why not give something back to married couples instead of taking all the time. We don't get tax credits, or any other help from the Government yet if I am not working we only have one wage coming in.

We live half the year in the UK and half the year in Canada. The tax allowance per person is $18,000/year. If I worked and earned $2,000 my husband can claim $16,000 for me against his taxes. If I did not earn anything he would get $18,000, this equates to 100% allowance that he can claim for me.

In Canada if my husband earned $10,000 a week and I was unemployed and claiming unemployment benefit, I could get my whole unemployment benefit amount and it wouldn't matter at all what he is earning, the Government in Canada treat each person as an individual in that respect. However, if this was the UK, the Government would take every penny of my unemployment away from me because my husband would be earning too much. Why is that? I am an individual, he is not my keeper, why should the Government take away MY benefit just because I am married? So I say again, the Government like to take from married couples, so why shouldn't they give something back?

Ultrasonic

Which is it Mazzie? Treat me as an individual or give me a tax break because I am married? You can't have it both ways .

Your arguments relate to the tax arrangements of couples/households but so far as I can see have nothing to do with marriage. To what extent household or individual incomes should be considered for tax and benefit purposes is a separate debate.

Mazzie wrote: »

We don't get tax credits, or any other help from the Government yet if I am not working we only have one wage coming in.

That is dependent on your household income, not the fact that you are married. The same would be true for an unmarried couple whose circumstances are otherwise identical to yours.

Delphina

pennypinchUK wrote: »

....Surely, the best and most transparent thing to do, rather than introduce yet another tax break, is to simplify the tax system.

1. Why not make it a target to say "For every £1 you earn, you will pay X in tax." ?
2. Why not merge income tax and national insurance? I've no doubt there would be huge hurdles in the way, but it's the role of government sometimes to take on big challenges for the benefit of the citizens.
3. Why not merge the rates for Corporation Tax and Income Tax to become the same, so private individuals don't feel the need to set up bogus companies to gain from lower Corporation Tax?
4. Why not set a target to reduce the number of tax allowances by 10% every year, in the same spirit the government is targeting red tape and bureaucracy...

The existing Married Couples' Allowance, only applicable to some OAP's and disappearing soon, is a nightmare to admin. It is possibly worthwhile for the couples, not taking into account that old age comes with forgetfulness which can often make it extremely hard to deal with the allowance, because the amount you transfer can be anything from some to all of your tax-free PA. However, this has cost the tax payers a lot, as not everyone has fixed income, the surplus PA can go up or down, due to total taxable income received.

For transfers of £1000 of PA, we are asking for escalating costs; we will have similar problems as the existing Married Couples' Allowance, the financial benefits are too low to bother! The existing and newly-announced allowance would have worked well if a couple were taxed jointly as in the past, especially through Self Assessment. Because now we are taxed on income tax singularly, for those who don't self assess, the £1000 PA transfer which is no more than £200-£400 in real terms, can cause underpayments of tax quite easily. Think about those years when Child Tax Credits were given through tax code annually! It will end up the same and who would want to self assess for £200 (for most people) -£400 when you are fined £100, if you file your tax return late!

1. We are already taxed 20p, 40p and 45p depending on the total annual taxable income for every £1 we earn, after taking the tax-free PA into account either weekly, monthly or yearly. If you meant that the tax-free PA should be abolished, then everyone also needs to be taxed at the same flat rate which is possibly a lot lower than 20p per £1 earned... Otherwise, there is going to be a big problem for a large number of people under PAYE. If there are various rates of income tax but no tax-free PA, how do you correctly tax anyone with multiple PAYE sources such as agency workers, people who change jobs in the same tax year and pensioners, etc? There will be more cases where wrong tax amounts paid, if there are multiple sources of income involved, with various tax rates and no tax-free PA, you likely have to make them self assess each year, if they have not done that already, or you have to religiously do end-of-year calculations annually.

If we get rid of tax-free PA and introduce one flat rate of income tax, the Rich will love it, but the Poor will not like it. Do you suggest we introduce more benefits then?! Please don't answer yes!

2. I can't see the govt wanting to follow your advice, unless they can be sure to be re-elected, because doing as you have suggested, the govt would only increase the tax rates. I don't think they are very imaginative or bright.

3. The lowest CT rate (profits no more than £300K) is already the same as the lowest income tax rate which is 20%. Or do you mean lower the income tax rate to match 10% dividend tax? If yes, that 10% is already part of CT rate of 20%. So, it is pointless! The benefits of setting up a ltd company is not just to reduce income tax though.

4. They have already killed off some of tax allowances by making them so unattractive or giving them no increases in line with inflation. Look at lower pension contribution limit, Rent a Room scheme or even mileage claim, etc. They also have totally stopped some, such as CGT taper relief, existing Married Couples' Allowance, etc. Be careful what you wish for; the govt might try to mess with ISA next. Then we will likely have next to no decent means to manage our own pensions our own way TAX-FREE!

Edwardia

OH and I won't benefit personally since Govt has lowered 40% tax threshold so he's now ineligible.

I'm pleased to see that when same sex marriage kicks in March 2014, LGBT married couples will get Married Couples Allowance too when it starts.

Indie_Kid

What about single people?