Tax - Marriage Allowance

[geocycle]

Yes, I was surprised to learn civil partnerships aren't available for heterosexual couples. Surely this is discrimination.

amazing,without doubt discrimination.

It can potentially have a huge impact

Indeed!

Yes, that was my point. I'd have no problem signing a civil partnership document with my partner of 25 years but because we are different sexes we are not able to. Various couples have challenged this in the courts without success to date.

[Tangled Metal]

Not being married (another marriage benefit) I would not have parental rights had I not been present when or son's birth was registered. I was the father and would have been on the certificate but without being physically present I would not have any rights or responsibilities in decisions relating to him.

That's not quite right, for fairly obvious reasons an unmarried father can only be entered on a birth certificate with the father's permission. That can either be done by being present at registration or by an an official declaration. If you are not on the birth certificate, then you would have to get parental responsibility by another method.

https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-c ... er-a-birth

As I said I went to the registration so I don't know the mechanism if the father isn't present. The mother has to be I believe. However the information regarding parental responsibilities, specifically regarding right to make decisions over the child's medical treatment, was explained to us by the nurse practitioner and the doctor (IIRC registrar). It only regarded birth registrations without the father present but the father being on the birth certificate. This is different from the father not being on the birth certificate.

I do not know how they would find this out but the forms I had to fill in had a few parts requiring me to sign to the effect that I had parental responsibilities. It was in clarifying these sections that we got told about this specific situation.

[Mick F]

Tax allowances do not require court certified documents or "legal standing". I get tax allowances and have no court documents or signed documents to verify my entitlement. I "self-authorise".

This subject is about Marriage Allowance, and you have to be married or have a Civil Partnership to get it.
That is what the rule is.
When you apply, you give your details to HMRC and they check your records.
We are registered with HMRC as married - and have been since we married in 1973 - and they check their records to see.

https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance

[Tangled Metal]

Yes, I was surprised to learn civil partnerships aren't available for heterosexual couples. Surely this is discrimination.

amazing,without doubt discrimination.

It can potentially have a huge impact

Indeed!

Yes, that was my point. I'd have no problem signing a civil partnership document with my partner of 25 years but because we are different sexes we are not able to. Various couples have challenged this in the courts without success to date.

My partner has an issue with civil partnerships too. I don't. Well other than the fact there is discrimination in law between civil partnership and marriage. Marriage has more rights, perks and benefits in law I believe.

This whole aspect needs looking at IMHO starting with differences between laws affecting single people, couples not in civil partnership / marriage and married couples. I personally believe one status for couples with marriage being left to religion without any further legal status. Officialdom should only see two people together as a couple not differentiated in any way. No differentiation for church wedding, civil partnership, gender, sexuality or any other factor. Couples should be able to define their status as a couple legally and all benefits that might arise from that is applied to all who define as a couple.

[Psamathe]

:shock: amazing,without doubt discrimination.

Indeed!

Yes, that was my point. I'd have no problem signing a civil partnership document with my partner of 25 years but because we are different sexes we are not able to. Various couples have challenged this in the courts without success to date.

My partner has an issue with civil partnerships too. I don't. Well other than the fact there is discrimination in law between civil partnership and marriage. Marriage has more rights, perks and benefits in law I believe.

This whole aspect needs looking at IMHO starting with differences between laws affecting single people, couples not in civil partnership / marriage and married couples. I personally believe one status for couples with marriage being left to religion without any further legal status. Officialdom should only see two people together as a couple not differentiated in any way. No differentiation for church wedding, civil partnership, gender, sexuality or any other factor. Couples should be able to define their status as a couple legally and all benefits that might arise from that is applied to all who define as a couple.

I don't even understand why married (or Civil Partnership) couples should have tax advantages over single people anyway. I cannot see any moral justification why single people should in effect be subsidising married/Civil Partnership couples ("subsidising" in that as they don't get these tax benefits they are paying a disproportionately higher tax ...).

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

There's that saying about death and taxes. IMHO both should be unique to each individual. Would the beneficiaries to marriage allowances like to share their deaths too? The image of the surviving partner flinging themselves into the funeral pyre.

We start out as individuals and for tax purposes we should remain at individuals.

