[Closed] married couple tax break

As part of a married couple with a child on the way, I must say that I am utterly convinced that a tax break for married couples with children is a fantastic idea 😀

Me too I think it's a great idea, those with spare cash should pay more.

so any reasons OTHER than the fact your married?

Yep, for sure. We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children, so I think that tax breaks should be reinstated for married couples.
Oh, and the reintroduction of mortgage interest relief.

Agree, Great Idea

Actually I don't really think it's a great idea. Promotion of the "family unit" is [i]probably[/i] a good thing, but I'm not sure that financial incentives are the right way to go about it.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children, so I think that tax breaks should be reinstated for married couples.

You believe that? Honestly? Even if you do its not a reason for it being a good thing, what benefit wold it have?

This will no doubt mis-fire as the Tory faithful will initially love the idea of supporting wedlock until the Daily Mail finds an immigrant claiming the tax break multiple times over as he has numerous wives.

We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children

I don't think that is even remotely relevant. And I would presume that the tax relief would apply equally to same-sex marriages which many Christians don't recognise.

As with any policy - it is only *generally* of interst or deemed a good thing if it benefits you. In general we all have our own best interests at heart.

And why shouldn't we? After all, that's what the politicians do...

[i]so any reasons OTHER than the fact your married? [/i]

I'll pay less tax.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

small change compared to Mummy was attracted to Daddy because of his money....
Ecclestone, McGee et al.

As with any policy - it is only *generally* of interst or deemed a good thing if it benefits you. In general we all have our own best interests at heart.

Well I suppose if you take that view thats fine.

small change compared to Mummy was attracted to Daddy because of his money....
Ecclestone, McGee et al.

I fail to see what possible relevance that has.

I'm in - where do I sign?

best idea, I've heard for ages

I'm in - where do I sign?

Conservative Party Central Office.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6992961.ece

seems funny how the tories drone on about needing to cut the defecit and come out with this.

To me having had to grow up in a single parent family during the last period in which the tories were in power this just smacks of more single parent bashing and is the main reason I would never, ever vote for them.

Well I suppose if you take that view thats fine.

I would wager that it is a small minority of voters that vote for the 'greater good'.

it will probably amount to about £6 / month (before deductions) so not worth the paper its written on.

I just want them to sort the bloomin inheritance tax thing and I am on board.

Its a load of bobbins.
We are not a Christian country - we are a secular country. Marriage is not the crucial thing - a sable family is the crucial thing.

Its a very minor piece of stupidity of no great consequence however.

I just want them to sort the bloomin inheritance tax thing and I am on board.

How could it it apply to same sex 'marriages'? That's just icky.

I think it's a terrible idea, despite being married. You are effectively penalising people for not being married. What kind of message is this giving? That marriage is the ultimate aim? That you SHOULD be married? Who the bloody hell are politicians to preach morals or attempt to bribe people to accept their way of thinking?

Absolutely disgraceful, and I choose those words carefully ie not just as hyperbole as is common these days.

Im not particularly in favour of it, much as I dont particularly like universal child benefit payments and child trust certificates for the middle classes.

And I say that as married higher rate tax payer with a child.

Such incentives are an unneccessary "well done" to those who need no further encouragment to form a stable nuclear family while they are of little relevance to the bulk of people who form the disfunctional families of the nation.

Some reform of the child benefit wouldnt go amiss - available to only lower rate tax payers and possibly in extreme cases administered by a guardian organisation.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

It's never too early to teach your children to be tax efficient.

I'm not convinced that:
"Mummy doesn't love daddy any more, but they stay together for tax reasons."
is the right message to give our children.

1/ If a marrage is irretrievably flawed it will end whether there's a few quid of tax breaks involved or not.

2/ If a marriage isn't irretrievable and a few quid in tax breaks is enough incentive that a couple will stay together and work out differences I don't see that as a bad thing.

Divorce is too easy and too many people enter marriage nowadays without being prepared to work sufficiently at it.

TandemJeremy - Member
Marriage is not the crucial thing - a [b][u]sable[/b][/u] family is the crucial thing.

