Tax allowance tranfer for married couples.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by snorkypig, Jul 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The tories have pledged to allow married people to tranfer their tax allowance to their partner thus making married couples 1000 pound a year better of(assuming one partner doesn't work).Personally i think this is a step in the right direction to try and encourage people to stay together.I have said before that under this government and the tax benefits system they operate, it is wholey unfair that unmarried couples should benefit from this system and any system that encourages people not to marry will eventually undermine the fabrib of society.It is a well known fact that 1 in 2 unmarried couples with children seperate before the child reaches his/hers fith birthday compared to 1/12 of married couples.
    An unmarried mother working 16hrs a week can take home £476 a week in pay/benefits where as a married man would have to work for 116 hrs a week to take home the same pay.(fundamentally flawed).Do most people agree that the tax benefit system actively persecutes married couples and encourages the able bodied work shy youngsters of today to amount to very little more than professional state scroungers.(I have two cousins 23/21 both of which refuse to work more than 16hrs a week claiming it just ain't worth it!).I say bring back family values re-inforce support for married couples and screw the spongers/scroungers and layabouts before it's too late. Go on big dave u get my vote.
  2. Cor, loaded question or what?

    I wouldn't say that any government system persecutes anyone.

    There are many flaws in the tax system; it's too easy to avoid many direct taxes for higher earners, in the order of £60k combined income; taxation at the lower income end does seem to mitigate against employment; indirect taxation does impact most on those in the lower income scale and those forced to spread payment for goods and services; the tax collection process itself is expensive etc

    Which ones?

    I'm not convinced that using the tax regime is an appropriate way to do that, is a minor increase in net income enough to keep people together, wouldn't it be more useful to investigate reasons for separation and address those?

    Well soundbite politics works then.....

    Mind you I've been thinking about the stuff that NuLaborLite have announced in the last few days and it's all a bit frothy, some interesting stuff but that's been veiled by the trivia. Disappointing, they have some pretty significant intellects available to them but they don't seem to be exploiting that.
  3. Whilst it is not yet even a manifesto committment, so not as Snorky suggests a pledge, there is clearly some value in the idea, simply saying that the government supports a stable registered family unit does move away slightly from the present 'do what you like' situation. I certainly don't believe the sort of money they may be able to afford without some major re-alignment of the tax system will actually make any one think it is worth making the effort to stay together for the money, but I suspect the moral support may have some impact in time.

    I think what was far more interesting was that family split ups are not cost free for society and that for society as a whole there is a benefit in reducing the rate of family break up. Now that is a new approach and perhaps they do deserve some support in following down this line, and if we can get away from the sound bite politics and discuss the problem as a BIG thing them there is a change of at least slowing down the rot and perhaps reversing it.
  4. KARMA :Whilst i agree a slight increase in net income might not neccesarily be the answer to keeping certain couples together it may make the difference in whether or not a mother can afford to stay at home looking after her children rather than having to work and employ a child minder to mind her children.There is no doubt that children are far better off in the care of their parents or grandparents rather than a child minder who quite frankly is usually hired under financial terms rather than suitability terms.
    Family values aren't usually expressed as a list they are expressed as an aproach or a priority by which married couples put their family first ahead of financial gain and self interest this i accept is exceptionally difficult for people who barely have enough money to feed their family.Nobody has said that the tax allowance transfer is the answer to the social breakdown we are experiencing in this country but surely if this can make a difference should it not be at least given a chance or do we right of yet another potentially good idea under the banner of "ah probrably will not do much."
    Yet again we seem to be in the position where people want to investigate/find the cause/commision a report erm well excuse me IDS has done this and the results are in: two years of research and it catagorically points towards family breakdown being the prime suspect for the social breakdown that is occurring.
    Sorry if you feel my questions are loaded or my sound bite at the end was uncalled for but i have very little expertise in professional writing and merely express my view that the tories do seem to be heading in a direction i think is well overdue:whilst the government we have now seem determined to ignore the facts/figures and report pointing to the fact that the country has in fact major social problems some of which have been caused by thier policies and unfair tax credit system.
  5. I don't think it's that clear cut is it?

