young person living on their own
Single home occupier is quite an expensive lifestyle. Generally married couples without kids would be the most cash rich group.
In terms of just PAYE:
£26k has £9,440 tax free, £2,790 @ 10%, (26000-9440-2790)= £13,770 @20%
So pays tax of £279 + £2754 = £3033 PAYE
So two earners on £26k have a take home of £45,934
£60k has £9,440 tax free, £2,790 @ 10%, £32,010 @ 20%, (60000-9440-2790-32010) = £15716 @ 40%
So pays tax of £279 + £6402 + £6286.4 = £12966 PAYE
So a single £60k earner has a take home of £47,034
So nearly the same....
...So nearly the same....
Or, to put it another way....
Two people on £26k each earn less than one person on £60k ?
😉
Cant believe no one's posted this yet
Two people on £26k each earn less than one person on £60k ?
What's £80/month between rich people....
The tax calculations are not subject to debate.
www.listentotaxman.com
I made this point a few pages back. About £80/mo difference iirc.
...So nearly the same....
Or, to put it another way....Two people on £26k each earn less than one person on £60k ?
But the two earners on £26k can claim Child Benefit if they have children, that the single earner on £60k cannot, thus making them better off. Assuming they have children, but that was the original thrust of this thread.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Only here could people possibly spend all this time bitching about this shit.
****er s
Only here could people possibly spend all this time bitching about this shit.
Can you let me know the list of approved topics please.
I might have missed the memo.
[img] 
[/img]
A couple both on £40k are £2k p.a. better off than my wife and I before you even take Child Benefit into account?
No, I don't expect any sympathy and don't feel sorry for myself either - but the system is skewed regardless. We are comfortable, but a couple of hundred quid a month is still a decent chunk of cash to be deprived of due to a flawed system.
And just for the record - no, I don't think a couple on £40k each should have Child Benefit, just as we shouldn't be entitled to it either. I don't resent paying my taxes either - it should be based on household income though.
Wouldn't it be massively more complicated to administer a household income tax though?
Yes, because household members come and go, quite frequently in some cases.
Was gonna wave my willy here, but before I do, what was the original point of this thread? Am out of country so what was the original ridiculousness which spawned six pages of stw ridiculousness?
Am out of country so what was the original ridiculousness which spawned six pages of stw ridiculousness?
Does being "out of country" mean you can't read page 1 and find out ?
Does being "out of country" mean you can't read page 1 and find out ?
His staff are off for the night......
Was hoping maybe a link to the original source or quote. Thanks for your help.
the term we all need for this thread is : relativity
You earn more, you spend more.
^^^^ this
Wouldn't it be massively more complicated to administer a household income tax though?
No. Transferable tax allowance for married couples. Job done. You might want to change the definition of marriage so anyone could marry anyone else to keep the hand-wringers happy.
No. Transferable tax allowance for married couples
Why should there be a tax benefit for marriage? Massive benefit to married couples with no kids just doesn't make sense if your focusing help where it's needed.
Am out of country so what was the original ridiculousness which spawned six pages of stw ridiculousness?
Rich people don't think they're rich, because they don't have any money left after furnishing their comfortable lifestyles.
Why should there be a tax benefit for marriage? Massive benefit to married couples with no kids just doesn't make sense if your focusing help where it's needed.
It's not about help, it's about allowing people to behave as partners should. Marriage is a legally recognised partnership. By explicitly denying the most fundamental part of any partnership, the delegation of responsibilities, you've rendered the partnership meaningless.
You can of course set up a business together and sidestep this, but not everyone is in a position to do this.
It's not about help, it's about allowing people to behave as partners should. Marriage is a legally recognised partnership. By explicitly denying the most fundamental part of any partnership, the delegation of responsibilities, you've rendered the partnership meaningless.
Well in that case, just reduce a joint married couples tax allowance to that of a single person.
Ugh ugh ugh married couples tax allowance. Ugh.
I do not want the state interfering in my affairs by implicitly telling me how I should conduct my personal relationships. By financially incentivising marriage, the state is effectively privileging one type of relationship (ie a marriage) over any other type (cohabiting, or choosing to remain single). That is a private and personal choice, and there should be no judgement, implied or otherwise, over that. But we do have a Tory government, and the Family Values hypocritical bull is alive and well.
My relationship is not about "delegation of responsibilities" thankyou very much. It's about, you know, love, respect, commitment, and all that jazz. It's not a business transaction. I do not want to see marriage incentivised and more people getting married "for the tax breaks" when the divorce rate is already 50% or thereabouts.
Any married couples tax allowance or other such bullshizz wouldn't offset the stupid expensive wedding shebang anyway, which a lot of couples are still stuck paying off after the ink is dry on the divorce papers. Yup, I'm a cynic. Sue me.
As a couple with no kids, me and Mr Panda pay more tax than people with kids do. I don't begrudge it, but I'd rather see taxes spent on better and cheaper childcare, for example, that enables parents to go back to work than make it a more lucrative choice to stay on welfare. I might well get flamed for this, but I think having kids is a lifestyle choice, and if you need to rely on welfare to support them, you shouldn't have them. But I'd like to see a better support system that allows people to have kids and be able to work flexibly to support them, like aforementioned childcare, transferable parental allowances, allowances for grandparents or relatives who care for their relatives' kids etc.