Good tax break if we can all dress in sable 😀

Yet another subsidary, paid for by the taxpayer - who may or may not benefit.

What really needs to happen is for the country to spend far less, and for far more people to be taken out of tax altogether. Increase the tax-free income to £10k pa, flat rate of tax 25%, reduce NI to 5% of all income for both employees and employers; combine HMR&C and DWP so only a single point for all income/benefits/taxation - and then work out what public expenditure needs to be cut by - probably 20%. Do it over one year, wham-bamb.

And for the record, married with kids.

so ther than some people will pay less tax no one has any idea how it would help anything?

Why should some people be taxed less than me and mrsmidlife (we're not married, but will be having a 25th anniversary (of 1st shag before you ask) party this year) just because some mystic has muttered an incantation for them. Nuts.

Oh and don't get me started on registry office marriages and civil partnerships. Paying good money to take out a wholly unenforcable contract? Some people are more gullible than others it seems.

If a marrage is irretrievably flawed it will end whether there's a few quid of tax breaks involved or not.

So that suggests the tax break is pointless because it isn't large enough to actually alter behaviour.

How could it it apply to same sex 'marriages'? That's just icky.

WTF? Homophobe much?

I'm not sure if the proposed policy does apply to same-sex marriages, but if ti doesn't then that would be another major mark against it.

How about a tax break for single or partnered people and heavy tax for children?

Or even paying out of your onw pocket for education for your kids?

IMO the only sensible thing the state should do about marriage is get out of the business altogether. Recognise that religions might have something called marriage as a sacrament or whatever, but give it no more legal weight than baptism or last rites. Don't give any legal weight to marriages or civil partnerships for any reason, and if people want to draw up legal docs such as wills or pre-nup type things let them get on with it with a lawyer. I just don't see the state as having a role. Anyway I'm off to pick the three bastards from school.

How could it it apply to same sex 'marriages'? That's just icky.

Speak for yourself! I quite enjoy mine!

I'm not sure if the proposed policy does apply to same-sex marriages

Why should some people be taxed less than me and mrsmidlife (we're not married, but will be having a 25th anniversary

Yep, can't see why common-law marriages shouldn't be included by this measure either.

You are effectively penalising people for not being married

No, you are giving people a tax reward for bringing up your children with a mother and father in a (hopefully) stable relationship.

I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children. I think thats just wrong.

Wouldn't same-sex 'marriages' not comply due to the technicality that they are not actually marriages but a civil partnership?

Well, it'd be hard to see how they could deny it given that:

Civil partners must be treated the same as married couples on a wide range of legal matters, including:
[list][*]tax, including Inheritance Tax[/*]
[*]employment benefits[/*]
[*]most state and occupational pension benefits[/*]
[*]income-related benefits, tax credits and [u]child support[/u][/*]
[*]their duty to provide reasonable maintenance for their civil partner and any children of the family[/*]
[*]ability to apply for parental responsibility for their civil partner's child[/*]
[*]inheritance of tenancy agreements[/*]
[*]protection from domestic violence[/*]
[*]immigration and nationality purposes[/*]
[/list]
-- http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_10026937

I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children.

😯 ..because.....?

we're not married, but will be having a 25th anniversary (of 1st shag before you ask) party this year

Bet that's a nice cake 😀 Will you be "renewing your vows" 😉

just because some mystic has muttered an incantation for them. Nuts.

No mystics were involved in our wedding. It was held in a nice hotel with us making promises before family and friends. And yes it is a legally binding contract ta.

Why should they? Its simply not natural.

I think it's a great idea, but only if it's matched with a commensurate tax increase if you get divorced.

No, you are giving people a tax reward for bringing up your children with a mother and father in a (hopefully) stable relationship.

It's for married people, not families as far as I can tell. There are other ways of achieving the same end without recourse to additional tax relief. Allowing transfer of the tax free allowance between partners when they have a child would be one way of doing this.

scruff:
I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children.
Why should they? Its simply not natural.

I see.

