FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour- anti family
Labour- anti family
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
On factcheck, the real one  , it has confirmed the Labour Party policy to remove the tax reduction for families. Doesn't affect me but it hits the pockets of families on low income.
Closing the gap on inequality my arse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"On factcheck, the real one , it has confirmed the Labour Party policy to remove the tax reduction for families. Doesn't affect me but it hits the pockets of families on low income.
Closing the gap on inequality my arse."
Are you talking about the marriage allowance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I'm single.
Why do I pay more in tax than someone who happens to be married?
That sounds like social engineering.
Get married then  "
why?
To get a discount on my tax?
Why does a married person get a discount on their tax?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm single.
Why do I pay more in tax than someone who happens to be married?
That sounds like social engineering.
Get married then
why?
To get a discount on my tax?
Why does a married person get a discount on their tax?
"
Only against a none tax paying partner |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
So two people, one earns, one doesn't - and they pay a lower rate of tax on that income?
Why?
I get the 25% discount on the council tax for single occupancy - that seems legit.
To get a discount on your tax because there are two of you . . . why?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I think the point I am coming to is the inefficiency of the married person's allowance.
It was raised in this thread as a means of family support.
Where's the cries of "Get a fucking job then!" ?
If this is about supporting the raising of children, It would be much more efficient to scrap the allowance and move the money into Child Benefit instead.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So two people, one earns, one doesn't - and they pay a lower rate of tax on that income?
Why?
I get the 25% discount on the council tax for single occupancy - that seems legit.
To get a discount on your tax because there are two of you . . . why?
"
Everyone has a tax allowance. So why should that tax allowance be lost by one half of a couple because they stay at home to look after the house/kids? It's only fair that they should be able to pass on that allowance to their spouse.
I would extend it to civil partnerships though. That is if it hasn't already been done, it's a while since I claimed it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So two people, one earns, one doesn't - and they pay a lower rate of tax on that income?
Why?
I get the 25% discount on the council tax for single occupancy - that seems legit.
To get a discount on your tax because there are two of you . . . why?
"
To get a discount on your council tax because there is only one of you..Why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the point I am coming to is the inefficiency of the married person's allowance.
It was raised in this thread as a means of family support.
Where's the cries of "Get a fucking job then!" ?
If this is about supporting the raising of children, It would be much more efficient to scrap the allowance and move the money into Child Benefit instead.
"
The benefit only applies if one of the parents is not working. In such cases, there will be more pressure on the person who earns. It is pretty much like two people earning a single salary. Allowance is the right thing to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So two people, one earns, one doesn't - and they pay a lower rate of tax on that income?
Why?
I get the 25% discount on the council tax for single occupancy - that seems legit.
To get a discount on your tax because there are two of you . . . why?
"
Social engineering
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, this is what it looks like.
You get a discount on your tax because you are married.
It is irrelevant if you have kids or not.
Why am I being penalised because I am single?"
You are not being penalised.
The tax allowance is only transferable if one of the couple doesn't work.
If they are both working then it balances out.
Also remember that if one is working then the non working partner cannot claim benefits.
If it were two separate single people, one working and one not, then the non worker would be able to claim (at least) job seekers allowance.
It seems you think it is unfair because you want to.
I put it down to general election fever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hate that stupid allowance. Govt can fuck off out of social engineering with marriage. What's it got to do with them whether a couple are married or not?
Divorce is going to cost you more!"
As mentioned in the previous post, it is only for couples where one person is not working. Also, I see nothing wrong with governments encouraging marriages with a harmless allowance. It's not like they are forcing you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
This thread has shown what I suspected it would. Those veering to the left has no issue with Labour penalising working families, even tjough it is the lowest earners who will be affected more.
If this was a Tory cut the story would be different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
Also remember that if one is working then the non working partner cannot claim benefits."
That's the bit of the story I've been missing.
Been a long time since I was married lol.
I get it now.
It's the state showering its love on us as couples.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
So why was this thread presented as an attack on families?
It's really an attack on couples, isn't it?
A redistribution of wealth from couples to children maybe?
I'll vote for the children.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
I'm not sure what all the hoo haa is about this. It is not an attack on families. It is just removing the benefit that you can share some of your tax allowance with your partner. It is only of use to those couples whom one is working and the other is not (or earning less than the tax allowance threshold). I think it is a pretty fair perk. And yes it will be a shame when it goes, as it will hit some people... but isn't really a particularly big benefit.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"This thread has shown what I suspected it would. Those veering to the left has no issue with Labour penalising working families, even tjough it is the lowest earners who will be affected more.
