Do you or your Spouse/Partner earn less than £10,600 per annum?

Thanks for that! I wonder if it can be backdated too?
 
Also remember that if your earnings plus interest from savings is less than £15600 you can get some, or all, of the savings interest paid tax free, or claim it back if you have already paid it.
 
This is where a decent accountant comes in, in making sure you get everything you're entitled too
 
neil_g said:
Why do people in long term relationships always get forgotten about..
Click to expand...

Do you mean people who are not formally hooked up (ie married, civil partnership) Neil? If so, I would imagine that such a couple are considered as single entities in the legal sense and it would be difficult to establish satisfactory criteria again in a legal sense, as to the relationship. Also, it would be terribly easy to cheat any system that doesn't have a formal set of criteria in place to establish a meaningful relationship. I guess the alternative would be to have no schemes which required a formal relationship before conferring some financial advantage to a couple.

It would have been much better if the civil partnership rules could have included heterosexual as we as homosexual couples. It would have provided a non-marriage option, thus adding to choice and clarity for some couples.

Anthony.
 
Anthony.Ralph said:
Do you mean people who are not formally hooked up (ie married, civil partnership) Neil? If so, I would imagine that such a couple are considered as single entities in the legal sense and it would be difficult to establish satisfactory criteria again in a legal sense, as to the relationship. Also, it would be terribly easy to cheat any system that doesn't have a formal set of criteria in place to establish a meaningful relationship. I guess the alternative would be to have no schemes which required a formal relationship before conferring some financial advantage to a couple.

It would have been much better if the civil partnership rules could have included heterosexual as we as homosexual couples. It would have provided a non-marriage option, thus adding to choice and clarity for some couples.

Anthony.
Click to expand...
You'd probably be able to prove it somehow, we've got joint bills/statements/council tax going back years.

But we all know gov loves a good legitimate family.. ;)
 
boliston said:
Agree this is very discriminatory towards couples who choose to live together - a form of "social conditioning" by the government
Click to expand...

Living together isn't the criteria.
Being in a marriage or civil partnership is.
Living together isn't enough to qualify for the allowance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
viv1969 said:
Living together isn't the criteria.
Being in a marriage or civil partnership is.
Living together isn't enough to qualify for the allowance.
Click to expand...

Quite. Otherwise 2 housemates could then fiddle the system very easily.
 
boliston said:
It just seems like a tax break with no logic or reason as it does not help single people who don't benefit from sharing costs.
Click to expand...
It appeals to the Blue Rinse brigade who comprise a substantial part of Conservative grassroots membership. Had to throw them a bone to appease for supporting gay marriage.
 
Llamaman said:
It appeals to the Blue Rinse brigade who comprise a substantial part of Conservative grassroots membership. Had to throw them a bone to appease for supporting gay marriage.
Click to expand...
But this tax advantage applies to Gay couples who are married too, doesn't it? (Not that I would have a problem with this)

Anthony
 
A 'married persons tax allowance' has been a cornerstone of 'conservative' politics in this country for a long time.

Yes it's social engineering, and it refuses to apologise for that, it's part of the conservative mindset the same as grammar schools and 'low taxes'.

The only reason it was limited to the low paid is because they realised they'd never get a universal one through parliament.
 
boliston said:
Agree this is very discriminatory towards couples who choose to live together - a form of "social conditioning" by the government
Click to expand...
No it isn't. There is a complex legal framework behind it. Just see marriage as a legal transaction which ensure that the person you are with has got rights that are properly documented in an easy and cheap way. Like with any contract you only need it when it goes wrong.
 
boliston said:
It just seems like a tax break with no logic or reason as it does not help single people who don't benefit from sharing costs.
Click to expand...
But single people are ahem single, so there is no sharing?
 
dejongj said:
But single people are ahem single, so there is no sharing?
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that single cohabiting couples don't share bills? Mortgages? Bank accounts?
I suspect you're mistaken :-)
 
neil_g said:
you mean like popping down the registry office? not like its hard to get a divorce these days..
Click to expand...

Indeed. Download the forms.
Don't even need a lawyer.
 
boliston said:
what i mean is that its a tax break not favouring those that need it most - being single is almost always more expensive in that no costs get to be shared hence it being a pointless tax break
Click to expand...
Fair point well clarified. However, this situation only works for when people are together yet one is barely contribution in such a way that it doesn't affect their joint income therefore there isn't the sharing of those bills going on yet more mouths to feed and an unused tax threshold. I'd say that especially with child care being so costly, plenty of people looking for work; its s good thing to remove some pressure on both parents having to work. Benefits everyone.
 
neil_g said:
you mean like popping down the registry office? not like its hard to get a divorce these days..
Click to expand...
Difference being that that is a very deliberate act and will have many more concequences regarding legal status on a whole host of matters. One that wasn't there in the first place in the other scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top