my income and wife

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

That came in later

Do you know when? We were certainly doing it in the 80s and prior to 84 I am sure. I know that as we were both working for our local Police Force and in 84/85 when lots of married police officers were suddenly earning huge amounts because of the miners strike it started to be relevant to alot of peoople I worked with. It had affected us earlier, due to rank, and I can remember advising people about how to do it as they were upset about being hit by higher rate tax. This was most definitely before MargaretClare says she was campaigning for separate taxation in 87 I think she said. At that time she could definitely have been taxed separately but of course they would have lost the married mans tax allowance which made it unattractive to lower paid people. By bringing in universal separate taxation the married mans allowance was lost, which I am assuming was a loss to many people although I think there was some transitional relief, I'm not sure about that as it obviously made no difference to me personally.

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

Ah but in those days the wife was two separate tax people in the year of marriage which gave rise to a nice little tax avoidance scheme which paid for our first washing m/c.

I remember that, It was a useful sum. I think we did some redecorating with ours and the rest went into the deposit fund for our first house. I wish I could remember how much I got, it would probably seem laughable now.

I seem to remember my husband got a cheque after the children were born, was that similar? I have a feeling that when our second child was born it was about £200 which would have seemed a massive amount to us in early 70s as I wasn't working and we had just bought our first house. I can't remember what we spent that on. Probably bills which seems a bit sad. I always think about this when people moan about not getting tax credits in our day but of course we did get the additional tax allowances. The downside was if you were very low paid it was of little if any benefit.

margaretclare

mumps wrote: »

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.

No, the married man's had gone by then, April 1990. I certainly remember it after we moved house in June 1990. He earned nothing - was on sickness benefits - but he still had a personal tax allowance.

It was well before 1987 that I was writing letters and trying to get this changed. At least 2 decades before that! Obviously I was not the only one who saw it as an injustice and wanted change - they wouldn't have done it just for me! The Sex Discrimination Act had been passed in 1975 and the Equal Opportunities Commission took it up as an issue.

I wrote so many letters to the tax people from the 60s into the 80s that I am certain it would have been mentioned if it had been possible for us to do as mumps says. It was never mentioned, suggested or offered.

sheramber

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.

Finance Act 1971 which took effect 1972/73 and lasted until independent taxation came in in 1990

zygurat789

mumps wrote: »

Do you know when? We were certainly doing it in the 80s and prior to 84 I am sure. I know that as we were both working for our local Police Force and in 84/85 when lots of married police officers were suddenly earning huge amounts because of the miners strike it started to be relevant to alot of peoople I worked with. It had affected us earlier, due to rank, and I can remember advising people about how to do it as they were upset about being hit by higher rate tax. This was most definitely before MargaretClare says she was campaigning for separate taxation in 87 I think she said. At that time she could definitely have been taxed separately but of course they would have lost the married mans tax allowance which made it unattractive to lower paid people. By bringing in universal separate taxation the married mans allowance was lost, which I am assuming was a loss to many people although I think there was some transitional relief, I'm not sure about that as it obviously made no difference to me personally.

You probably were. The period we are discussing is a decade before this.

zygurat789

mumps wrote: »

I remember that, It was a useful sum. I think we did some redecorating with ours and the rest went into the deposit fund for our first house. I wish I could remember how much I got, it would probably seem laughable now.

I seem to remember my husband got a cheque after the children were born, was that similar? I have a feeling that when our second child was born it was about £200 which would have seemed a massive amount to us in early 70s as I wasn't working and we had just bought our first house. I can't remember what we spent that on. Probably bills which seems a bit sad. I always think about this when people moan about not getting tax credits in our day but of course we did get the additional tax allowances. The downside was if you were very low paid it was of little if any benefit.

The first used the fact that the future wife was a single person until her marriage. As such she could earn up to her single person's allowance before she paid tax, if she married before that time the balance of unused allowances was lost.
So future husband makes out a deed of covenant, allowable against his tax
to his future wife to increase her taxable income by the amount of potentially unused allowances.
Result All of the tax deducted from future wife's salary up to single person's allowance refunded AND PAYE code increased for husband.
It waas necessary if the future wife did not earn enough to cover her allowances as a single person
The second for child allowance would probably be vecause the child was born before the end of the tax year, thus entitling the father to a whole year's allowance which was not added to the code number until after the year end resulting in a cash refund.

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

The first used the fact that the future wife was a single person until her marriage. As such she could earn up to her single person's allowance before she paid tax, if she married before that time the balance of unused allowances was lost.
So future husband makes out a deed of covenant, allowable against his tax
to his future wife to increase her taxable income by the amount of potentially unused allowances.
Result All of the tax deducted from future wife's salary up to single person's allowance refunded AND PAYE code increased for husband.
It waas necessary if the future wife did not earn enough to cover her allowances as a single person
The second for child allowance would probably be vecause the child was born before the end of the tax year, thus entitling the father to a whole year's allowance which was not added to the code number until after the year end resulting in a cash refund.

That rings a bell, two of mine were born in January so probably didn't get the refund till March so would have been the whole years allowance. Was a very nice bonus.

mumps

sheramber wrote: »

Finance Act 1971 which took effect 1972/73 and lasted until independent taxation came in in 1990

I thought it was the 70s, thanks for that.

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

You probably were. The period we are discussing is a decade before this.

sheramber wrote: »

Finance Act 1971 which took effect 1972/73 and lasted until independent taxation came in in 1990

Looks like it was possible a decade earlier.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

No, the married man's had gone by then, April 1990. I certainly remember it after we moved house in June 1990. He earned nothing - was on sickness benefits - but he still had a personal tax allowance.

It was well before 1987 that I was writing letters and trying to get this changed. At least 2 decades before that! Obviously I was not the only one who saw it as an injustice and wanted change - they wouldn't have done it just for me! The Sex Discrimination Act had been passed in 1975 and the Equal Opportunities Commission took it up as an issue.

I wrote so many letters to the tax people from the 60s into the 80s that I am certain it would have been mentioned if it had been possible for us to do as mumps says. It was never mentioned, suggested or offered.

Very useful to be able to use his unused tax allowance like that. Could men do the same if the wife didn't use hers I wonder.

I don't understand why the tax office didn't mention it but it was certainly possible, as I said in a previous post we took advantage of it and I know we weren't the only people. Sheramber says it was available from 1972, I know we used it in early 80s, possibly late 70s. I will have to think about dates of our promotions and it would give me a clue.

I think one of the problems back in the 70s was we didn't have the internet to check these things out so you needed to ask the right questions to get the right answers. I suppose some people at the tax office would be more proactive about helping than others. I think its a bit like the married womans stamp, so many people now say they didn't know what they were giving up but I think the onus is on us to find out.

I think in announcing this new equality it was a bit of a spin to present it as an advance when it was no difference for some of us and a disadvantage for others. Reminds me of a few years ago when they announced the ending of the 10p tax band, think it was Gordon Brown in 2007 or 2008. I heard the announcement on budget day and cheering in the background and immediately thought that just means we are all going to get taxed more and sure enough that was what it meant but it was only later when people realised that a campaign started to compensate people. Politicians can put a spin on anything, you have to look beyond the headlines.