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?

We currently qualify and we're most definitely not rich. We cohabiyed for 7 years before we married yet not once felt it was discrimination or sexist as there's plenty of couples where the women earn more

I earn more than my husband but we aren’t eligible for marriage tax as it’s not that much of a difference. It doesn’t really bother me at all. I didn’t even know it existed until a friend told me about it. However, she earns below the tax threshold and her husband earns above so it works well for them.

It's not exactly worth much. I suppose it's a bit unfair but not worth worrying about.

All this over £250 of very few peoples tax returns?
The single persons council tax discount is far far more than this...probably this much every month.

Why are you not talking about the tax benefits that single people get?

Someone raised child benefit earlier and I agree that this is unfair. How is it fair that a two-parent family could earn £49k each, therefore £98k between them but a single parent can’t earn more than £50k to be entitled to the full amount? Two parents could earn £49k each and as they’re in basic tax bracket their net income would be greater than a single person on the same plus they would be entitled to child benefit even though on nearly £100k? How does this makes sense at least? How was this even passed? Most ridiculously unfair system ever. I realise there’s more costs associated with an extra adult but even so it’s unfair to me.

@Joerev

The allowance [which is a transfer] only applies if one partner is on the 20% bracket and the other does not pay tax either as a non-earner or with income below the tax threshold of £12500.

It can transfer up to £1250 of allowance and thus be worth up to £250 per year

Used to have a marriage allowance years ago. Also used to get tax relief on your mortgage payments!

The single persons council tax discount is far far more than this...probably this much every month.

That is because single people use fewer council resources.

There isn't a similar logic behind the marriage allowance.

I don't think its coincidental that it was introduced during the coalition shortly after the same sex marriage bill was passed, against the wishes of most Tory MPs.

Single parents get the single person allowance. They do not use fewer council resources than the average couple.

A student HH will pay no council tax at all. They will almost always be the ones with the over flowing bins and causing a mess in the town centre.

The logic on council tax rebates is in no way related to level of service use.

Isn’t every benefit/payment/tax/tax relief system discriminatory????

Family allowance, but not for anyone without children.

Maternity pay/benefits/free scrips and dental, but not for anyone waiting to adopt.

Miras mortgage allowance (which was stopped years ago) but not for anyone renting.

And the list goes on. For any benefit, relief payment, tax break, whatever, there has to be a cut-off point or a guide to who receives it.

I don’t get the issue either. It’s just a tax benefit for low income couples, who have made a legal contract re: their coupling. Don’t understand all the angst over cohabiting couples.what would be the point of marriage, a legal contract, if cohabiting couples were treated the same

Of course its discriminatory.

Surely being married means that you are more secure and less likely to be a burden on the state?

I used to get this twenty years ago. It was abolished and brought back. You don't get some magic extra money that could fund the NHS, it's not sexist either as I used to get it when dh didn't earn enough to pay tax. It's supposed to be an incentive to encourage marriage but you really don't get much from it!

Of course its discriminatory.

How?

That is because single people use fewer council resources.

Surely it depends more on the number of children rather than number of adults? A single parent with 4 kids will use far more resources than a couple with 1 kid.

Of course its discriminatory.

How? It's available to both sexes and depends only on relative income levels. A low earning bloke can pass it to his higher earning wife, just as easily as a low earning woman can pass it to her higher earning husband.

It’s unfair and is discriminatory (on the basis of marital status very obviously). It’s also sexist and is designed to support traditional gender roles. The abolition would be one thing Jeremy Corbyn could get right.

Why should people get a tax break for being married?

@maddening if marriage means you’re more secure and not a burden on the state (it doesn’t but anyway) you don’t need a tax break.

It’s just a way for tories to try to favour those who vote for them despite such people not being objectively in need of a tax break.

If I, as a married woman, give up work or go part time to look after our children while DH continues to work full time, and many years later he buggers off with his secretary in the time-honoured fashion and wants to kick me out of the house in his name, then the fact that I have no assets in my name and have buggered my earnings potential is STBXH’s problem, and he owes me a large chunk of the marital assets, some of his pension and possibly ongoing maintenance.

If I, as an unmarried woman give up my career to mind my DP’s children and he decides years later to kick me out of his house in favour of aforementioned secretary, then my lack of assets and income is Sajid Javid’s problem, and quite an expensive one.

Under the circumstances it seems reasonable for Sajid Javid to bribe couples with such a disparity in earnings to get married.

Whether it actually works, or whether it should in fact be expanded to higher rate tax payers, or to full (optional) household joint taxation (as is the case in many other countries) is a whole other question.

@theycomeoutatnightmostly - doesn’t really make sense to bribe you to get married though. Much better if you just had a job then you would also pay taxes which would also benefit the exchequer as well as you.

Perpetuating outdated gender roles doesn’t benefit the taxpayers nor the women who end up impoverished (whether after divorce or break up of a non married partnership).

It’s sad that on a women’s website so many women are just desperately in favour of a marriage tax allowance (aimed at husbands of women women who don’t work) so they can say “well you should have got married, you’re just jealous”.

@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou so one of you has to not be working?

And the working one has to be a lower rate tax payer? Is that right?

Why shouldn't the married couples without dc get an allowance.

Why is everything about dc.

They probably pay for other peoples dc indirectly anyway

It’s unfair and is discriminatory (on the basis of marital status very obviously). It’s also sexist and is designed to support traditional gender roles. The abolition would be one thing Jeremy Corbyn could get right.

Not being married isnt a protected status.

And you can choose to get married.

Also, my brother is a sahd and his wife works, they child take advantage of this (no idea if they do). In my relationship I am the higher earner, by far. We are not married so couldnt anyway. So how is perpetuating gender stereotypes?

2 relationships, both where the woman is the higher earner. The married couple could claim it. No gender stereotype.

Regardless of the tax breaks, encouragement to work, the risks involved. Lots if women want to be a sahm. Mn is full of people who choose to be sahp. And they want it to be them. Not their dh. That's their choice to make. Wasnt my choice, but that doesnr make any less valid as a choicem