Should We Give Married Couples A Tax Break?

Sam,

It is rather glib of you to say that:

"surely those homes where one parent can afford to stay at home are perhaps not the most deserving?"

Many such couples (myself and my wife included) have valued home child care over and above material possessions and we have had to make many sacrifices in order to be able to survive as a family on a single salary. Our children are our first priority and we consider it more important to give them an upbrininging based on one parent being there for them, than it is to have the satellite TV, annual foreign holiday and new car.

You assumption that couples who fall into this category are somehow well off shows a real ignorance of the reality, which is that those couples in our situation have most likely had to change their lifestyle in order to be there for the children.

Ultimately it is for all of us to decide how we prioritise our time - child care or work. However, the ill-informed opinions expressed in this article do no credit to you.

It could be argued that this proposed measure discriminates against unmarried couples. But in tax policy I want to see achievable economically rational objectives; any fool can give money away. In addition its a much larger administrative burden.

Edit: I realise that Civil Partnerships did get mentioned in this article, however most of the articles I've seen on this haven't.

AlucarDrM, Have I missed something only I am not aware that married or co-habiting couples are entitled to any discount whatsoever in regard to Council Tax. You refer to a '1/3 discount'? Single people are entitled to a discount under current policy. I am not aware of any discount for co-habitation where the full Council Tax amount is always liable. Perhaps you could clarify that for me?

Your argument about 'economies of scale' is a highly arguable one. You are negating all of the additional costs in your comments, significantly increased bills, children (should there be any) requiring a Buffet-like budget to raise etc, and I can assure you that as a parent who earns above any amount that would entitle me to any benefits of any kind, there are no 'breaks' that would make children a 'cost effective' investment. They are, however, the best thing in the world.

Ironically your argument about economies of scale is actually lending support to partnerships/marriage/relationships due to your suggestion of efficiency gains, which kind of contradicts your point doesn't it? If we follow your argument through then it could be suggested that single people should be taxed even higher as part of an environmental policy to reduce carbon emissions. I mean how can you single people all be so selfish? Get in a relationship and sacrifice like the rest of us.
:)

But seriously, I am reluctant to support any economic policy based on social lifestyle factrors like relationships, but welcome any policy that intelligently helps anyone who is making a contribution but struggling to achieve their aspirations.

Chinga's spot on.

Some people (like my wife and I) made exactly the same decision. One stays at home to look after the kids for the first few vital years before they go off to school first time. Feeling that personal care at home with the parent is better for their long term well being than being foisted off into a nursery from 6 months. Whats wrong with the idea that the person staying at home is "valued" by having some nominal tax allowance that can be offset against the working parent?

What I dont fully understand is why so many choose to return to work so quickly when their childcare costs eat up virtually all of their salary anyway?

Then again, the tax system is daft anyway when two people earnign much less than I do actually end up with a higher net income than me (and receive benefits).

There is no harm in giving the MARRIED couples a higher Tax Code if (a but IF) that encourages them to remain married and give the chidlren a SOLID BASE. Most troublesome kids come from broken homes.
BUT I know from my 69 odd
years' experience that this "bribe" comes around every so often and that the politicans use this "tool" every couple of decades. So remember, they are not doing anything from the "goodness of their hearts".
How about reducing tax codes for the "broken marriage parties" because as it is, both the partners get single person's tax allowances + the one with the children gets National Budget breaking allowances and benefits because most also plead poverty anyway.

Absolutely right Hypno.

Benefits etc are assessed on a household income basis (gross), which is unfair when you have, as in your case (and mine) a higher rate taxpayer with one set of allowances vs 2 allowances. Net income would be a fairer (and more obvious) calculation but why isn't it?

You end up with a higher rate taxpayer household paying a lot more tax, some of which goes back to the joint allowance household (with higher net income) as benefits!!

Insane.

Dave messed up again by linking relief to marriage and exposed himself badly to the social engineers in Nu Labour. Actually, it is a question of FAIRNESS and choice. It just so happens that married couples and civil partners by showing commitment to a choice of having one parent stay at home are being punished because one of them may not be able to claim his/her RIGHT to their personal allowance. This is wrong. By staying at home another job is made available for someone else so income tax will still be generated. The basis for marriage allowance was effectively as a transferable allowance why cannot personal allowance be the same?

Ham fisted and naive Conservative have done it again. Wake up Dave!

Jegwe,

I was in a similar position and, like you, I got Additional Personal Allowance. When I remarried 5 years later, my new wife did not work and I lost my additional personal allowance because I remarried for the me an my childrens' sake. That was not fair.

I do believe that the family should be encouraged and so if two people commit to each other to raise a family, not just live in lovers, that is where it is all going wrong, but legally committed and if marriage is the only way so be it, then they should be able to use their personal allowances as they see fit..

PS I don't agree with same sex parents having children so would not agree that the transferable allowance should be applicable in those cases.