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?

It really seems that people really dont like anything that childless people might find themseleves entitled to.

Its barely anything to get excited, you dont want your relationshop recognised under law and so dont get the benefits associated with it

So if it's barely anything to get excited about, then why have it?

I understand it's a benefit for married couples.
I understand that it would be hard to administer for people who aren't married.
I understand that you get the benefits of being married if you actually decide to get married.

I am not convinced that it's economically justifiable to give certain married couples £250 a year.

Can someone justify the economics of this?

Can someone justify the economics of this?

How strange that this Labour raid on middle-income couples - exposing the lie that only the top 5% will pay for their spending programme - is receiving such staunch support from you...

We get it, I'm not sure how much it's worth though.
It's pretty insignificant anyway and we are very low income.
Take a bit more off us, why not.

So if it's barely anything to get excited about, then why have it?

£250 might not be a life changing sum, but if your combined income is low enough to qualify for it, there's no doubt it can make a difference. It would pay for a week's holiday accommodation, for instance, so could make the difference between having a proper break and being stuck at home.

How strange that this Labour raid on middle-income couples - exposing the lie that only the top 5% will pay for their spending programme - is receiving such staunch support from you

I think there are plenty of areas that can be raided. This is one of them.

Can you justify the economics of it?

GrumpyHoonMain

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.

Hrt tax payers don't qualify. Only for basic rate taxpayers I believe.
I am a very low earner and we get nothing as dh is a HR taxpayer

In this country, at the moment, that kind of family set up only benefits men.

Rubbish. A. plenty of women are the higher earner, and B. the point is that you are married so you have joint finances so you both benefit.

As if it would go on Sure start🙄

Basically I don't earn the full taxable amount each year so my husband gets an extra 3k ISH of his wages not taxed, I think? So what I didn't use got transferred to him

So if it's barely anything to get excited about, then why have it?

I didnt say it wasnt anything to get excited about. I was reply to a poster who said it didnr make a difference.

Which you are aware of.

What about single people? Some people haven’t found the right a partner, or are divorced or widowed or, God forbid, prefer to be single. Why does being in a relationship make people more deserving of a special allowance?

As PP have said, it isn’t a free handout to reward you for being married – it’s allowing one spouse to transfer their tax-free allowance to the other. If you’re single with no partner on the scene at all, how on earth would you go about choosing and asking somebody earning below the threshold to allow you to earn a little more by giving you 10% of their allowance? Or are you thinking you’d want to be the one giving your TFA away to another person? OK, so you might want to give it to your elderly parent or other family member rather than just a random other person; but what if you then meet somebody and get married in that tax year?

Don’t forget that it’s not just an advantage to the higher earner, but also a potential disadvantage to the lower earner – if their earnings increase and push them over the personal TFA, they will have to pay MORE tax having given away 10% of their allowance, at least for the tax year whilst the agreement is still in place.

If you’re divorced, I can’t imagine many people caring enough for their ex-spouse to want to give them 10% of their potential tax-free earnings. Even if they were never going to use it, most wouldn’t want to do so on principle. Also, what would happen if you divorced and then re-married within the same tax year? As for widowed people, yes, you often end up financially disadvantaged, but a dead person can neither earn money nor have or benefit from a tax-free allowance – as they don’t pay tax.

Yes - it's clearly discriminatory and rewards a 1950s style of married couple with non earning / low earning wife

There’s quite some ingrained sexism (if not internalised misogyny) on here.

Plenty of couples in 2019 still find that it works best for their family unit to have one major breadwinner and one non or low-earning spouse taking on childcare and household duties. Either role can be taken by a man OR a woman – in a growing number of marriages, both will be the same sex.

We claim the marriage allowance and, as it happens, in our case, the roles in your assumption are reversed - and we weren't even alive in the 1950s.

It's worthless it's about £250 and only if one of you earns next to nothing. We're young (ish) professionals with one child, both in public sector or public sector type jobs so earn ok salaries but nothing by MN standards, we don't qualify.

