Home from home

*** Currently blogging at http://www.betternation.org/ ***

Thursday, February 18, 2010

A tax on both your houses

Most people I know (who I have discussed it with) think that David Cameron's plans to provide tax breaks for married couples are ill-considered and hark back to a bygone era that is better best forgotten. It is surely not equitable for a married couple to pay less tax than a couple who are merely cohabiting.

I would have assumed that the Tories had calculated some numbers on this and judged that it was a vote-winner but I'm afraid I can't give such credit to a party that mistakes 5% of teenage girls getting pregnant with 50%. Modern compassionate conservatism, but still as out of touch as ever.

The other parties, quite rightly, haven't touched this policy with a bargepole but, rather than wash their hands of it, I wonder if there's votes to be gained in taking the policy the other way.

Taxing marriage? Well, not far from it to be honest.

A couple (married or not) earning £40k each and assuming an effective tax rate of 20% will have a combined take home wage of around £5,000 a month.

A single person will take home around £2,500 a month.

Now if you consider the significant expenses a household has on a monthly basis, it generally doesn't make a difference how many people live in the house.

Mortgage costs, rent, electricity, gas, car payments, new bathroom suite, new kitchen appliances etc. Even council tax only has a 25% discount for singles meaning couples effectively save money.

So what am I tentatively proposing? Well, rather than an income tax on individuals, there should perhaps be a tax on households. Perhaps the normal rate of tax could be reduced slightly and the higher rate of tax could move up to start at £60k meaning more tax would be taken from the £5k couple and less from the £2,5k person.

I accept it is potentially an administrative nightmare but the benefits for single parents, divorcees and youngsters trying to get on the property ladder are obvious. More benefits arise from the flexibility couples would have. Only one person working, without having their income clobbered, would mean no need for exorbitant childcare costs, less pressure for state care for the elderly and generally a less stressful family life albeit with 1 car instead of 2 or 1 fewer overseas trip a year (potentially making it a green policy too). There would be a jump in job vacancies too which would save on unemployment benefit.

The Tories want to give married couples an even sweeter deal than they currently enjoy to secure the 'middle England' vote. I reckon, with some imagination and drive, we could shake up the entire system and create a fairer deal for all.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Leading Nat Breslin in Marriage Hate Shock"

Today's evening times headline!

Malc said...

I'm with the Tories on this one... though given I'm getting married in 2 weeks, there may be a slight conflict of interests here!

Jeff said...

Thanks for that rather terrifying prediction Anon, hopefully not. I should also point out that there's nothing to read into the fact that this post came several days after Valentine's Day


Malc, you're with the Tories on most ones and, as you say, betrothed so I'll take your comment with a pinch of confetti ;)

Not the Messiah said...

I think you'd need to look behind the Tories policy, as I see it, it's not just a preference for marriage per se but a preference that if you have children then it's better to be married (their view not mine).

"Headline: Nats support Tax on the Firstborn" ;-)

Why they don't just tweak their policy to be for married couples 'WITH' children hasn't really been explained other than making marriage a pre-requisite to having children which seems at best social engineering and doomed to practical failure.

Increasingly I'm coming round to the Liberals £10k minimum tax threshold policy and indeed a form of varying and relative tax threshold policy in general as a way of incentivising this kind of thing but more importantly enterprise and employment.

How about a variable tax threshold based on your household income?

Leaving money in people's pockets and using the existing PAYE code system albeit adapted to include for the variance?

Single Person £10k Threshold
Two Earners (above £20k each) £8k Threshold
Two Earners (above £40k each) £5k Threshold

Combine a percentage to cover local services and it becomes very clear and fair based on actual incomes.

Martyman said...

Jeff, you have just, more or less posted an entire argument I was making in a restaurant last Friday night. I thought I was the only one saying this. (Of course, I’m the only single person amongst most of my friends and colleagues, so obviously it was going to rattle my cage)

This proposed law tax cut is discriminating against single people (or less attractive people, depending on how you look at it).

