my income and wife

Corncrake2

margaretclare wrote: »

the then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson,
,
Not sure it's fair to blame the changes on Baroness Thatcher, I think she'd been replaced by then.

You could be right, that is another problem with growing old, one only remembers the notable people and blame them for the wrongs of the world Nigel Who ?

I don't think comparison with jihadi brides is useful.

On the contrary I thought zyg illustrated the point very well, isnt it satire or something ? Perhaps even reductio ad absurdum for the porpoises of,
made me smile anyway !

agrinnall

If you're right about it being the 1990 budget then Maggie was definitely still in place, it happened on 20th March with John Major as Chancellor.

For anyone who can't sleep...

http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page2510.html

zygurat789

margaretclare wrote: »

I don't think comparison with jihadi brides is useful. From what I've read they have no rights whatever, having to stay indoors all the time except when allowed out, heavily covered in black from top to toe, with a male guardian. No matter how 'dark' our dark ages were, they were never as bad as that.

As far as the Inland Revenue were concerned Women ceased to exist in their own right. They had no personal allowance but their husbands received a married man's allowance and a wife's earned income relief allowance.
The good old days eh Margaret

Corncrake2

agrinnall wrote: »

If you're right about it being the 1990 budget then Maggie was definitely still in place, it happened on 20th March with John Major as Chancellor.

For anyone who can't sleep...

http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page2510.html

Nice link, thank you.
From that text
"but first, I wish to discuss a reform which was announced in the 1988 Budget and which comes into effect next month--independent taxation for women."
So, announced in '88 by Lawson, came into effect under Major, April 1990.
Maggie left office in Nov? 1990.
So all we have to do now is decide if Maggie was in charge of them both at those times ! ? heheee.

Ducks&runs for cover.

margaretclare

That must have been the 1987 General Election when I spoke to Nigel Lawson on 'Election Call', it was announced at the following year's budget and took effect in 1990.

When I first started protesting about it 15 or so years before that, I referred to the Married Women's Property Acts on the 1880s, when a married woman's money was her own - up to then she'd lost all control of money or property the minute she made her wedding vows. Of course there were obvious misuses - women being married for their money - which appear in many Victorian novels, Wilkie Collins etc. However, when I spoke to the Inland Revenue I recall that I was told 'there was a loophole'. That legislation only applied to inherited wealth or property, not to earned income. 'It had never been envisaged that a married woman would earn her own wage or salary'. Literally. They said that.

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

Ah, but, what I was referring to had to be the wife.
In those days the wife had fewer rights in tax law than a jihadi bride today

But you didn't have to be taxed as a couple. Back in the late 70s early 80s mine and my husbands earnings meant as a couple we would be higher rate tax payers, so we opted to be taxed separately. I don't know when this was introduced but it was certainly possible then and many couples took advantage of it.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

That must have been the 1987 General Election when I spoke to Nigel Lawson on 'Election Call', it was announced at the following year's budget and took effect in 1990.

When I first started protesting about it 15 or so years before that, I referred to the Married Women's Property Acts on the 1880s, when a married woman's money was her own - up to then she'd lost all control of money or property the minute she made her wedding vows. Of course there were obvious misuses - women being married for their money - which appear in many Victorian novels, Wilkie Collins etc. However, when I spoke to the Inland Revenue I recall that I was told 'there was a loophole'. That legislation only applied to inherited wealth or property, not to earned income. 'It had never been envisaged that a married woman would earn her own wage or salary'. Literally. They said that.

All that achieved was poorer couples losing the married mans allowance and paying more tax. Prior to the changes you just opted to be taxed separately and if would benefit from the married mans allowance they could have that. I am sure Mr and Mrs Thatcher paid their tax separately so she would have known that this wasn't the positive move people seem to think it was.

zygurat789

mumps wrote: »

But you didn't have to be taxed as a couple. Back in the late 70s early 80s mine and my husbands earnings meant as a couple we would be higher rate tax payers, so we opted to be taxed separately. I don't know when this was introduced but it was certainly possible then and many couples took advantage of it.

That came in later

margaretclare

mumps wrote: »

But you didn't have to be taxed as a couple. Back in the late 70s early 80s mine and my husbands earnings meant as a couple we would be higher rate tax payers, so we opted to be taxed separately. I don't know when this was introduced but it was certainly possible then and many couples took advantage of it.

It may have made the difference if you had high earnings and would therefore be higher rate taxpayers. That didn't apply to us. From about 1976 I was the only earner due to my first husband's deteriorating heart condition but he still got letters from my tax office every time there was a change in my tax. In the last year of his life, from 1990 onwards, I was able to claim his unused tax allowance as well as my own.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

It may have made the difference if you had high earnings and would therefore be higher rate taxpayers. That didn't apply to us. From about 1976 I was the only earner due to my first husband's deteriorating heart condition but he still got letters from my tax office every time there was a change in my tax. In the last year of his life, from 1990 onwards, I was able to claim his unused tax allowance as well as my own.

Was that the married mans or personal? If you wanted to get the benefit of being taxed as a couple you had to accept the downside. You could have opted for separate taxation but it would have come at a cost. It was your choice but after the reforms people lost the choice.