If this was a Tory cut the story would be different."
Won't affect me. I ain't married.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
And if the money recouped from taxing every adult the same is shifted sideways and used to update Child Benefit, remove the two-child cap and the r*pe clause . . . that must be a better way to support children growing up, surely.
It targets the money at children.
I've yet to hear anyone defend giving tax breaks just cos they are married.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So two people, one earns, one doesn't - and they pay a lower rate of tax on that income?
Why?
I get the 25% discount on the council tax for single occupancy - that seems legit.
To get a discount on your tax because there are two of you . . . why?
"
I'm no expert on this marriage allowance but don't you both have to be working but one needs to be under the tax bracket for the other to make use of the allowance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes, this is what it looks like.
You get a discount on your tax because you are married.
It is irrelevant if you have kids or not.
Why am I being penalised because I am single?"
You may be able to argue why a fit and healthy individual cannot claim disability allowances, why should they be penalised because they are healthy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Well, no - someone with a disability is starting from a disadvantage. I am all for helping equalise disadvantage.
This is an allowance not for any kind of detriment.
It's a hangover from the days we were ruled by religious mullahs.
Using the power of the state to incentivise people to commit themselves unto each other for ever.
Let's just not pretend this is about families.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well, it doesn't affect me either way because we earn too much so I don't give a toss about it but as many couples do benefit a bit from it I don't see it as I'm being disadvantaged over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rufinWoman
over a year ago
notts |
"Hate that stupid allowance. Govt can fuck off out of social engineering with marriage. What's it got to do with them whether a couple are married or not?
Divorce is going to cost you more!
As mentioned in the previous post, it is only for couples where one person is not working. Also, I see nothing wrong with governments encouraging marriages with a harmless allowance. It's not like they are forcing you."
Nope, they are social engineering. Why do they think marriage is better than cohabitation? What's it got to do with them? It's not 1950. This allowance was only recently reintroduced, and benefits the 'traditional' model of one person at home (housewife), other at work. It was never about families as seen by the cuts to child tax credits by same Tory govt that brought back the married persons allowance. So ... move money from families with kids to the rich married housewife and husband... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was never about families as seen by the cuts to child tax credits by same Tory govt that brought back the married persons allowance. So ... move money from families with kids to the rich married housewife and husband..."
So you really think it's only a benefit to rich married housewives and husbands? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, this is what it looks like.
You get a discount on your tax because you are married.
It is irrelevant if you have kids or not.
Why am I being penalised because I am single?
You are not being penalised.
The tax allowance is only transferable if one of the couple doesn't work.
If they are both working then it balances out.
Also remember that if one is working then the non working partner cannot claim benefits.
If it were two separate single people, one working and one not, then the non worker would be able to claim (at least) job seekers allowance.
It seems you think it is unfair because you want to.
I put it down to general election fever."
They cannot claim benefits because the income is counted as joint assets, marraige is a legal contract. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rufinWoman
over a year ago
notts |
"Yes, this is what it looks like.
You get a discount on your tax because you are married.
It is irrelevant if you have kids or not.
Why am I being penalised because I am single?
You are not being penalised.
The tax allowance is only transferable if one of the couple doesn't work.
If they are both working then it balances out.
Also remember that if one is working then the non working partner cannot claim benefits.
If it were two separate single people, one working and one not, then the non worker would be able to claim (at least) job seekers allowance.
It seems you think it is unfair because you want to.
I put it down to general election fever.
They cannot claim benefits because the income is counted as joint assets, marraige is a legal contract."
Nope. They can't claim as they are a couple - married or not. Usually eg universal credit, tax credit the govt treats you as a couple regardless of marriage certificate. Except for this allowance. Which is precisely about rewarding those who marry rather than just live together. It is a specific reward for marrying. Wtf has it got to do with the state?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"On factcheck, the real one , it has confirmed the Labour Party policy to remove the tax reduction for families. Doesn't affect me but it hits the pockets of families on low income.
Closing the gap on inequality my arse."
Not families. Couples. Independent of having children.
That's different, correct? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Should swingers get a special discount on their tax, too?
If not, why not?
"
Well swingers certainly need it if they use Nicky Morgan maths. I had one wife yesterday and the same wife today so I now have two wives! 
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