As PP have said, it isn’t a free handout to reward you for being married

This is what Cameron said when he introduced it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11423799/David-Cameron-Married-couples-are-the-bedrock-of-society.html

Married couples are the bedrock of society. Apparently

"The Prime Minister said the measure would mean "families up and down the country can get a little bit of extra support and more financial security".

He added: “This policy is about far more than pounds and pence. It’s about valuing commitment.”

It's worthless it's about £250 and only if one of you earns next to nothing

If one of you earns next to nothing, £250 is not 'worthless'.

If you think £250 is 'worthless' please do feel free to unburden yourself of this worthless amount by sending me a cheque for £250 as I could put it to very good use.

Dh has been a stay at home dad after being made redundant in 2016.

I’ve just applied for it after seeing an advert. The application took literally 3 minutes online. 6 days later I received a cheque in the post for over £600 in back pay (as you can apply for previous years retrospectively back to 2015 - plus this months wage was up by about £150 as my tax code for the current year has been adjusted.

For anyone who’s not going to bother because it’s ‘hardly worth it’ - especially if you or your dh has been a SAHP for several years - you’re missing out massively.

You’ll have a cheque for nearly £1k by Xmas if you’re backdating 2015 - present 🤷🏻‍♀️

It doesn't make a huge difference to us, but every bit helps when you have a low income.
I disagree about it being 1950's. Just because we aren't all the same with the same values.
If it props you up though, you must need to make snide remarks.

chomalungma

Sorry if I didn't make that very clear. It is indeed intended to reward you for being married, but it isn't a handout i.e. money deposited directly into your bank account - it's a tax transfer between two people with a benefit on one side and a potential disadvantage on the other. This requires trust and an element of sacrifice but of the kind which doesn't bother most people who already share their finances within a marriage, so they both effectively share the benefit.

It works on the same principle as inheritance tax, where a couple with significant assets can roll over the allowance of the first one to die so that it isn't lost when the surviving spouse assumes sole ownership of the marital home and other assets. Two 95yo single people could die and leave their respective expensive homes to their respective families with each estate benefiting from the IHT TFA. If a 95yo married couple died within a week of each other, the first to die would otherwise effectively have to forfeit their own TFA (and subsequent benefit to their heirs) as a direct result of having been married.

I would prefer it if there were tax breaks for disabled workers & taxpayers who are carers, they are the members of our society who are losing out the most.

If you aren't married, then you don't get it.

You do if you're civilly partnered.

And it's not an extra allowance - it's just transferring a small amount of unused allowance from one partner to the other.

Yes - it's clearly discriminatory and rewards a 1950s style of married couple with non earning / low earning wife

Not at all - it works the same if it's the husband who is the low/non earning spouse, so not discriminatory at all.

I know it would never happen, but if there was a way of ensuring that both spouses were fully actively understanding and willing to do so (with regular confirmations required from both parties), I personally would like the option for ALL tax affairs to be treated as one single pot for married couples who share all their finances anyway.

If you've decided and legally declared that you wish to be considered as one joint financial entity with another person (and I'm not talking about couples expecting to only get in one round between them at the pub or only pay one person's share of the petrol), I don't see why you can't transfer the other 90% of a non-earner's TFA as well. It's not like the household can benefit from any extra TFAs as an entity - just allow them to make best use of existing pooled resources. It would certainly tip the balance for a lot of families and make childcare provision much easier with a SAHP if they jointly chose to do so.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll perfectly said

So what's your issue then?

The bit that followed the last part you quoted

As I've said in every post. I don't claim benefits, i don't want benefits. If i wanted the benefits of marriage then i would get married

I am not envious of it i don't think i should be entitled to it. I don't think anyone else should be either. It seems kinda arbitrary and like it's going to take money away from other things and be ultimately paid for by everyone, including those who would never benefit