And what about hetero couples that are infertile or are unable to conceive for other reasons? That's "not natural" either is it?

And saving babies that are born prematurely? That's hardly natural.

Performing caesarean sections to avoid the mother and baby dying in labour? Not natural.

I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children. I think thats just wrong.

With scruff on this. Soem of my best friends are gay, but I wouldn't like to see them having children- if you didnt have the potential to have them with each other naturally, you shouldn't be able to adopt them, imo. A heterosexual couple adopting is more likely to have a stable longlasting relationship than a homosexual couple adopting.

GrahamS, I wouldnt waste your breath tbh

how about a tax rebate for people who cycle to work

dont pollute thus not contributing to noise pollution- a factor in depression and mental illness
air pollution- cancer, asthma, heart disease, allergies, environmental damage etc
get regular exercise so wont have a heart attack at 40 like some of the fatties i cycle past in their little wheeled boxes every day
congestion and so on.........

oh yeah the daily wail crowd that cameron is trying to woo with his stupid married tax relief bollox hate cyclists even more than they hate single mum hoody gay people who get divorced

A heterosexual couple adopting is more likely to have a stable longlasting relationship than a homosexual couple adopting.

Evidence?

What's the divorce rate of hetero versus homo couples?

I have a good friend who's dad left when she was very young and her mum changed allegience to the gayers. She has had two mothers for the rest her life, nothing bad happend and she seems normal enough to me.

From what I've read, children of married parents tend to do better than those of divorced parents. So yes, I think it's a good idea.

Something needs to be done in the tax / benefit system to redress the balance of things. At the moment, you can far better off as a single mother than as a married / co-habiting couple, particularly if you're on a low income / benefits. There are two problems with this: 1, you put additional financial pressure on two parent families, making them more likely to break up, and 2, you create a temptation for two parent families to claim single parent status in order to have enough cash to survive, and therefore criminalise people for trying to get by.

Neither of these outcomes seems very sane to me.

When it comes to the deficit, it seems to me that this is a sensible long term policy. By producing more successful people as offspring of marriage, we increase future tax revenues and reduce future crime rates, and increase future productivity. Not every policy has an immediate payoff.

As for people who are infertile / gay and want kids, in an ideal world I'd like to see kids brought up by their parents. However, there are a hell of a lot of kids in care, which in itself is a horrible process, and a hell of a lot more kids who aren't in care because social services don't pull their finger out. I think adoption / long term foster care could improve their lives dramatically.

From what I've read, children of married parents tend to do better than those of divorced parents. So yes, I think it's a good idea.

Better at what? Tiddlewinks? Do children of parents who arent married and live together do worse (in education lets say) than married ones? Two parenst maybe ideal (not having ever met my father I would agree) but to suggest thats its the two parents being married and present that improves their chances rather than income seems damn hard to proove.

And lets not forget this is a tax break for being married not for being married and having children whilst living together. I expect a lot of people to stay married but not live together.

The problem is that a couple on a low income are financially worse off if they stay together.

The system should be skewed so that a couple are better off financially if they stay together. Even if it's marginal.

Seems fine to me.

GrahamS

Bet that's a nice cake Will you be "renewing your vows"

Oh yes, but I'll spare you the video.

No mystics were involved in our wedding. It was held in a nice hotel with us making promises before family and friends. And yes it is a legally binding contract ta.

You'll have to explain the last bit to me, I was under the impression you or she could initiate divorce proceedings at any time, and though there might be a delay depending on grounds, one side cannot hold the other into a marriage, and courts can't refuse to grant a divorce indefinitely. That's a pretty odd sort of legally binding contract to me. Nothing against your relationship, just don't see how the state or the law needs to be involved.

Is it a good idea? Yes it is, then I could pay for sex 😛

What about a single person on a low income?

It's bloody hard to run a house on national basic minimum wage.

I get F all help apart from a 25% reduction in council tax.

Reducing the tax if you're married is just wrong.

Do children of parents who arent married and live together do worse (in education lets say) than married ones?

