Married couple's £200 tax break

[Pevenseagull]

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.

do what MPs have done over the years and employ your spouse as a consultant.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I know of a number of couples who were considering divorcing until this was announced but £200 goes a long way to compensating being trapped in a loveless relationship.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

Why an earth should someone pay less tax just because they are married?

Is the question that should be asked in its most simplest form.

Why ?

because the Tory right need appeasing after Gays were given equal rights.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

I know of a number of couples who were considering divorcing until this was announced but £200 goes a long way to compensating being trapped in a loveless relationship.

beautifully cynical, but so true.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Why an earth should someone pay less tax just because they are married?

Being married is often taxing enough.

 

[Creaky]

So how is this being paid for seeing as you seem to be in the know?

Being paid for?

The proposal isn't giving money to anyone, simply allowing some to keep more of their own money.

If you leave your job and wait a few months before getting a new one, then the exchequer's tax take falls - does that mean someone is paying towards your sabbatical? - of course it doesn't.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Being paid for?

The proposal isn't giving money to anyone, simply allowing some to keep more of their own money.

If you leave your job and wait a few months before getting a new one, then the exchequer's tax take falls - does that mean someone is paying towards your sabbatical? - of course it doesn't.

Errr .... hate to burst your bubble but of course someone is paying for it - there will be less tax intake because of it - someone will have to make up the difference. Anyway why should someone who gets married pay less tax ? Maybe someone who gets a dog should pay less tax - after all it's just as logical.

 

[BensGrandad]

In fairly recent years it was usual that most couples got married either in March or October in order to get the largest tax rebate as you were able to claim back tax up to 6 months prior to your marriage. I cannot remember which government or chancellor scrapped that but it wasn't that many years ago.

 

[Creaky]

Errr .... hate to burst your bubble but of course someone is paying for it - there will be less tax intake because of it - someone will have to make up the difference. Anyway why should someone who gets married pay less tax ? Maybe someone who gets a dog should pay less tax - after all it's just as logical.

It is a very strange terminology saying that someone must pay for a reduction in the tax take - if you suffer a pay cut does someone have to pay for it?

I've already pointed out the financial benefit to the state of married couples in comparison to unmarried ones - see post #45

If owning a dog meant that dog owners as a section of the population cost the state less than those who don't own a dog then I would agree with you.

 

[Pevenseagull]

It is a very strange terminology saying that someone must pay for a reduction in the tax take - if you suffer a pay cut does someone have to pay for it?

I've already pointed out the financial benefit to the state of married couples in comparison to unmarried ones - see post #45

If owning a dog meant that dog owners as a section of the population cost the state less than those who don't own a dog then I would agree with you.

In fairness, whilst she may not be a stunner, I wouldn't like someone to refer to her as a "dog" (at least not to her face).

 

[chimneys]

Being paid for?

The proposal isn't giving money to anyone, simply allowing some to keep more of their own money.

If you leave your job and wait a few months before getting a new one, then the exchequer's tax take falls - does that mean someone is paying towards your sabbatical? - of course it doesn't.

Government budgets are based upon an assumed level of tax and other income year on year. That tax is dropping from 2015 because of this policy. Therefore Government expenditure will have to reduce as a result. So OK, instead of asking how is it is going to be paid for, are you still going to be as obtuse if I ask which Government departments are going to get a reduced budget as a result of this policy?

 

[chimneys]

I would agree that a child brought up lovingly by a single parent can often have a better childhood than one brought up in an unloving two parent family - it is however also true that in general the child brought up by a single parent requires greater state financial support than one brought up by a couple. Financially therefore it makes sense for the government to encourage marriage.

So how would you explain this to a widow struggling to bring up 3 kids, while next door her neighbours living in a dead marriage of convenience still benefit from this policy? How is that fair?

 

[dougdeep]

Inequality never works well.

Perhaps you could point me to a place where there is equality in any form.

 

[Creaky]

Government budgets are based upon an assumed level of tax and other income year on year. That tax is dropping from 2015 because of this policy. Therefore Government expenditure will have to reduce as a result. So OK, instead of asking how is it is going to be paid for, are you still going to be as obtuse if I ask which Government departments are going to get a reduced budget as a result of this policy?

The total value of the transferable tax allowance is estimated at about £600 million. This will be going to the less well off families so it is fair to say that the majority of this will be spent immediately by those families resulting in 20% returning almost immediately to the treasury.

The remaining £480 million won't just end up in a bank somewhere but will continue to circulate in the economy resulting in higher earnings for some, possibly the creation of jobs and greater profits for some companies all resulting in additional revenue or reduced spend by the government. It is generally accepted by many economists that gradually reducing tax rates can result in greater overall tax revenues and/or government spending.

Rather than asking what the cost is to the government of this tax cut a fairer question to ask would be who won't now, as the economy revives, get a tax cut.

 

[chimneys]

The remaining £480 million won't just end up in a bank somewhere but will continue to circulate in the economy resulting in higher earnings for some, possibly the creation of jobs and greater profits for some companies all resulting in additional revenue or reduced spend by the government. It is generally accepted by many economists that gradually reducing tax rates can result in greater overall tax revenues and/or government spending.

Wonderful and I'm all for that! And following your logic, why not give it to everyone so tax revenue/Government spending can increase even more?

 

[Nibble]

If you are single, living on your own and employed you are pretty shafted at the moment. You shoulder all living costs on your own, food shopping is very uneconomical, rates and council tax all come from one income. Married couples, with or without kids, who are both employed probably have it easiest right now, why they should be entitled to any tax relief is absurd.

I am single and live alone (cue the jokes!), have done so for about 2 years, in that time I would say that my social life has suffered as the cost of food has risen, travel costs increase regularly, pubs are extortionate, and no cost splitting for entertainment in your home. I'm lucky in that my work takes me out and about a lot but I imagine having a 9-5 medium paid job and living alone right now is a pretty depressing situation to be in as oppose to a few years back when it was probably a great position to be in, young, free, single etc. I suppose it depends on how much you earn but why not a single person's living allowance?

I know if you earn a low wage you are entitled to some help but I'm not sure how badly paid you have to be to qualify.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you are single, living on your own and employed you are pretty shafted at the moment.

at the moment? when was it any different? this is the sort of reason why flat taxes are a great idea for genuinely fair taxation. (cue attacks from the left)

 

[Nibble]

at the moment? when was it any different? this is the sort of reason why flat taxes are a great idea for genuinely fair taxation. (cue attacks from the left)

You'll have to forgive my ignorance, and genuine question, can you explain that to me?

 

[Creaky]

at the moment? when was it any different? this is the sort of reason why flat taxes are a great idea for genuinely fair taxation. (cue attacks from the left)

This

In fact then why not totally remove taxation on income and apply tax to spending via VAT. That way the more you spend the more you pay - no one can avoid nor evade taxation other than by not spending - The savings in costs at HMRC would be massive.

 

[Nibble]

This

In fact then why not totally remove taxation on income and apply tax to spending via VAT. That way the more you spend the more you pay - no one can avoid nor evade taxation other than by not spending - The savings in costs at HMRC would be massive.

That sounds a pretty good idea right now. But I'm quite ignorant on these matters.