    I heard on one of the news programs last night that the only couples who would qualify for the £20 per week tax break are those where one of the couple stay at home to look after children.

    Now if that is the case where is the benefit to many families, including mine, where both of us go out to work?

    Also, if they give with one hand they always take away with the other - if it is for one parent to stay home and look after kids, that's great news for the government because they can save lots of money on paying for child care benefits (which I believe would amount to significantly more that a £20 tax ofset.)

    But what is a £20 a week tax break actually worth? 20 X 52 = £1040. Effectively all that means is that we do not pay tax on that amount so when paying 40% tax it is only actually worth £624 in the hand which is the equivalent of £12 per week or at 20% tax its worth £832 or £16 per week - whoopy bloody doo !!!

    I'm sure that will truly encourage families to stay together and get married - if the government want to encourage marriage and families financially they need to look at a wider range of measures such as the re-introduction of the married couples allowance and for those of us old enough to remember it MIRAS (for those that don't that means Mortgate Income Relief At Source I believe - a tax break on your mortgage)

    Edited last paragraph because I got in a strop about Gordo Brown - this is Tory idea - whoops !
  6. Putting my position clearly, I'm not convinced that the nuclear family is the best way to raise children anyway, and tbh I think the intensity is probably a significant contributor to much family breakdown. the extended family, or community approach, does seem to be quite succesful; with load shared amongst a number of adults within the extended family, adults having responsibility for other children, socialisation of children within the community group and increased development of responsibility in children from an early stage.

    From an economic perspective that allows parents to continue to work as well as share the child-rearing load. Mothers go out to work for a whole variety of reasons, many of them unrelated to ability to fund child-care.

    One of the challenges is sustaining that in a highly mobile employment market, although the opportunities can happen.

    They're talking about shelling out our money, so I think they should be expected, if not required, to demonstrate some rigour around that.

    I'm generally sceptical about reports commissioned by political parties, and sure enough this one comes up with conclusions that fit with NuLaborLite dogma, although it does have some interesting content which they've singlularly failed to exploit. It's a significant leap from family breakdown being.... to and we'll reduce that by tinkering with the tax regime and they haven't come up with any clear justification for that answer.

    It was more a slightly cynical observation on associating support for NuLaborLite on the basis of their recent announcements which were, IMO, pretty content free.

    They are crystalising their message around this kind of thing, although as I tried to say above I think they're wasting the opportunities they have to exploit some of the talent they have available by concentrating on pretty bland PR activities rather than really addressing any difficult questions. Although that's more an observation on the democratic process, rather than NuLaborLite in particular.

    Some, yes and family breakdown is certainly a contributor to some of that.

    Undoubtedly, but such is the nature of policy, some dip in, some dip out.

    I don't believe the tax credit system is fair, cost effective or particularly beneficial to anyone.
  7. I always get very excited when politicians (especially Tories) start pontificating about 'family values.' Just as sure as eggs are eggs, as soon as one of them puts his head above the moral parapet, you know it's only a matter of time before the one of them is caught hanging out of a rent boy/prostitute in some London park or public toilet. Then we get to watch another one of those classic statements to the press (so brilliantly reproduced by David Walliams and Matt Lucas in Little Britain), with the loyal wife and family in the background providing support. It's enough to make any sane person :pukel:

    Politics in this country are so bloody depressing! Just when you start believing that there might be a little light at the end of the New Labour tunnel; just when you've almost convinced yourself that the British public have had a belly full of the Bliar/Brooon bollocks, along comes DC and his Tory-boy mates with another barrow load of sound-bite policies.

    Hmmmm, social engineering through the tax system. That'll work. While we're at it, why don't we try filling the church pews on Sunday morning by offering rebates for the faithful. Church of England would have primacy of course! We could call that the higher rate of rebate, with left footers, muslims, hindus et al on a lower rate.