I am a single guy, renting in Edinburgh, unable get on the housing ladder. Why should the young, married, professional couple living in the flat next door to me have more entitlement to a tax cut? Individually, they are already paying less council tax than me, now David Cameron wants to give them an extra benefit.

Surely they must be breaking some type of discrimination law trying to bring this in. I can see me outside Westminster now, with my placard up high - “JUSTICE FOR UGLIES”

Grogipher said...

It's a good post Jeff, I just think that sometimes simplicity is best, and instead of having a million and one rules and benefits and tax breaks and tax refunds and whatever, it would be far more efficient (and thus cheaper, meaning lower taxes) if we just stuck to working out people's individual tax contributions.

By that, of course I mean replacing the Council Tax for LIT, and removing all this myriad of different levels for married or cohabiting couples. You should pay your own tax, regardless of your current relationship status.

I don't see why you should pay more or less tax based on the fact you've got a bit of paper saying you're with someone or not, or if you've got a civil partnership, or have just lived together for 25 years without one, or if you maintain a person hareem. I can't see how these impact on your ability or not to pay for services.

Colin said...

"ABOLISH MARRIAGE" SAYS SENIOR NAT

Anonymous said...

Can I have one of those jobs were my wife and I earn 2.5k per month :) not that we are not worth it but

anyway here is a one situation
my wife works as a part time teaching assistant, you know the ones who are paid min wage for doing a teachers job, and I run my own company,we have two kids and dont get any benefits like working tax credits etc etc.

My friend earns the same as I do, has a partner with three kids who he does not live with, his partner has a house paid for by the council and all the benefits that go with it as well as the money that gets given for having new babies(never had that in my day )

In the eyes if the authorities she is a single mum with three kids
he is a bachelor in his own house
There are many who live like this that I know of , how would the system you propose allow for this ?

Im not having a pop its just a question that arose from reading your blog

James Mackenzie said...

Still just coming here for the headlines. Oh god, I love this one.

Jeff said...

James, everyone knows the Greens are just interested in headlines. I didn't think this was a good one, it even contradicts the point I'm making (a bit).

And I don't think it'd be anti-marriage at all (those headlines will give me nightmares though!) Less tax for the breadwinner to pay and an upshot of more free time for the non-bread-winner. Mix it in with better parental leave policies for newborns and we're off!

Indy said...

I am totally against raising the tax threshhold and also against moving away from taxing individuals.

We already have a very polarised society between those who pay taxes and those who don't - with a lot of resentment directed against those who don't pay tax and benefit from services which are provided by the taxpayer. As the public finances are squeezed to pay for the bank bailout this tendency will only increase.

I think the solution is actually to have a more progressive tax system. Everyone, in my view, should pay something towards the cost of the services they use even if it is just a nominal sum. Why can't we have a 1p tax rate for those on a low income? A 2p tax rate and so on, rising to a maximum of 50p. I know people will say it's too complicated but payrolls are all done by computer these days so I don't see why it should be.

As regards government support for families - in my view this should be done directly rather than through tax breaks e.g. subsidise childcare providers directly - don't subsidise the parents thru tax allowances or vouchers or any of that stuff which is open to abuse as well as being overly complex.

Tarantella said...

How life works

1. At school: no money, dependent on parents
2. At college/uni: no money. dependent on parents
3. Single with first job: pub every night, crap accommodation
4. Coupled with no kids: rolling in it, but it ain't going to last
5. coupled with kids: skint, no pub, no energy, holidays on credit card
6. separated with kids:
heavily in debt, no holidays, no pub, crap accommodation
7. retirement
8.death

My solution: tax income and give more support to kids.

(it's what happens already)

Anonymous said...