[[XAP]Bob]

I don't even understand why married (or Civil Partnership) couples should have tax advantages over single people anyway. I cannot see any moral justification why single people should in effect be subsidising married/Civil Partnership couples ("subsidising" in that as they don't get these tax benefits they are paying a disproportionately higher tax ...).
Ian

Well, I am subsidising the entirety of any benefits my spouse would otherwise receive (and did before we married).
The point is that since I am taking on sole responsibility for her financial provision (housing, food, heating etc)... At what point is that offset by her being able to give me some of her 'tax free' income allowance.
My suggestion up thread was actually to offer couples the choice of declaring income individually or jointly. The joint income would be subject to tax boundaries at 1.8* the rate of a single person.
Maybe I was too generous with the 1.8, but it's still a way off the factor of two that is claimed if both parties work.

Look at a person who earns £43k whilst their spouse stays at home*.
A couple who earn £35k and £8k will be paying significantly less income tax.
But a couple who each earn £23k will be paying far less income tax, despite earning more!

Why is it that only the middle family get the benefit of transferred allowance - the bottom couple get far *more* benefit.


* Could be for health reasons, could be to look after kids. Could be volunteering in local community projects, schools etc...

[[XAP]Bob]

There's that saying about death and taxes. IMHO both should be unique to each individual. Would the beneficiaries to marriage allowances like to share their deaths too? The image of the surviving partner flinging themselves into the funeral pyre.

We start out as individuals and for tax purposes we should remain at individuals.

No - we start out as members of a family.

[Psamathe]

I don't even understand why married (or Civil Partnership) couples should have tax advantages over single people anyway. I cannot see any moral justification why single people should in effect be subsidising married/Civil Partnership couples ("subsidising" in that as they don't get these tax benefits they are paying a disproportionately higher tax ...).
Ian

Well, I am subsidising the entirety of any benefits my spouse would otherwise receive (and did before we married).
The point is that since I am taking on sole responsibility for her financial provision (housing, food, heating etc)... At what point is that offset by her being able to give me some of her 'tax free' income allowance.
My suggestion up thread was actually to offer couples the choice of declaring income individually or jointly. The joint income would be subject to tax boundaries at 1.8* the rate of a single person.
Maybe I was too generous with the 1.8, but it's still a way off the factor of two that is claimed if both parties work.

Look at a person who earns £43k whilst their spouse stays at home*.
A couple who earn £35k and £8k will be paying significantly less income tax.
But a couple who each earn £23k will be paying far less income tax, despite earning more!

Why is it that only the middle family get the benefit of transferred allowance - the bottom couple get far *more* benefit.


* Could be for health reasons, could be to look after kids. Could be volunteering in local community projects, schools etc...

My initial response would be that the arrangements between yourself and your partner(s) are your choices. Is it morally right that if e.g. a partner choses to volunteer leading community projects that the tax burden on single people should be higher?

You can chose to subsidise your spouse but why should I subsidise your spouse because of choices you (both) have made.

Ian

[[XAP]Bob]

I don't even understand why married (or Civil Partnership) couples should have tax advantages over single people anyway. I cannot see any moral justification why single people should in effect be subsidising married/Civil Partnership couples ("subsidising" in that as they don't get these tax benefits they are paying a disproportionately higher tax ...).
Ian

Well, I am subsidising the entirety of any benefits my spouse would otherwise receive (and did before we married).
The point is that since I am taking on sole responsibility for her financial provision (housing, food, heating etc)... At what point is that offset by her being able to give me some of her 'tax free' income allowance.
My suggestion up thread was actually to offer couples the choice of declaring income individually or jointly. The joint income would be subject to tax boundaries at 1.8* the rate of a single person.
Maybe I was too generous with the 1.8, but it's still a way off the factor of two that is claimed if both parties work.

Look at a person who earns £43k whilst their spouse stays at home*.
A couple who earn £35k and £8k will be paying significantly less income tax.
But a couple who each earn £23k will be paying far less income tax, despite earning more!

Why is it that only the middle family get the benefit of transferred allowance - the bottom couple get far *more* benefit.


* Could be for health reasons, could be to look after kids. Could be volunteering in local community projects, schools etc...

My initial response would be that the arrangements between yourself and your partner(s) are your choices. Is it morally right that if e.g. a partner choses to volunteer leading community projects that the tax burden on single people should be higher?

