B1498 – Finance Act 2014 (Amendment) Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a bill in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). It's a piece of proposed legislation that is currently being debated, and there's a good chance that the House will later vote on whether to pass it into TSR law. All are welcome and encouraged to ask questions about the bill's content and join in the debate – you don't have to be in a party or be an MP to do so.

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


B1498 – Finance Act 2014 (Amendment) Bill 2019, SoggyCabbages MP

Finance Act (Amendment) Bill 2019

An Act to increase the ‘transferable amount’ for couples who are married or in a civil partnership.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1 - Citation, Extent and Commencement

(a) This Act extends to only England.
(b) This Act will come into force immediately following Royal Assent.
(c) This Act will be cited as the Marriage Tax Break Allowance Act 2019

2 - Amending C.26, Part 1, Chapter 2, Exemptions and Reliefs, Section 11, 55B, 4(b)

The following will be changed from:

“for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years, is 10% of the amount of personal allowance specified in section 35(1) for the tax year to which the reduction relates.”

To

“for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years, is 30% of the amount of personal allowance specified in section 35(1) for the tax year to which the reduction relates.””

Notes
In modern times the traditional nuclear family has seen a sharp decline. To celebrate double-parent households the transferable amount for the lower-earning individual in a couple should be raised from 10% to 30% of the existing personal allowance. Currently standing at £12,500, a rise of 20% will be welcome to many.

Original legislation
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/26/section/11

Costs: Negligible.
Last edited by Saracen's Fez; 4 weeks ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Why only to 30%, why not the whole amount?
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why only to 30%, why not the whole amount?
I assume it then runs the risk of people getting into marriages etc. just to reduce their tax bill...
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by ns_2)
I assume it then runs the risk of people getting into marriages etc. just to reduce their tax bill...
So does 30%, that's quite a bit of money, the transferable allowance is also intended to incentivise marriage so one would argue such activity means it's working
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
Aye! Nice to see soggy proposing a sensible bill for once.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So does 30%, that's quite a bit of money, the transferable allowance is also intended to incentivise marriage so one would argue such activity means it's working
I'm happy to incentive marriage, and am wholly in support of this Bill - just, where does the boundary lie where it no longer 'incentivises' genuine loving couples to tie the knot, and creates a whole new level of non-genuine 'marriages' purely for economic reasons. At 30%, tax saving is about £750 for a full transfer - at 100%, it's £2500. I think 30% is a conservative figure, for now, at least.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by ns_2)
I'm happy to incentive marriage, and am wholly in support of this Bill - just, where does the boundary lie where it no longer 'incentivises' genuine loving couples to tie the knot, and creates a whole new level of non-genuine 'marriages' purely for economic reasons. At 30%, tax saving is about £750 for a full transfer - at 100%, it's £2500. I think 30% is a conservative figure, for now, at least.
And why should the tens of millions who could legitimately benefit from a 100% allowance be denied the benefit just because a small number might play the system, especially those in their 20s and thirties looking to start a family
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by ns_2)
I assume it then runs the risk of people getting into marriages etc. just to reduce their tax bill...
Which could be solved by having to have been married or in a civil partnership for a period of time, say five years.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by barnetlad)
Which could be solved by having to have been married or in a civil partnership for a period of time, say five years.
Which also means that a number of those it's intended to help are denied the assistance
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by barnetlad)
Which could be solved by having to have been married or in a civil partnership for a period of time, say five years.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And why should the tens of millions who could legitimately benefit from a 100% allowance be denied the benefit just because a small number might play the system, especially those in their 20s and thirties looking to start a family
This is why the system is a fine balancing act.

We could have a 'accumulated pot' - or logical progression, to incentivise not only the act of marriage, but staying together. But, again, this causes its own problems...
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
Outline what the author means by negligible.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
The only issue I see with this bill is that it seeks to operate retrospectively which violates the principle that law does not operate in this way. Change the tax year to the next one and I think I can support since I see no other issues with the bill.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
I would have no problems with a tax cut for those in our society who are married and thus support the Hon. SoggyCabbages' bill.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Mossbourne)
I would have no problems with a tax cut and thus support the Hon. SoggyCabbages' bill.
Thank you sir!
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
I would not be adverse to raisin it further from 30%. I will consider and maybe amend.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
I would not be adverse to raisin it further from 30%. I will consider and maybe amend.
Would you prune it?
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
Nope but maybe I may sultana it lol.
(Original post by Mossbourne)
Would you prune it?
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#18
This bill is in cessation.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#19
Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who do you think will be the next PM?

Boris Johnson (191)
73.18%
Jeremy Hunt (70)
26.82%

Watched Threads

View All