3 ms·

We have exactly this problem in the UK. A couple each home earns x, each gets taxed on x. Each gets the tax free allowance on the fist £12.5k of the annual inc

by graemep 9mo ago

We have exactly this problem in the UK. A couple each home earns x, each gets taxed on x. Each gets the tax free allowance on the fist £12.5k of the annual income. Each gets the full basic rate slice before they hit higher bands etc. If one of the couple earns 2x and the other zero, then only one can use their tax free allowance and they get one slice of the basic rate band etc. They still have the same pre-tax income for the same household. Personally I think people should be allowed to opt in to sharing taxable income.

jamespo 9mo ago
This discourages people joining the workforce and is open to fraud. You will then get the argument of "why should I be taxed more because I'm single"?
- graemep 9mo ago
  Why do we need to push people into the workforce? There are a lot of social benefits to people being stay at home parents (which will be the commonest reason for doing so). What fraud? > You will then get the argument of "why should I be taxed more because I'm single"? You might, but its a dishonest argument. You are taxing households together. You are giving each individual the same amount of tax free income and the same amount in the lower bands. It is already possible for self employed people to do this by making their spouses a partner or shareholder in the business or similar. This is just extending the same rights to employed people.
  - jamespo 9mo ago
    Why is taxing households together the correct thing, other than the fact it presumably would improve your personal standard of living (it would also improve mine)? What are you trying to encourage? I could see if you want to encourage families having tax benefits based on children - but universal childcare provision seems more likely to succeed. And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted.
    - graemep 9mo ago
      > Why is taxing households together the correct thing its fairer > It presumably would improve your personal standard of living I am divorced and remain single so it would make no difference to me > could see if you want to encourage families having tax benefits based on children I want people to enjoy family life. Its the same reason I want family friendly working hours, decent paternity leave, a right to home educate and better schools etc. > And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted. And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted. Please do explain . Also please find evidence it is abused where tax does work like that. Its not a cut either as many households would pay the same tax, and its likely rates would go up slightly to make it revenue neutral. Its also more consistent as benefits are based on household income in the UK, as are things like student loans and educational bursaries and the treatment of finances in divorce.
      - jamespo 9mo ago
        "It's fairer" is just tautology. Student loans are not based on household income and many other benefits aren't either. As for family life that is covered by basing tax cuts / benefits on children not merely the nebulous concept of a household.
        graemep 9mo ago
        The concept of a household is not nebulous. It is used by economists for a good reason. People in the same household pool income and expenses. The law assumes married couples do so. Parents are jointly responsible for their children. Really? There are benefits and tax cuts that allow parents to spend more time with their children? Not that I know of.
        jamespo 9mo ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c776xgex02jo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c776xgex02jo

by graemep 9mo ago

jamespo 9mo ago

This discourages people joining the workforce and is open to fraud. You will then get the argument of "why should I be taxed more because I'm single"?

graemep 9mo ago
Why do we need to push people into the workforce? There are a lot of social benefits to people being stay at home parents (which will be the commonest reason for doing so). What fraud? > You will then get the argument of "why should I be taxed more because I'm single"? You might, but its a dishonest argument. You are taxing households together. You are giving each individual the same amount of tax free income and the same amount in the lower bands. It is already possible for self employed people to do this by making their spouses a partner or shareholder in the business or similar. This is just extending the same rights to employed people.
- jamespo 9mo ago
  Why is taxing households together the correct thing, other than the fact it presumably would improve your personal standard of living (it would also improve mine)? What are you trying to encourage? I could see if you want to encourage families having tax benefits based on children - but universal childcare provision seems more likely to succeed. And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted.
  - graemep 9mo ago
    > Why is taxing households together the correct thing its fairer > It presumably would improve your personal standard of living I am divorced and remain single so it would make no difference to me > could see if you want to encourage families having tax benefits based on children I want people to enjoy family life. Its the same reason I want family friendly working hours, decent paternity leave, a right to home educate and better schools etc. > And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted. And as for not seeing how a tax cut based on 2 people living together could not be abused, you must be very short sighted. Please do explain . Also please find evidence it is abused where tax does work like that. Its not a cut either as many households would pay the same tax, and its likely rates would go up slightly to make it revenue neutral. Its also more consistent as benefits are based on household income in the UK, as are things like student loans and educational bursaries and the treatment of finances in divorce.
    - jamespo 9mo ago
      "It's fairer" is just tautology. Student loans are not based on household income and many other benefits aren't either. As for family life that is covered by basing tax cuts / benefits on children not merely the nebulous concept of a household.
      - graemep 9mo ago
        The concept of a household is not nebulous. It is used by economists for a good reason. People in the same household pool income and expenses. The law assumes married couples do so. Parents are jointly responsible for their children. Really? There are benefits and tax cuts that allow parents to spend more time with their children? Not that I know of.
        jamespo 9mo ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c776xgex02jo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c776xgex02jo