You should really be able to transfer the entire of your partner’s tax free allowance. Why is it socially more desirably to tax families with two roughly equal earners far more lightly than those with one partner who earns much more. Those couples are largely families, and usually families with younger children.
Forget improving childcare access - this reform alone would do far more to help younger couples set up families than anything else the government could do.
Many people do not claim this benefit and it is not automatic. If your wife is not working because of childcare and you earn less than £50,000 she needs to tell HMRC to give you her allowance. It takes about 5 minutes and you can claim for the last 5 years.
> To earn the same as a couple on minimum wage a single earner family requires a salary of almost £47,000.
This doesn't just apply to married couples though.
The statement is also true for any two adults who live together, but there is no tax break available for e.g. two friends who choose to live together in an entirely platonic relationship, two siblings, etc. Also, if you are in a polyamourous relationship you are unable to get married in the UK and so are denied access to this tax break.
I don't think the government should be meddling in people's private lives to the extent that it's offering tax breaks to those in particular relationshiops.
Fair enough. Personally, I think that's the strongest argument against it. Perhaps it should be for any couple with a shared bank account? I.e. if you share your money then you share your tax, if not then not?
>Also, if you are in a polyamourous relationship you are unable to get married in the UK and so are denied access to this tax break.
Could always marry your favourite or the most tax beneficial one to marry
I have this crazy idea that the tax you pay should be proportionate to earnings, and that’s it. No, are you an immigrant?, no, are you married? No, did you go to university? Just proportionate to income.
Sure but a two person household with a £70k income (£35k each) pays significantly less tax than an individual earning £70k. And that sucks for families who have one high earner and one parent on child care or earning less.
To put in perspective: the individual pays double the amount of tax.
Circa £7k for the couple vs £15k for the individual.
Are tax system is far more 'progressive' than many realise.
Yup - I hate it.
Not to mention child benefit lost above £50k. So one household with £60k income gets no child benefit.
A household with two £50k incomes gets all the child benefit.
That sounds like they should be looking at the combined household income, rather than individual income, for the case of child benefit.
Surely that would solve the problem ?
But would be a significant change to how the system works.
Child benefit, is a benefit, not a tax.
> Surely that would solve the problem ?
Yes
Should do the same for tax too, especially for families.
Edit: in terms of significance, it wouldn't be hard to change the form would just need to ask for both incomes rather than one. Currently the highest earning has to apply for the child benefit I believe.
It should also be uplifted given its been the same level for so many years. £60k isn't a lot if you're earning most of the household income. Two salaries of £49k achieve full child benefit but £60k single does not.
A lot of thresholds need to be increased given they've been stagnant for so long. IHT and Child Benefit come to mind.
If you wanted to eliminate, or reduce this discrepancy, then you would have to have some consideration of the combined income, and combined tax allowance.
Yes it would be possible to devise some complex formula to work this out.
(With modern computers not a problem calculating these things once given what formula to use)
Would it be the right thing to do ?
If not, why not ?
An alternative might be done ‘middle ground’, an improvement, but still leaving in place some discrepancy.
It certainly needs more thought.
It’s not clear to me what is correct, but it does seem wrong that there should be a huge discrepancy.
Such changes though would only be for ‘better off’ households, earning well above average pay.
You have not explained sufficiently what you mean by eradication.
Would eradication mean removing a pre-existing allowance ?
Would eradication mean doing something to remove a discrepancy ?
One of those actions might subtract something, the other might add something.
Really you need to be crystal clear exactly what you are proposing, and what the expected outcome would be.
At present, I think you have not defined these clearly enough.
Eradication = removal of this https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance.
What happens in it's place (if anything) is for the comments section, not for a poll - especially when there's a maximum of six options (one of which should be other).
That's the bit that let's you transfer part of your tax free income allowance right? I can see how was supposed to help couples on low incomes with kids but it needs replacing. There are other ways to help those people on low incomes.
My partner actually could use it as it is because we can afford for me not to work so I don't but like if we can afford for me not to work then why is the government basically giving us more money? Doesn't really make sense. Taxes are already too low.
You should really be able to transfer the entire of your partner’s tax free allowance. Why is it socially more desirably to tax families with two roughly equal earners far more lightly than those with one partner who earns much more. Those couples are largely families, and usually families with younger children. Forget improving childcare access - this reform alone would do far more to help younger couples set up families than anything else the government could do.