From what I've just looked up from the CSJ's website, there are benefits in Education, mental & physical health and overall life outcomes (ie, having a job and not going to prison / being a drug or drink addled wreck). I've not gone back and done a full analysis of the studies referenced, but I'm sure somebody will.

I'm sure there will be some correlation between marriage rates and class / income , and I don't know how well these were isolated in the research.

The problem is that a couple on a low income are financially worse off if they stay together.

Then deal with that problem, who will benefit most from this policy? Not those on low incomes thats for sure

Scruff

No, you are giving people a tax reward for bringing up your children with a mother and father in a (hopefully) stable relationship.

So, we'd been together 11 years before deciding to have children, why should folk with a certificate as well be treated differently?

I dont agree that gays should be allowed to have children. I think thats just wrong.

Is it 1953 already? How exactly would you propose stopping them? Most offensive thing I've ever seen on STW.

Then deal with that problem, who will benefit most from this policy? Not those on low incomes thats for sure

It is people on low incomes who will benefit most, that is pretty obvious. The idea is likely to provide people with an extra 20 quid or so a week. That sort of sum is nothing to people on the average wage, but for people making very little, it is a big deal.

So, we'd been together 11 years before deciding to have children, why should folk with a certificate as well be treated differently?

I can't see why a trivial piece of paperwork worries you so much.

one side cannot hold the other into a marriage, and courts can't refuse to grant a divorce indefinitely. That's a pretty odd sort of legally binding contract to me

Fair point. I really meant that it was no [i]less[/i] of legal contract than one conceived in front of a mystic and an invisible ghost, rather than comparing to your own state of common-law marriage.

However, despite your points, it does seem to me that the marriage union is a recognised by courts, government and tax. While it isn't impossible to get out of, it does still involve legal proceedings.

Whereas "marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute" is only still legally recognised for some tax/benefit purposes.

just don't see how the state or the law needs to be involved.

I see your point but they are no more than they are involved (less so in fact) when you inform them you've had a child.

And saving babies that are born prematurely? That's hardly natural.

Performing caesarean sections to avoid the mother and baby dying in labour? Not natural.

t is people on low incomes who will benefit most, that is pretty obvious.

Erm run that past me. People on low incomes dont pay much tax at all so will get back less or nothing from this whereas those paying a lot of tax will save more. So the policy as a whole will benefit the richer rahter than the poor so its a hugely inefficient way of helping those on low incomes.

tron, tax breaks always give a bigger benefit to those on a higher wage by virtue of the fact that they paid more tax in the first place.

If you added say £1000 to the tax free allowance, anyone earning less than the tax free allowance would receive no extra money, those in the 20% tax bracket would receive an annual benefit of £200 per year and those who pay tax at 40% would receive an annual benefit of £400 per year.

I guess that depends on how its implemented.
Increasing tax threshold would benefit the poor, decreasing tax rate would benefit the rich.
No idea what the Tory policy is. I suspect they don't know either 🙂

I'm Married............

But have no nuts so can't have Kid's. Bloody Tories being jaffa ist.

tron, tax breaks always give a bigger benefit to those on a higher wage by virtue of the fact that they paid more tax in the first place.

It could be done as a flat rate amount, like the current £190 "Health In Pregnancy" benefit that everyone is supposed to get during pregnancy.

Now if you want to get serious about tax reform and allowances, it would be worth thinking about giving every citizen a tax allowance, and I'm thinking everybody's should be equal, from birth to death. Then you allow transfer of allowances within households, so earning parents get a tax break to help bring up kids, and disabled or elderly relatives can transfer theirs to their carers, making it more possible for extended families to look after their own and still afford a decent life.

Last time I had a look the tax free allowance was around 6k. The minimum wage is 5.80. So if you're working a 35 hour week, you're getting just over 10k per year. You go from paying tax on 4k to paying tax on none of it, assuming you can use all of your spouse's tax free allowance. If you're doing a part time job, you're probably not going to be helped at all by an increase in your tax free allowance. (As far as I'm aware, the policy is to allow married couples to shift their tax allowances around.)

