to think the marriage allowance is an unfair tax allowance

[chomalungma]

It's going to be a thing over the next few weeks.

The Conservatives introduced it - in the coalition. I think the Lib Dems accepted it so they could get free school meals as well.

Great if you're married. You don't need to have kids to get it. Just be married.

If you aren't married, then you don't get it. Even though the money could be handy if you are in a couple.

Or if it didn't exist, then the money could be used to go towards education, Sure Start, the NHS, relationship counselling...all things that help ALL families instead of married couples.

Angela Rayner struggled to answer that question on Marr this morning whereas Corbyn gave a clear answer - stating it was discriminatory.

I think it will come up in the election campaign.

Is it unfair?

Well if you want it and you're in a couple, get married. Marriage has a lot of social benefits that cohabiting doesn't, so it's perfectly reasonable for a political party to include policies that encourage people to get married. But it's your choice. If you prefer not to be married, no one will make you. You just won't have the benefits of being married.

It is discriminatory and benefits only specific rich married couples ie high rate tax payers married to low earners. In this country, at the moment, that kind of family set up only benefits men.

It’s a sexist policy that discriminates against equally high earning people / women / and non-married people

I've never really understood why people think that it is a reasonable request for cohabiting couples to have all the financial benefits of marriage or civil partnership without any of the financial consequences should the relationship end. If you want the benefits you have to accept the consequences.

Marriage has a lot of social benefits that cohabiting doesn't, so it's perfectly reasonable for a political party to include policies that encourage people to get married

A lot of the social benefits could be equalised by investing money in things such as Sure Start, education, Early Years and relationship counselling to equal the differences between being married and co-habiting. Or even help those parents not in a relationship.

If you want the benefits of marriage then the answer is very simple: get married.

I don’t agree with the marriage allowance at all tbh, but I think it should be scrapped rather than extended to cohabiting couples.

It's worth bugger-all. I can't get excited about it. (Worth at most £250, to be exact.)

I would prefer it didn't exist, just because it is an unnecessary complication. But I'd put abolishing the restriction on child benefit for high earners ahead of sorting this out, when it comes to rationalising.

Whoever said it only benefits rich

Load of old crock. We don’t get it. I’m a low earner. Hubby isn’t. We can’t apply. You can ONLY get it if BOTH OF YOU are in the 20% tax bracket

I don’t agree with it but can’t see how it is discriminatory when it is open to any couple that wants it to get married.

Ive never paid much attention to marriage tax allowance as a long term single person.

Could someone explain what the reasoning behind it is?

I don’t agree with it but can’t see how it is discriminatory when it is open to any couple that wants it to get married

Because there are many couples who don't want to get married - for a range of reasons.

Why should only certain married couples get it?

You'd either have to keep it or ditch it. You couldn't extend it to 'being in a couple' because first you'd have to fight out the battlelines of who counts as being in a couple and then you'd have to spend a fortune ensuring that everyone was playing by the rules.

It's a benefit you can get if you're married. As someone who isn't married but does have a DP and 2 DS I can't see what's discriminatory about that. Is child benefit is discrimnatory because those without children don't get it - obviously not.

It's bull anyway, I can see many married couples qualifying. The threshold is very low.

The rules

www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/marriage-tax-allowance/

Personally I think it should be ditched - and the money invested in systems that give all children a good start in life, and in systems that enable parents to access relationship counselling to help reduce the impact of separation.

Married couples should only get it because it’s for married couples . Im not sure why that’s difficult to understand . I’m sure there’s research to back up the fact that children born into a loving marriage have better outcomes than those who are not . I imagine the government wants to promote marriage .

Is child benefit is discrimnatory because those without children don't get it - obviously not.

Child benefit exists to help with the costs of raising children.

What costs are incurred as a result of being married?

Like it or not, British society has changed. We shouldn’t be damning millions of women to poverty to hold up some ridiculous ideal of a registered marriage.

(And for most non-Christians we need to buy a registered marriage even in addition to paying for our religious wedding because unlike other countries, this one doesn’t recognise our religious ceremonies as official marriages. This often opens up vulnerable women to abuse - ie if they or their families don’t do certain things they won’t get a registry / legal marriage).

I’m a low earner. Hubby isn’t. We can’t apply. You can ONLY get it if BOTH OF YOU are in the 20% tax bracket

No, you can ONLY get it if one of you is below the income tax threshold and the other earns less than 50k.

It is discriminatory and benefits only specific rich married couples ie high rate tax payers married to low earners

What?? Where on earth did you get that idea? One must be a non-taxpayer, and the other must be a basic 20% rate tax payer (meaning you normally need to earn under £50k, or £43k if in Scotland).

If it’s to be ditched surely it would more sense to educate people on the complexities of having children before they have them instead of being there to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.

@Joerev

Load of old crock. We don’t get it. I’m a low earner. Hubby isn’t. We can’t apply. You can ONLY get it if BOTH OF YOU are in the 20% tax bracket

Not true. One person needs to have no income or income below their personal tax allowance ie not pay tax. Other person needs to pay tax at the basic rate ie income not above £50k.

Lower earner transfers up to £1250 of tax free allowance to the higher earner, saving them up to £250.

I don't agree with it as a benefit, as i feel there would be better ways to get funding to lower income families. But it was a headline benefit to win votes when a lot of people don't bother with the faff to claim.

(As per the gov.uk/marriage-allowance guidance)

Yes society has changed . I’m not sure that’s such a good thing when you look at how children are suffering because of all those changes .

It's not something that helps many people anyway.

I agree it should be scrapped.

It is discriminatory and benefits only specific rich married couples ie high rate tax payers married to low earners.

The Aviva website says this, is it wrong?

One partner must earn under your personal allowance, usually around £12,500
The other must earn between £12,501 and £50,000 (anyone who pays the basic 20% tax rate)