so if your not rich earning 60k a year?

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 was 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

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.

I think you’re both missing the point. It’s not about what’s “even” (as if providing for our young and old should be reduced to net pounds and pence), it’s about the fact that raising children is a vital component of our society.

They need to up that education budget if you think that’s the only cost of childcare.

it’s about the fact that raising children is a vital component of our society.

Your missing the point that on an individual level, it’s a choice, Especially when you start having 3, 4 or more and then whining that you earn 60k but you are poor.

And with employment levels as they are, and unlikely to fall unless there are drastic changes to society’s priorities, we could do with a few million less of working age. Only people in work pay for pensions or childcare, an over saturated population is a strain on all resources, natural and financial.

As raising children is a vital part of our society, suggesting its a lifestyle choice akin to what we normally regard as lifestyle choices, is trivialising parenthood slightly.

Your missing the point that on an individual level, it’s a choice, Especially when you start having 3, 4 or more and then whining that you earn 60k but you are poor.

Obviously it’s a choice, and as I haven’t argued otherwise, you’ll have to explain how this is missing the point.

But please let’s not pretend that not having children means that you’re removing a burden from society, because you’re not.

And with employment levels as they are, and unlikely to fall unless there are drastic changes to society’s priorities, we could do with a few million less of working age. Only people in work pay for pensions or childcare, an over saturated population is a strain on all resources, natural and financial.

Given that the baby boomer generation is now hitting retirement, a small working population is going to be shouldering a disproportionate burden for some time to come.

Given that the baby boomer generation is now hitting retirement, a small working population is going to be shouldering a disproportionate burden for some time to come.

As demonstrated by full employment levels 🙄

It doesn’t matter how big the working age population is, if there are only jobs for 2/3rds of them.

Anyone interested in the marriage tax allowance fancy a marriage of convenience? And sex.

When you put it like that, how could anyone refuse?
If I weren’t already married, you be getting PMed right about now you charmer, you 😀

As demonstrated by full employment levels

It doesn’t matter how big the working age population is, if there are only jobs for 2/3rds of them.

The unemployment rate – during a period of economic downturn – is 7.7%, not 33%.

Hyperbole, much?