Господа подскажите!
есть такие карты что с таксафона можно звонить
по всему миру и она не заканчивается
раз видел на сайте знакомств
письмо прислали ссылкой купил и пользовался а сейчас потерял
и не могу найти где купить подскажите или напишите на мыло
norik777_norik@mail.ru
буду признателен [url=http://videolov.com][img]http://videolov.com/_themes/main/new_age/images/smile.gif[/img][/url]

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.ilike.com/user/buy_zoloft_online_b]stop taking zoloft [/url] zoloft withdrawal effects withdrawl zoloft vertigo [url=http://www.ilike.com/user/buy_zoloft_online_b]zoloft and problems [/url] goig off zoloft zoloft dose anxiety [url=http://www.ilike.com/user/buy_zoloft_online_b]erowid zoloft viagra [/url] zoloft and amitryptiline zoloft ejaculatory problems [url=http://www.ilike.com/user/buy_zoloft_online_b]topamax and zoloft [/url] zoloft vs symbalta what's in zoloft [url=http://www.ilike.com/user/buy_zoloft_online_b]popularity of zoloft [/url] problems starting zoloft zoloft withdrawal systoms

Anonymous said...

I really wanted to extend my gratitude for [url=http://smartforexsignal.com]free forex signals[/url] which have taken my family and I grand financial success. Smartforexsignal and track record are just fantastic. I wanna keep it up.

Anonymous said...

After reading you site, Your site is very useful for me .I bookmarked your site!
I am been engaged 8 years on the [b][url=http://www.brasilno.com/]brasil no[/url][/b] If you have some questions, please get in touch with me.

Anonymous said...

Excellent site!! You look also mine http://neo-buxi.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Ubuntu Mount Bin Cue File
Sony Vegas Platinum 9.0b Crack


http://tank.wstdownloadonline.info/termlite-download.html


[url=http://tab.thewstdownload.info/stay-tuned-for-danger-torrent.html]Stay Tuned For Danger Torrent[/url]
[url=http://accounting.thewstdownload.info/vandyke-software-securecrt-5.1.html]Vandyke Software Securecrt 5.1[/url]

Julie said...

Well, I'm single and I don't have a problem with married couples getting a tax break. And if marriage is only a piece of paper, then what's stopping co habiting couples from doing it? It is much better for kids for their parents to be married; it gives them rights of inheritance and care which they do not have under a casual relationship. I take the point that this is for children rather than the parents, but taxing is an inexact science. We did use to have a family allowance in the seventies and eighties which was a benefit given to all couples with kids; it was quite a good benefit. Anyway, I don't have a problem with this. If we don't have children, we don't have a future, and I think it should be encouraged. Nothing wrong with that.

Martyman said...

This is what really annoys me. All the responses in the newspapers, on BBC Question Time, and now Julie above all lapse into discussions about kids and the family.

I'll keep on saying this until I'm blue in the face - forget the bloody kids. It's not a tax cut for parents.

Without mentioning kids or parenting, can anyone give me ONE reason why married people should get a tax break?

Julie said...

'Without mentioning kids or parenting, can anyone give me ONE reason why married people should get a tax break?'

It's about rewarding commitment, Martyman. As I said, if marriage was simply a piece of paper, co habiting couples would have no problem getting married. It's because it is a public commitment, with rights of inheritance and care for those in the marriage, that many couples eschew it. Conversly, if someone is willing to make that commitment to someone else, then why shouldn't they have a tax break? Monogamy and commitment are good for a society and the Tories are encouraging that.

Grogipher said...

It's because it is a public commitment, with rights of inheritance and care for those in the marriage, that many couples eschew it.

I don't know a single cohabiting couple that cite this as their reason for not marrying.

Conversly, if someone is willing to make that commitment to someone else, then why shouldn't they have a tax break?

Why should they!? Why is that a reason for a tax break? Should I get a tax break for, say, wearing glasses or anything else entirely esoteric?

Monogamy and commitment are good for a society

Says who? And why does that have to be in a one-man, one-woman relationship? Why can't it be a two-man relationship, or a one-man and two-women relationship? Society is meant to evolve with us, not be held back by Governments making retrograde steps.