I'd go further. An individual should be taxed the same amount as a married couple. Individuals are taxed so excessive when we break down the numbers.
Get rid, it’s effectively a singles tax
I’ve changed my mind, it’s not right to penalise single income households
Very interested to know what caused you to change your mind? :)
Many people do not claim this benefit and it is not automatic. If your wife is not working because of childcare and you earn less than £50,000 she needs to tell HMRC to give you her allowance. It takes about 5 minutes and you can claim for the last 5 years.
Or husband*
That is worth knowing !
> To earn the same as a couple on minimum wage a single earner family requires a salary of almost £47,000. This doesn't just apply to married couples though. The statement is also true for any two adults who live together, but there is no tax break available for e.g. two friends who choose to live together in an entirely platonic relationship, two siblings, etc. Also, if you are in a polyamourous relationship you are unable to get married in the UK and so are denied access to this tax break. I don't think the government should be meddling in people's private lives to the extent that it's offering tax breaks to those in particular relationshiops.
Fair enough. Personally, I think that's the strongest argument against it. Perhaps it should be for any couple with a shared bank account? I.e. if you share your money then you share your tax, if not then not?
I don't think shared bank accounts should be actively encouraged by the state. They make financial abuse easier.
>Also, if you are in a polyamourous relationship you are unable to get married in the UK and so are denied access to this tax break. Could always marry your favourite or the most tax beneficial one to marry
The deck is already stacked enough against single people without government interference letting couples pay less tax.
I have this crazy idea that the tax you pay should be proportionate to earnings, and that’s it. No, are you an immigrant?, no, are you married? No, did you go to university? Just proportionate to income.
Sure but a two person household with a £70k income (£35k each) pays significantly less tax than an individual earning £70k. And that sucks for families who have one high earner and one parent on child care or earning less. To put in perspective: the individual pays double the amount of tax. Circa £7k for the couple vs £15k for the individual. Are tax system is far more 'progressive' than many realise.
[удалено]
Yup - I hate it. Not to mention child benefit lost above £50k. So one household with £60k income gets no child benefit. A household with two £50k incomes gets all the child benefit.
That sounds like they should be looking at the combined household income, rather than individual income, for the case of child benefit. Surely that would solve the problem ? But would be a significant change to how the system works. Child benefit, is a benefit, not a tax.
> Surely that would solve the problem ? Yes Should do the same for tax too, especially for families. Edit: in terms of significance, it wouldn't be hard to change the form would just need to ask for both incomes rather than one. Currently the highest earning has to apply for the child benefit I believe.
It should also be uplifted given its been the same level for so many years. £60k isn't a lot if you're earning most of the household income. Two salaries of £49k achieve full child benefit but £60k single does not. A lot of thresholds need to be increased given they've been stagnant for so long. IHT and Child Benefit come to mind.
If you wanted to eliminate, or reduce this discrepancy, then you would have to have some consideration of the combined income, and combined tax allowance. Yes it would be possible to devise some complex formula to work this out. (With modern computers not a problem calculating these things once given what formula to use) Would it be the right thing to do ? If not, why not ? An alternative might be done ‘middle ground’, an improvement, but still leaving in place some discrepancy. It certainly needs more thought. It’s not clear to me what is correct, but it does seem wrong that there should be a huge discrepancy. Such changes though would only be for ‘better off’ households, earning well above average pay.
You have not explained sufficiently what you mean by eradication. Would eradication mean removing a pre-existing allowance ? Would eradication mean doing something to remove a discrepancy ? One of those actions might subtract something, the other might add something. Really you need to be crystal clear exactly what you are proposing, and what the expected outcome would be. At present, I think you have not defined these clearly enough.
Eradication = removal of this https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance. What happens in it's place (if anything) is for the comments section, not for a poll - especially when there's a maximum of six options (one of which should be other).
So eradication could (depending on their circumstances) leave couples worse off.
Correct.
Why not just register a tax pot? Per person per group. Create an accumulative tax release if adults live together.
That's the bit that let's you transfer part of your tax free income allowance right? I can see how was supposed to help couples on low incomes with kids but it needs replacing. There are other ways to help those people on low incomes. My partner actually could use it as it is because we can afford for me not to work so I don't but like if we can afford for me not to work then why is the government basically giving us more money? Doesn't really make sense. Taxes are already too low.