Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Labour's Tax Rules Mean Families Lose Up To £10,000 By Staying Together

Recommended Posts

Labour's tax rules mean families lose up to £10,000 by staying together

Labour's taxes on married couples mean some middle income families would be up to £10,000 better off if they split up, according to research by a charity.

A study has found a husband and wife with two children an above-average household income of nearly £35,000 are now the biggest losers from staying together under current tax rules.

The research, carried out by the charity, Care, found such a family would be better off by £186 a week if they were to live apart because of the benefits given to single parents.

The penalty on couples that stay together has grown under Labour because of the introduction of schemes such as tax credit benefits, which favour lone parents.

The changes have raised concerns that those on middle incomes could be put under pressure to break up with their partner or avoid living together in the first place.

The research is based on tax and benefit tables produced by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Care analysed taxes and benefits that would be paid by 98 couples on different earnings and with different numbers of children and found that 76 out of the 98 would be better off apart, up from 75 families in a similar analysis last year.

On average, they would be better off apart by £68 a week.

The average cost to the Treasury – and taxpayers – of extra benefits to a couple who choose to live apart is £8,007.

Nola Leach, Care's chief executive, said: "It is very disappointing to see that, far from being eroded, the number of families negatively impacted by the couple penalty has actually increased for the third year in a row."

Yep, first you destroy the sense of self worth, then you destroy the family unit, voila. A nation of compliant, paranoid, angry, fearful and loathing state debt slaves.

An anthropologist's dream? Or nightmare?

Neo-Feudal Britain. Same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I discussed this tax credits stuff recently with my girlfriend. Turns out we'd be better off remaining unmarried in the short term :rolleyes:

Money isn't the only reason the family unit is dwindling, long-term relationships are generally seen as "uncool" in our instant-gratification, sex-obsessed society. Couples are also having less children, with as many as half being childless according to ONS stats.

Edited by HPC001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
Labour's tax rules mean families lose up to £10,000 by staying together

Yep, first you destroy the sense of self worth, then you destroy the family unit, voila. A nation of compliant, paranoid, angry, fearful and loathing state debt slaves.

An anthropologist's dream? Or nightmare?

Neo-Feudal Britain. Same as it ever was.

There are charities and there are charities. It takes a very charitable view of the word charity to describe CARE in such terms.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ers-802607.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leadi...ity-802528.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are charities and there are charities. It takes a very charitable view of the word charity to describe CARE in such terms.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ers-802607.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leadi...ity-802528.html

While I have a disdain for the way many charities operate (in monetary terms), what does the Embryo Bill have to do with this topic exactly, other than the rather tangential relationship between that and the family unit?

Speaking of which, why is it such a bad thing to oppose chimaera species and excessive genetic engineering? If I went and compiled a science-based case would it still come down to a misguided majority trampling around? That is one reason why I'd support a republic rather than the sheep and wolf democracy we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
While I have a disdain for the way many charities operate (in monetary terms), what does the Embryo Bill have to do with this topic exactly, other than the rather tangential relationship between that and the family unit?

Speaking of which, why is it such a bad thing to oppose chimaera species and excessive genetic engineering? If I went and compiled a science-based case would it still come down to a misguided majority trampling around? That is one reason why I'd support a republic rather than the sheep and wolf democracy we have now.

I have nothing wrong with people wanting to promote their political agenda if they wish to - provided they do it overtly.

I dislike those who are politically motivated pretending to be something else - so I guess we agree CARE is an active participant in the sheep and wolf game.

I see no good reason why I should support political parties through the tax system - if it's a charity it should stick to doing charitable work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have nothing wrong with people wanting to promote their political agenda if they wish to - provided they do it overtly.

I dislike those who are politically motivated pretending to be something else - so I guess we agree CARE is an active participant in the sheep and wolf game.

Yes, I agree on principle. But If we're going to talk about charities and politics, Liberty is the first to come to mind. With that dimwit Chakrabati who used to be a state lawyer and her ineffectual opposition...

I see no good reason why I should support political parties through the tax system - if it's a charity it should stick to doing charitable work.

I take it you've been unhappy with the persistent abuses of MPs expense claims then? Corporate welfare in all its forms, especially via JCP "New Deal" schemes?

Back to the thread title, was there not a married couples tax allowance here at some point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
Yes, I agree on principle. But If we're going to talk about charities and politics, Liberty is the first to come to mind. With that dimwit Chakrabati who used to be a state lawyer and her ineffectual opposition...

I take it you've been unhappy with the persistent abuses of MPs expense claims then? Corporate welfare in all its forms, especially via JCP "New Deal" schemes?

Back to the thread title, was there not a married couples tax allowance here at some point?

OK - howabout if the relationship's worth its salt it shouldn't need propping-up by the state through tax incentives.

Or, marriage is sacred the state should stop butting in.

Or, people don't need the nanny state interfering in their private relationships.

Why do these busybody do-gooders insist on poking their noses in people's private lives.

The best people to raise children are their parents - these knowalls should butt out.

Why do these people insist that skewing the tax system in favour of married couples is best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry aka GOD
OK - howabout if the relationship's worth its salt it shouldn't need propping-up by the state through tax incentives.

Or, marriage is sacred the state should stop butting in.

Or, people don't need the nanny state interfering in their private relationships.

Why do these busybody do-gooders insist on poking their noses in people's private lives.

The best people to raise children are their parents - these knowalls should butt out.

Why do these people insist that skewing the tax system in favour of married couples is best.

Yep. Time for much smaller, inobtrusive government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the thread title, was there not a married couples tax allowance here at some point?

There was.

Of course a family that depends on benefits is more likely to vote for the party that favours them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK - howabout if the relationship's worth its salt it shouldn't need propping-up by the state through tax incentives.

Or, marriage is sacred the state should stop butting in.

Or, people don't need the nanny state interfering in their private relationships.

Why do these busybody do-gooders insist on poking their noses in people's private lives.

The best people to raise children are their parents - these knowalls should butt out.

Why do these people insist that skewing the tax system in favour of married couples is best.

Sounds good to me. Bye-bye CSA etc. While they're at it, getting rid of the horrible red tape so businesses actually have an incentive to run here, leading to job creation and vastly reducing the need for welfare.

There was.

Of course a family that depends on benefits is more likely to vote for the party that favours them...

I suspect that may well be the case. A friend of mine working for BA as cabin crew, has benefitted from a negotiation of vast tax-free allowances that aren't always used in the course of his work...

Edited by HPC001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK - howabout if the relationship's worth its salt it shouldn't need propping-up by the state through tax incentives.

Or, marriage is sacred the state should stop butting in.

Or, people don't need the nanny state interfering in their private relationships.

Why do these busybody do-gooders insist on poking their noses in people's private lives.

The best people to raise children are their parents - these knowalls should butt out.

Why do these people insist that skewing the tax system in favour of married couples is best.

Indeed, this is how politics is always moved away from points of principle: turn it into a row between two sides about who gets special treatment. Never question the basis on which special treatment is demanded in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
There was.

Of course a family that depends on benefits is more likely to vote for the party that favours them...

There is a lot of demographic/psephological data which suggests otherwise. Those on long-term benefits tend to be politically inactive - i.e. voting for no political party. This is borne-out by the main political parties' targeting of swing voters in marginal seats - Labour came to power wooing Worcester Woman, John Major by attracting Mondeo Man, and Margaret Thatcher by Essex Man.

Each of the three categories above personify the economically-active:- these people will also be key to the next election - though many of them in all likelihood will be unemployed, or know someone who is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.