As for gonefishin, that's not how things work. You pay 20% tax up until the 40% band kicks in, and then pay 40% on everything you earn above the 40% band. That's the only way you could have such steep steps in the banding, otherwise people would have wages jumping from 20k to around 30k in order to provide a meaningful payrise. Increasing the tax free band by 1k gives everyone the same amount of benefit.

We're resident in a Christian country, and marriage is the accepted Chrisitan relationship for nurturing children

of course Hindus, Siehks, Jews, Muslims or Jedis don't believe in marriage.

cock.

GrahamS that's really more of a benefit than a tax break though and what is the difference between that and child benefit?

tron, yo do realise that poor people often dont have jobs dont you?

Is it 1953 already? How exactly would you propose stopping them? Most offensive thing I've ever seen on STW.

You ought to come here more often 😀

TBH - I've never found anything on this site offensive

GrahamS that's really more of a benefit than a tax break though

True, but I haven't bothered to check how the Tories propose to implement this proposed break/benefit. I'm not sure they know either.

what is the difference between that and child benefit?

Not much, except you get it before the child is born.

Bump Benefit?

(As far as I'm aware, the policy is to allow married couples to shift their tax allowances around.)

Nope, at least not according to the BBC news story that I read. It was being considered but was ditched as it was too expensive.

I thought that the band between the 20% & 40% tax brackets were based on a fixed differential rather than the 40% rate kicking in at a fixed level.

anagallis, you do realise that poor people often don't take jobs because the taxation and benefits system is such that there is a cost or extremely marginal benefit to taking a job?

You do realise that the benefits situation is such that a couple with a child derive the highest level combined of benefit payment by having seperate addresses? You do realise that our wonderful government pays for people to check up on these things and runs dedicated grass up your neighbours lines?

You do realise that even if someone takes a job for the marginal benefit it will provide, the process of arranging for benefit payments to resume if you're not kept on is lengthy and can cause extreme short term hardship?

The problem is a simple one - there are incentives for low income / unemployed couples to split up, either genuinely, or on paper, in the form of benefits for single parents. However, no sane person is going to say that single parents should have their benefits cut, or that the criminalisation of otherwise law abiding people is a good thing. This is compounded by the benefits situation, which provides strong dis-incentives to take work. This situation creates long term problems which have been documented by research.

The only logical option in this situation is to provide incentives for people to stay together & work, and that is what the policy does.

For what it's worth, I've been through the process of signing onto the dole, and I know people who live on benefits & have kids.

tron I am aware of all this yes, however

The only logical option in this situation is to provide incentives for people to stay together & work, and that is what the policy does.

whilst the first part of this is sensible the second is deluded the policy does not do this in any even vagley efficient manner. Have you grasped how changes to reduce tax for married couples accross the board benefit those who have the most yet. Its fairly basic but if you cannot grasp it there's not much point me carrying on.

Wow, Jan Moir uses STW!

You have two options when apportioning benefits.

You can means test, or you can just give them out universally.

Now, you could means test the benefit, but I suspect the Tories won't a) because this always reduces benefit uptake, generally in those who need the benefit the most - see Tax Credits for an example, b) because it costs money, and c) it raises the opportunity for the opposition to pick holes in percieved unfairnesses.

Assuming we're talking about a policy such as allowing the universal combination of tax free thresholds - having had a look, nobody seems to know what the Tory policy on this is:

If you're earning 10k a year, the boost to your earnings in percentage terms by an extra 20 quid a week or so is enormous. The boost of an extra 20 quid to someone with a household income of 50k before tax is chicken feed.

In the low income household it may make the difference between the kids having winter coats, school trips and a few books, or not. In the average income household, it will disappear into the melee of discretionary spending, barely noticed.

Can you explain to me why you think a tax break such as an increase in the tax free threshold would benefit high earners more than low earners?

I see your point obviously but in these hard pressed times when we must reduce a defiecit it is almost pointless as it doesnt target those that need it. Your abc points dont add up. All in all its a cheap gimmick that benefits hardly anyone but will cost lots.