Julie said...

Grogipher,

Can I point out that for the past few years, gays have fought for the right to civil partnership, so that they can declare monogamy and faithfulness to their partner. Obviously they think it's something worth having. Secondly, wtf is the problem here? Different groups in society get money according to their status; students, single parents, carers etc. The only group that don't get anything are married couples. If everyone else gets a break, why shouldn't they?

Thirdly, sorry to mention it again Martyman, but children matter. Single parents get tax breaks and council houses to provide for children; why shouldn't married couples? Why should they be disadvantaged because they've chosen to marry rather than stay apart?

Martyman said...

"Different groups in society get money according to their status; students, single parents, carers etc. The only group that don't get anything are married couples. If everyone else gets a break, why shouldn't they?"

Married couples are not the only group. (In fact, people who are married pay half the council tax) You've missed one group from your list. The group that can't afford to get on the property ladder, the group that doesn't qualify for any state benefits, the group that pays the most council tax per head, the group that doesn't have the luxury of sharing the pressures of the work/life balance, the forgotten group that isn't included in ANY poll/survey that is published - especially during budget time.

The national average salary as of last year was £26K. £32K when bonuses are included. There are thousands of hardworking single people earning nowhere near that amount. Single people don't get any extra money "according to their status"

When a single person gets home from a hard days work at 6 or 7pm, they don't have anyone to share the 'other job' - the house, the weekly shopping, clothing, life's bureacratic necessities etc. For people that don't have any siblings, you could add family responsibilities to that list. It could be argued that due to the fact single people don't share these responsibilities with any one else, they are the hardest working of all the groups, more susceptible to stress and such.

No doubt, you will claim "that is their choice", but is it really? There are many reasons why people may be unable to find a partner, without it being their own choice. Why should the government penalise individuals because of their appearance/confidence/social skills/hygene/personality/intelligence? (DELETE AS APPLICABLE)

BTW - I actually have issues with the way some single parents get benefits/houses so easily, so I wouldn't use that as a comparison.

Grogipher said...

Can I point out that for the past few years, gays have fought for the right to civil partnership, so that they can declare monogamy and faithfulness to their partner. Obviously they think it's something worth having.

Certainly, but what's the relevance to this argument?

Different groups in society get money according to their status; students

Very few students get money from the Government - I certainly didn't receive a penny. I got some loan, but this is paid back, with interest. It's in the Government's interest to assist poorer people getting into Uni to balance out society, to give everyone a real chance in life. Tax breaks for married couples are not analogous.

single parents

Martyman has already covered this. They get some help because they have to do everything a married couple does, usually with less than half of the wage. It's about giving an extra hand to those in need.

carers

You're scraping the barrel now! I don't even know where to start with how wrong this comparison is! Carers provide a real help to those in need, and in turn save the state money (as their allowance is far, far, far lower than the cost of state provision of the same care).


Married couples do not benefit society in any of the ways that these three groups do - students will hopefully go on to have better paid jobs, and thus contribute more in tax in future years, lone parents need the help, and carers are benefiting society in a real and tangible way.

What benefit to married couples bring? And what cohabiting couples would suddenly go get that bit of paper just to get the £10/week or whatever Cameron was promising?

I fundamentally disagree that married couples are "the only group to not get anything". That's just ridiculous. Under our current tax regime, it's single young professionals who are struggling the most, alongwith pensioners. Married couples do not *need* any more tax breaks than they currently enjoy.

You mention children though - all I can say on that one is that yes, I'm happy to see the continuation of some form of child benefit, or working families tax credits or whatever (oh no! wait! married folks are eligible!! :P) but again, that's a separate argument.

You can't just lump in tax relief for having with the arguments for married couples, as it's not only married couples that have children.

Finally, I'd love you to explain this one:

Why should they be disadvantaged because they've chosen to marry rather than stay apart?

Can you name one - just one - financial/tax disadvantage post-marriage?