    Why, before we know it we'll be back in that golden age where a man and a women meet, fall in love and get engaged. Then after a respectable period of about two years of going to weekly dances and the cinema (no hanky panky mind!), they get married, have a couple of children and stay together for the rest of their lives. And what a wonderful life it is. Father goes out to work and mother stays at home to take care of the children and keep the family home clean and tidy. In the evenings, the family will gather around the wireless or play stimulating parlour games. The children will be polite and well scrubbed and what with scouts, brownies and Sunday school, they won't have time for playstations and ASBOs.

    It's brilliant! Why didn't someone think of this before? :tp: :toilet:
  8. Interesting article in the Economist about the current trend in using schools as a hub for social care in mitigating some of the issues around social integration and development of young people.

    The Economist is generally of the view it's a bad idea, from a purely educational perspective.
  9. Could be questions of discrimination coming out of this one..
    Is this a Tory policy? If so it must be the only one, unless I've missed something.
  10. David Davis announced this in the last couple of days, although I can't find anything about it either on the NuLaborLite website or easily on the BBC.

    It's fallen out of a study comissioned by IDS, which must have reported a while ago.

    It's an odd one, it's classic left-wing social interference dressed up as right-wing reduction in the tax burden.
  11. It makes sense to me and I've thought about this a long time ago, a good solution would be to up the working partners tax allowance as children are brought into the family, this could get rid of the Family Tax Credit and save a fortune in overheads - easily done in the tax office: birth certificate, increased tax allowance, simple!
    As for possible discrimination, marriage has been a legally recognised part of this countries tradition for centuries.
  12. Makes a great deal of sense and is a start but it is surely easier to state

    All married (1 male 1 female)couples consist of two people(?) so why not ensure that ALL married couples (children or not) have the RIGHT to the amount of two peoples tax allowances etc WETHER THEY BOTH WORK OR NOT!! if children are involved then extra tax breaks are in order for the children (forget working tax credits etc) Any one else, living together etc must both work! to get the tax break - not hard is it? reinforces the bond of marriage! and frees up the working market because now that mother knows that she will get something without having to go out to work she will want to stay home to look after the children will she not?
  13. Well, well, well, what have we here? A bunch of matelots giving it large about the sanctity of marriage. That's rich! The three bastards I've been married to over the past 15 years, couldn't keep it in their trousers if the Chancellor offered them tax free status for the rest of their lives as a reward! This navy wife has given the RN the best years of her life and all she's had in return is serial adultary. Why, if it wasn't for the three lots of maintenance, the house, the car and the promise of a share in three government pensions, a girl could get pretty depressed about it all. Cheers easy!
  14. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    My, My, My, not bitter then?

    ....or wiser.
  15. [/quote]
    not bitter then? [/quote]

    Na, make mine a pint of Guiness :thumright:
  16. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Burp, sorry mate, just drank it, your round I believe....
  17. Three matelots?whilst i agree you have indeed given the best years of your life supporting the RN and are indeed entitled to the spoils of war such as houses, cars,pensions etc surely you must have realised after two matelots that you do not posses the rare but neccessary skills required to make a matelot behave himself.
    Hopefully you are now happily married to a member of the inland revenue service and are not still trawling rounds rote alpha looking for another pension top up.What bothers me is how 3 matelots got caught, usually we are quite good at this sort of stuff! Haa haa.Peace.. hope your happy and haven't written of us brave souls completely there are some decent matelots sadly i just don't know any.
  18. "Your round"...that's a ******* understatement if the avatar is anything to go by !!!
  19. It's not so much the job but the type of man, serial philanderers are not so much the product of service training but just there are some whose brain resides in their dick. For some reason women seem to be attracted to them and they never fail to get some one to go to bed with them. I would suggest unless you are into collecting maintenance etc from assorted sources perhaps you need to review your selection process and criteria before going for number 4

Share This Page