my income and wife

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

1914, now that was before my time

It was certainly a long time ago but it is interesting that the election to be taxed separately was available even then, although if you read the details the couple could each work out what the other earned because of how the tax allowance was split so no privacy there.

Mind you it never bothered me who the tax office wrote to as I opened all the letters, filled in all the forms and just got DH to sign on the dotted line. This system is still in use in the mumps household and has stood the test of time. It is perhaps a small worry that DH would need to put his thinking head on if I kick the bucket but then again if he goes first I will have to get my head round some of the stuff he takes responsibility for. Either that or find myself a toyboy, on the other hand I suppose having 3 sons does have its uses. Actually we are both perfectly capable but a division of labour has always seemed more efficient.

Just noticed on the News to the right of this there is a article about couples now being able to shift unused tax allowance between them. So we are back to where MargaretClare was in 1990. The more things change and all that.

zygurat789

mumps wrote: »

It was certainly a long time ago but it is interesting that the election to be taxed separately was available even then, although if you read the details the couple could each work out what the other earned because of how the tax allowance was split so no privacy there.

Mind you it never bothered me who the tax office wrote to as I opened all the letters, filled in all the forms and just got DH to sign on the dotted line. This system is still in use in the mumps household and has stood the test of time. It is perhaps a small worry that DH would need to put his thinking head on if I kick the bucket but then again if he goes first I will have to get my head round some of the stuff he takes responsibility for. Either that or find myself a toyboy, on the other hand I suppose having 3 sons does have its uses. Actually we are both perfectly capable but a division of labour has always seemed more efficient.

Just noticed on the News to the right of this there is a article about couples now being able to shift unused tax allowance between them. So we are back to where MargaretClare was in 1990. The more things change and all that.

There would have been BIG changes in all aspects of the tax system after the war when PAYE was brought in. I don't think I've come across anyone on here who has practical experience of that era, not even MargaretClare.
The bit about shifting umused allowances is currently being debated on this board. If either spouse has unused allowances and the other does not pay tax at higher than the basic rate then it could be useful.

mumps

zygurat789 wrote: »

There would have been BIG changes in all aspects of the tax system after the war when PAYE was brought in. I don't think I've come across anyone on here who has practical experience of that era, not even MargaretClare.
The bit about shifting umused allowances is currently being debated on this board. If either spouse has unused allowances and the other does not pay tax at higher than the basic rate then it could be useful.

I am sure it could be useful, if one parent wanted to stay at home with children for example they could shift their allowance, I am assuming there is a limit but if you could shift the whole allowance it would give you a useful sum.

Corncrake2

mumps wrote: »

if one parent wanted to stay at home with children for example they could shift their allowance,

Exactly

I am assuming there is a limit

there is now, or will be when the new allowance transfer comes into effect, £1000 I think it is which is a tax saving of £200 at the 20% rate
but there was not pre-Lawson/Major

but if you could shift the whole allowance it would give you a useful sum.

Exactly what I was saying ! Thatcher et. al. stopped it !
The married man with no taxable income could transfer the whole of the Married Man's tax allowance to the earning wife INCLUDING (or including in it) his personal allowance.
But a wife with no income could only transfer her personal allowance (since she had no Married Man's Allowance !!!! cos she was a woman and there was no Married Womans Allowance to transfer to an earning him !!!!
way back in post #8
!!!!
Which is why I am so upset about Maggie et.al. and indignant at the present lot trying to sound so benevolent in introducing a LITTLE bit of transferable allowance. and air-brushing out of history what their chums did a wee while back IN living memory !
Grrr
Then, post Thatcher, neither he nor her could transfer anything to the other.