The reported dismay over the government’s plan not to resurrect Married Couple’s Allowance (MCA) in the imminent budget is puzzling.
Feminists in the UK argued long and hard for married women to be treated independently from their husbands, instead of being viewed as dependents — equivalent to children — even if they earned their own income. Until MCA was finally abolished in 1990, a wife’s income was treated as her spouse's for tax purposes, and reported on his tax return, leaving her no financial privacy from her husband, although he could keep his personal finances secret from her if he so chose. Quite apart from being demeaning, the system was open to abuse by a profligate partner.
While far from ideal, MCA made some sense when married women were expected to give up paid employment on marriage to focus instead on bearing and raising children, and were thus dependent — like children — on their husbands. MCA made less and less sense as more and more wives and mothers stayed in work.
MCA was replaced in 2000 by credits related to children: these were intended to offset some of the expenditure involved in bringing up children, while all working-age adults had a basic Personal Tax Allowance unaffected by their marital status.
In a society that entitles both men and women to work, and to be treated as independent adults in tax law, it seems pointless and unjust to return to an archaic system of tax allowances based on the formal union of two people (whatever their gender), and which thus penalizes adults outside that category, as well as the children of adults who may be unmarried for a variety of reasons, including widowhood and divorce.
Feminists in the UK argued long and hard for married women to be treated independently from their husbands, instead of being viewed as dependents — equivalent to children — even if they earned their own income. Until MCA was finally abolished in 1990, a wife’s income was treated as her spouse's for tax purposes, and reported on his tax return, leaving her no financial privacy from her husband, although he could keep his personal finances secret from her if he so chose. Quite apart from being demeaning, the system was open to abuse by a profligate partner.
While far from ideal, MCA made some sense when married women were expected to give up paid employment on marriage to focus instead on bearing and raising children, and were thus dependent — like children — on their husbands. MCA made less and less sense as more and more wives and mothers stayed in work.
MCA was replaced in 2000 by credits related to children: these were intended to offset some of the expenditure involved in bringing up children, while all working-age adults had a basic Personal Tax Allowance unaffected by their marital status.
In a society that entitles both men and women to work, and to be treated as independent adults in tax law, it seems pointless and unjust to return to an archaic system of tax allowances based on the formal union of two people (whatever their gender), and which thus penalizes adults outside that category, as well as the children of adults who may be unmarried for a variety of reasons, including widowhood and divorce.
No comments:
Post a Comment