Julie said...

'Can you name me just one financial/tax disadvantage post marriage?'

Sure.

a) You don't get a council house or single parent benefits. That's why so many couples choose to stay apart, because they get more money if they do. I think that's crazy.

b)You are tied financially to someone else; if you split with them, you have to split the money. Another reason why people don't marry.

c) If you have children, you are financially responsible for them until they are adults, whether you choose to marry again or not. Unlike an unmarried couple, you are named on a piece of paper as the father/mother, so you can be traced. On your death, your spouse or children are entitled to at least a third of your estate.

Grogipher, I'm not completely out of sympathy with single people. I'm single myself, for Gods sake and I am also a carer so I know that side of things. But single people in general have fewer financial responsibilities and commitments than married folk. We haven't signed over half our worldly goods to someone else. We don't have kids to buy clothes for. We don't have our time taken up looking after all the emotional stuff that goes with bringing up children. It's very similar to looking after an old person like I do, but I do get more financial recognition and practical help than someone bringing up a child.

And it is about what we want to encourage in society. If you look at the benefits system, it is biased towards those who do not work, do not commit and do not behave responsibly. Surprise - we have a society that increasingly does not work, does not commit and does not behave responsibly.
I could think of many groups in society that I resent. Married couples ain't one of them and I don't understand why others do. They've made a commitment in life that I think I would find very hard to make to anyone, and I respect them for that and think they should be respected.

Grogipher said...

a) You don't get a council house or single parent benefits. That's why so many couples choose to stay apart, because they get more money if they do. I think that's crazy.

You don't get a council house if you're married? Eh? There's not a single Local Authority in Scotland that I know of that even considers a person's relationship status when they factor in the letting procedures. That's a nonsense.

You don't get single parent benefits no, but you don't need them - as has already been explained, even without them married or cohabiting couples already save money by halving their bills..

b)You are tied financially to someone else; if you split with them, you have to split the money. Another reason why people don't marry.

What's this got to do with tax relief? Also, I do think my lawyer friends would disagree, since with marriage it's easier to separate the stuff, whereas with cohabiting couples, it's far more difficult.

If you have children, you are financially responsible for them until they are adults, whether you choose to marry again or not. Unlike an unmarried couple, you are named on a piece of paper as the father/mother, so you can be traced. On your death, your spouse or children are entitled to at least a third of your estate.

Again, you're confusing marriage with families. I'm not even going to bother replying where you can't make this distinction. I mean, please, sentences like "We don't have kids to buy clothes for"? That's just crazy. I know plenty of single people with this burden, probably moreso than I know married couples, and they have almost the same levels of bills!

And it is about what we want to encourage in society. If you look at the benefits system, it is biased towards those who do not work, do not commit and do not behave responsibly. Surprise - we have a society that increasingly does not work, does not commit and does not behave responsibly.

I would actually agree with this, but take the entirely opposite approach in fixing it.

I don't resent married couples at all, and I don't know why you seem to think I do?

Julie said...

Right, some clarification is needed here.

When I am talking about a single person here, Grogipher, I am talking about a person living on their own, with a job. I am not talking about a single parent who has a child to look after. You seem to be confusing the two.

Council houses. I don't know what council area you stay in, but where I am, single parents come ahead of everyone else and jump the queue in front of everyone else. Married couples will spend far longer on such a waiting list. Some girls take advantage of that and deliberately get themselves pregnant so that they can get a house and I think you understand that as well as I do. So life is harder for married couples that don't have a lot of money.

It's easier to split (money) the stuff when you're married.'

Exactly. That's because it's been sorted out prior to the marriage and there are legal obligations attached. A father cannot run off and leave his wife and children with nothing but the clothes they stand up in. That's why marriage is a good thing.

'I don't resent married couples at all.'

Em, you compared getting married with choosing to wear a pair of glasses. That may not be exactly a resentful attitude, but it's certainly a derogatory one.