You can chose to subsidise your spouse but why should I subsidise your spouse because of choices you (both) have made.

Ian

So you are all for a *disincentive* for marriage?
Given that if someone is leading a community project then they are almost certainly contributing more to society than the additional burden of their household being able to use it's tax allowance... Yes I do.

I'm not wholly convinced that the ability to use the tax free allowance is a subsidy.
I'd abolish it entirely and have UBI to make up the difference...

[Debs]

Only the nasty party could dream up a tax policy that discriminates against single people

[Psamathe]

Well, I am subsidising the entirety of any benefits my spouse would otherwise receive (and did before we married).
The point is that since I am taking on sole responsibility for her financial provision (housing, food, heating etc)... At what point is that offset by her being able to give me some of her 'tax free' income allowance.
My suggestion up thread was actually to offer couples the choice of declaring income individually or jointly. The joint income would be subject to tax boundaries at 1.8* the rate of a single person.
Maybe I was too generous with the 1.8, but it's still a way off the factor of two that is claimed if both parties work.

Look at a person who earns £43k whilst their spouse stays at home*.
A couple who earn £35k and £8k will be paying significantly less income tax.
But a couple who each earn £23k will be paying far less income tax, despite earning more!

Why is it that only the middle family get the benefit of transferred allowance - the bottom couple get far *more* benefit.


* Could be for health reasons, could be to look after kids. Could be volunteering in local community projects, schools etc...

My initial response would be that the arrangements between yourself and your partner(s) are your choices. Is it morally right that if e.g. a partner choses to volunteer leading community projects that the tax burden on single people should be higher?

You can chose to subsidise your spouse but why should I subsidise your spouse because of choices you (both) have made.

Ian

So you are all for a *disincentive* for marriage?
Given that if someone is leading a community project then they are almost certainly contributing more to society than the additional burden of their household being able to use it's tax allowance... Yes I do.

I'm not wholly convinced that the ability to use the tax free allowance is a subsidy.
I'd abolish it entirely and have UBI to make up the difference...

I don't see that personal tax allowances being "personal" is a disincentive for marriage. Treating personal allowances as personal only removes an incentive for marriage (albeit a very small incentive). To me, "disincentive" is not the same as "no incentive".

Why should married people get benefit for volunteering for community projects that single people don't get. If volunteering for a community project warrants a tax benefit then that same benefit should be available to both single and married (and other status) people. I can't see why a marriage/partnership status should impact the tax allowances for volunteer work.

When I talk of "subsidy" I mean it in terms that the Gov. requires a given level of income. If some pay less, others have to pay more. So introduce special allowances for some (e.g. because they are married) means that people not in that group have to pay more.

I've not studied how UBI works in practice but from what I've seen and thought I would agree that UBI sounds like a good way forward. But if we were to introduce UBI, that would be similar to doing away with things like passing unused personal allowance to a married partner - so in some ways that negates that marriage benefit.

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

There's that saying about death and taxes. IMHO both should be unique to each individual. Would the beneficiaries to marriage allowances like to share their deaths too? The image of the surviving partner flinging themselves into the funeral pyre.

We start out as individuals and for tax purposes we should remain at individuals.

No - we start out as members of a family.

Individuals in a family group but we are each separate entities.

[Psamathe]

There's that saying about death and taxes. IMHO both should be unique to each individual. Would the beneficiaries to marriage allowances like to share their deaths too? The image of the surviving partner flinging themselves into the funeral pyre.

We start out as individuals and for tax purposes we should remain at individuals.

No - we start out as members of a family.

So shouldn't I be allowed to pass my unused personal allowance to my brother or for my Mum to pass some of her unused personal allowance to me, etc.

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

If you're all for incentives for certain conditions like marriage can I propose another condition that should get a higher tax allowance. Tall men who ride bikes. At should have a tax allowance such that the tax savings are enough to buy a new £1000 bike every year. There is no worthwhile reason for this special subsidy other than I'm tall, male and like riding bikes. I'm a voting demographic (albeit a small one) so please Tories, buy my vote too.

I offer no guarantees you will win my vote. There will be no guarantee of any return of any kind offered for this subsidy. Normal terms and conditions of a deal to not apply.