Married couple's £200 tax break

[Butch Willykins]

Because there is a legal contract between the couple making them a partnership - as such it seems reasonable that their joint income should be treated as just that, a joint income and that their joint tax allowances should be set against that joint income.

It doesn't seem that reasonable to me. Joint incomes are not treated as one. Each person has there own tax code.

 

[Creaky]

So unmarried people each get £100 off a year rather than £200?

I don't think you understand what is being proposed.

As an individual you have a tax allowance. You can earn up to that amount without paying tax. What is being proposed is that if both members of a married couple are working and one isn't earning enough to use all their tax allowance then some of the unused allowance can be used by the other partner to offset the amount of tax they pay.

A simplified example is a couple who both have a tax allowance of £5,000 - One is earning £20,000 the other £4,000 - currently the former would be paying tax on £15,000, (£20k - £5k) and the second would not be paying any tax.

It is proposed that because they are legal partnership their income be added together, (24k), as should their allowances, (£10k), so the couple would be paying tax on the difference, £14,000.

There would be a limit on the saving of £200.

 

[nwgull]

Modern day marriage is a pointless concept. The fact that the state are proposing to offer £200 to entice couples to enter into such a contract makes this belief of mine even stronger.

 

[yxee]

I don't think you understand what is being proposed.

As an individual you have a tax allowance. You can earn up to that amount without paying tax. What is being proposed is that if both members of a married couple are working and one isn't earning enough to use all their tax allowance then some of the unused allowance can be used by the other partner to offset the amount of tax they pay.

A simplified example is a couple who both have a tax allowance of £5,000 - One is earning £20,000 the other £4,000 - currently the former would be paying tax on £15,000, (£20k - £5k) and the second would not be paying any tax.

It is proposed that because they are legal partnership their income be added together, (24k), as should their allowances, (£10k), so the couple would be paying tax on the difference, £14,000.

There would be a limit on the saving of £200.

Thanks for the explanation, although I still don't see any justification though.

Maybe if a married couple both fall ill, they can share their hospital bed, if they're sharing their tax allowance?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Total joke

 

[Butch Willykins]

Total joke

And not a very funny one!

 

[beorhthelm]

Modern day marriage is a pointless concept. The fact that the state are proposing to offer £200 to entice couples to enter into such a contract makes this belief of mine even stronger.

this.

 

[bluenitsuj]

I don't see why married/civil partner couples should qualify for any tax breaks.

Fair point, but then again, why should people that choose to have children get child benefit etc.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Because there is a legal contract between the couple making them a partnership - as such it seems reasonable that their joint income should be treated as just that, a joint income and that their joint tax allowances should be set against that joint income.

If that were true ( and it isn't and won't still be after this bribe ) then both partners tax free allowance should be blended into a single tax free allowance so should either party be out of work the other partner can use the unemployed partners allowance.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Fair point, but then again, why should people that choose to have children get child benefit etc.

That one isn't quite so straight forward though. Most of us I would hope would never want to see a child suffer because their parents can't afford to properly clothe or feed them. There's a good argument for bringing down the threshold of when child benefit is stopped but it shouldn't be removed entirely. Personally I would like to see it converted to vouchers for anyone with a pre-school child and then once children go to school they ALL get free school uniform and meals - at that point child benefit would be scrapped for everyone.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So as long as you don't earn much and get married, you get a bonus cheque from the people who do earn a lot and don't get married.


Seems fair.

No-one will receive a cheque (or any other kind of payment). All that will happen is that one individual in a marriage or civil partnership might pay less tax.

It's about as significant as the tax rule that allows a subscription to a professional body to be tax deductable, or the rule that allows a self-employed carpenter to pay less tax when he buys a new saw.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I reckon the whingers on here are the ones who are missing out / don't qualify and are pi$$ed off that they have been excluded from the opportunity to pay a bit less tax.

Hands up those who wouldn't want a tax deduction if it were offered - hmmmm, thought so.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I reckon the whingers on here are the ones who are missing out / don't qualify and are pi$$ed off that they have been excluded from the opportunity to pay a bit less tax.

Hands up those who wouldn't want a tax deduction if it were offered - hmmmm, thought so.

Not in the slightest - it's more that the state should have no say in whether marriage is a good thing or bad thing. Our tax laws should be based around income not if you partake in some outdated airy fairy ceremony.

 

[severnside gull]

If both are basic rate tax payers.

What an absolute farce of a gimmick!!

complicated and for little return and not until 2015 so no benefit felt until post the next election.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not in the slightest - it's more that the state should have no say in whether marriage is a good thing or bad thing. Our tax laws should be based around income.

Quite.

 

[nwgull]

Fair point, but then again, why should people that choose to have children get child benefit etc.

Kids cost money to bring up, and kids that don't live in poverty are more likely to do well in school, get a job and become taxpayers themselves. Being married costs no more than co-habiting, until you come to the divorce.

 

[severnside gull]

If both are basic rate tax payers.

What an absolute farce of a gimmick!!

complicated and for little return and not until 2015 so no benefit felt until post the next election.

 

[Creaky]

If that were true ( and it isn't and won't still be after this bribe ) then both partners tax free allowance should be blended into a single tax free allowance so should either party be out of work the other partner can use the unemployed partners allowance.

That's how it used to be. And I agree that is how it should still be.

 

[Creaky]

Kids cost money to bring up, and kids that don't live in poverty are more likely to do well in school, get a job and become taxpayers themselves. Being married costs no more than co-habiting, until you come to the divorce.

In a marriage every child born is presumed in law to have been fathered by the husband - the husband has the right to have his name put on the birth certificate whether or not he is the father and whether or not the wife wants his name on the certificate - this means the father has real rights under law as well as responsibilities that can't be disputed, unlike with children orn to an unmarried couple.

Two thirds of marriages last until the 20th anniversary - the time during which most couples have children. Most research accepts that children brought up by both a mother and a father are both financially and emotionally advantaged over those cared for by a single parent. That doesn't deny the fact that many unmarried couples stay together for similar periods of time but statistically children born out of wedlock are more likely to be cared for by a single parent at some time during their childhood than those born in wedlock resulting in additional costs to the state.

 

[Titanic]

I don't see why married/civil partner couples should qualify for any tax breaks.

Indeed... we deserve MEDALS.