My relationship is not about "delegation of responsibilities" thankyou very much
You're not partners then. You're just friends with benefits.
Transferrable allowances between parents I can understand and I think a good thing, but why should anyone be financially rewarded by the state just for being married? I can see a long term benfit to the state from having kids, I can't see any benefit that can be derived simply from people being married.
I might well get flamed for this, but I think having kids is a lifestyle choice,
Has anyone ever told you about how the human race survives?
I've not got kids, but even I can tell how only someone without kids could make a comment like that 🙂
I might well get flamed for this, but I think having kids is a lifestyle choice,
Of course it is, the UK is over crowded as it is.
At a personal level it is a choice. And certainly for the purpose of this thread, claiming 60k doesn't make you wealthy because you have 4 kids is very much ignoring the choices you made and the impact they have on your finances.
Can we stop those immigants then?
Anyone interested in the marriage tax allowance fancy a marriage of convenience? And sex.
Ziona, leader of Mizoram's Chana 'pawl' or religious sect and head of the largest family in the world, who celebrated his 68{+t}{+h} birthday on Sunday. The grand old man, who already has 39 wives, was cited as saying that he was still open to "a few marriages" and could do with a handful of wives hailing from the United States.
How big a tax break would Ziona get if he moved to the UK and we introduced tax breaks for married people?
I am married, with kids, and my wife doesn't work. I would benefit from a married couples tac allowance, but I don't want to see it for the reasons outlined by littlemisspanda.
Tax breaks for married couples is really a misnomer, think of it more as harmonising their tax status. If you are going to treat a married couple as a unit for the purposes of benefit entitlement etc. you should consider them as a unit for taxation.
Trouble is many people who are married or in long term relationships don't see pooling of finances as desirable but that's a whole other thread.
I might well get flamed for this, but I think having kids is a lifestyle choice
Other people's lifestyle choices will be paying for your pension.
You're not partners then. You're just friends with benefits.
I'm glad you know me and my relationship so well.
I can't see any benefit that can be derived simply from people being married.
Nope, me neither. Back in the day it [i]was[/i] a business transaction - this idea simply harks back to that, women were chattels to be bartered and sold via a dowry, family alliances made for the purposes of making more money etc.
Has anyone ever told you about how the human race survives?I've not got kids, but even I can tell how only someone without kids could make a comment like that
I know plenty of parents in my family and friendship circle who would agree that having kids is a choice, nobody forced them to do it. How about if I put it better "Making the choice to contribute to the survival of the human race is a lifestyle choice".
Parents frequently comment on my "lifestyle choice" not to have kids; why is theirs any different?
Other people's lifestyle choices will be paying for your pension.
My lifestyle choice not to have kids pays for their kids via tax breaks, child benefit, childcare subsidies, the NHS etc....so I guess we're even.
Tax breaks for married couples is really a misnomer, think of it more as harmonising their tax status. If you are going to treat a married couple as a unit for the purposes of benefit entitlement etc. you should consider them as a unit for taxation.
Even if you are not married and cohabiting, you are treated as a unit for the purposes of benefit entitlement, but you are not considered good enough by the Tories to be entitled to any theoretical tax breaks under the policy they want to bring in...methink they should make up their minds.
Trouble is many people who are married or in long term relationships don't see pooling of finances as desirable but that's a whole other thread.
I don't see this as a problem, again whether to pool finances or not is the personal choice of the individuals/partners involved. A personal decision, that should not be interfered with by the state.
Can someone give me the detail of the married couples tax break. I need to speak to my finacial adviser to see if its worth while changing my 10 year chilbearing partnership to wedded bliss?
My lifestyle choice not to have kids pays for their kids via tax breaks, child benefit, childcare subsidies, the NHS etc....so I guess we're even.
In order to pay for your care in old age, you will need younger people in work and paying tax. Those people come with the costs of getting them to that point.
In order to pay for your care in old age, you will need younger people in work and paying tax. Those people come with the costs of getting them to that point.
Exactly, so we're even then.
Exactly, so we're even then.
Care for older people is provided by people currently in work (either directly or through taxes). Fewer children means that others will face a disproportionate burden in looking after you.
We can always import poor people to look after us, I believe there is no shortage of them willing to come over here and do menial jobs 😉
We can always import poor people to look after us, I believe there is no shortage of them willing to come over here and do menial jobs
So you're saying that people choose not to have children so they can underpay immigrants? 😉
Care for older people is provided by people currently in work (either directly or through taxes). Fewer children means that others will face a disproportionate burden in looking after you.
And care for children is provided by people currently in work (either directly or through taxes). More children means that others will face a disproportionate burden in looking after them. So as she said that's all even.
However it's being argued(against)that there should be preferential tax arrangements for marriage, not parents, so its meaningless either way.
Pesions spend 2014 144bn
Education 88bn
Healthcare costs notwithstanding - not even then is it?
Just saying like
