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?

Why should people get a tax break for being married?

They don't. It's simply a re-allocation of some unused personal allowance from one spouse to the other. If both earn over £12,850, there's nothing to claim anyway - neither would benefit.

It’s unfair and is discriminatory (on the basis of marital status very obviously)

It's not discriminatory because being married (or unmarried) is not a protected status in law.

The government already incentivises parents of young children to go out to work in all sorts of ways zsazsajuju, for understandable economic reasons. As noted above, two people earning 25 grand each will pay far less tax than one person earning 50 and supporting a SAHP.

Married couples’ transferable tax allowances is just a tiny statement from the government that if you do insist on running your family on a breadwinner vs SAHP model then they’d really prefer it if you got married first.

It's a marriage allowance. You have to be married to claim. The small amount it's worth is hardly worth getting married for. It's about passing a small amount of unused personal allowance on to your spouse. Older couples have always benefited from it - but you must be born before 1935, and that allowance is more beneficial than the newer marriage allowance.

Married people have long had tax advantages - capital gains tax for example - assets can be transferred between spouses with no tax charge, but not if you are unmarried. Inheritance tax also has advantages of being married.

I just can't get worked up over it. It's not worth being upset over £200 per year.

And I should add that “if you’re going to give up your career to be a SAHP then please please please get married first” is said about twenty times a week on MN. It’s practically part of the catechism.

I’m a bit gutted it’s in labours manifesto.
As far as I was aware it is basically the ability for one part of the couple to shift a portion of the tax relief that they don’t use (due to being low or no wage) to their spouse.
We get it due to being a married couple where one of us stays home to look after the children. It isn’t a huge amount but as they say “every little helps” we don’t use any of the free childcare or the educational system.
Still won’t stop me biting labour though as I believe overall we need JC

Or even voting bahahaha

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)

I work full time and my husband works part time. I'm not the only woman on this thread who is the higher earner.

The married couples’ allowance is only worth £250 a year and it’s so restrictive very few couples qualify for it so it is a bit of a nonsense to make a fuss about abolishing it.

*@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?*

Not working or not utilising the whole of the personal tax free amount. The £250 is if the lower earner is actually a non earner, the tax relief goes down if the lower earner uses any of their personal tax free amount. Not sure if the percentages. But yes the higher earner must be a lower rate taxpayer.

If people feel it's unfair and/or could be used better elsewhere that's legitimate, but pretending there aren't same sex couples and those where the woman earns more than the man getting it just makes people sound ignorant.

@merrymouse
That is because single people use fewer council resources.

Are you actually kidding? Do you only have your bins emptied every fortnight as a single person as opposed to couples who get it weekly? Do you have to close your eyes going under every other street light?

Marital status is a protected status in law. Have a look at the equality act. The reason it is is because women used to be discriminated against both for being married and for being unmarried.

Unfortunately many people haven’t moved on from seeing it as desirable if women are married and dependent on men. Hence the chorus of idiotic mrs Wickhams every time anyone mentions marriage.

Marriage tax allowance and encouragement for women to get married and be dependent on men is deeply sexist. It’s pathetic that so many women on MN still think getting married is some kind of achievement.

I remember my dh getting the married man allowance then it became a tax credit of the same amount then eventually disappearing

@JacobReesClunge - who is pretending there aren’t same sex couples or that men don’t get it?

@KittenLedWeaning with respect you’ve missed the point a bit there.

I definitely don’t think that women should get married and be dependent on men. Cohabit, stay single, become Prime Minister, do what you like.

But if women do become financially dependent on the father of their children then they’re often better off 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

Even handier for single people, who pay far far more to live in equivalent situations to married or non-married couples.

The society assumes that all adults are coupled up, and organises things economically & financially around that assumption.

I see no earthly reason why anyone should get tax relief just for being in a couple.

Who would you pass your unused tax allowance onto piskies?

Several people throughout this thread zsazsa.

I noted that you carefully worded what you wrote not to say men with lower earning wives are the only ones who get it, but you still didn't bother acknowledging all those who don't fall into that category.

Marital status is a protected status in law. Have a look at the equality act. The reason it is is because women used to be discriminated against both for being married and for being unmarried.

So marriage is a protected status? So its definitely not discrimination. Unmarried is not protected status.

Marriage tax allowance and encouragement for women to get married and be dependent on men is deeply sexist. It’s pathetic that so many women on MN still think getting married is some kind of achievement.

Firstly, you dont have to become dependent on your husband if you marry. I always maintained my career. Exh was a dick, but still took in 50:50 house work and child care. Because I made it known I wasnt giving up my career before we married.

I am now a high earner and live with dp, no intention of getting married. My financial independence is just the same as it was when I was married.

I have never seen people say marriage is an achievement. But, in some circumstances, being married gives better protection if you are wanting to be a sahm. Thata the view on MN.

As I said, being a sahm was not my choice. But it's a valid choice all the same. It has risks attached, but it's a valid choice for a couple to make.

@zsazsajuju

I don't understand why you say that. You say it's sad that on a 'women's website' so many are in favour of this tax - I say, why shouldn't people be in favour of something from which they benefit?

The higher earner cannot claim this benefit without the lower earner. It's up to the couple what they do with the £250.

You say:

Marriage tax allowance and encouragement for women to get married and be dependent on men is deeply sexist.

With respect, it's you who's being sexist here. I have always been the higher earner - before, and after marriage. You are assuming that the existence of this tax encourages women to be dependent on men - why?

No woman is forced to be dependent on a man. Nothing stops women who earn less than their personal allowance getting a full time job (and even a full time minimum wage job will take you above the level where married tax allowance is claimable). If they have children, let the father be the SAHP if they want to work.

People who work part-time, or don't work, make that choice based on what's best for the relationship, or who has the higher earning potential. In terms of this allowance, it makes no difference whatsoever which of you is the higher earner.

Arguably, it provides a slight encouragement for one of you to work fewer hours - but which of you is entirely your choice.

@MsRomanoff - the discrimination is of someone because of their marital status. So it could be because they are married or because they are not married.

For example, women used to be dismissed from their jobs routinely when they got married (because it was considered wrong for married women to work and not to be dependent on a man). Not that is prohibited discrimination. Conversely, many women were also discriminated against for not being married eg unmarried mothers. Not that’s prohibited.

Because you see, as a society we used to (and many still do) judge women on whether they are married or not. And we like them married. Let’s think about why that is?

@kittenledweaning - I know you don’t understand it. Please have a think about why encouraging one parent (almost always women) to get married and work less might be sexist.

Zsaz- you’re right any and all benefits aimed to keep women off work are blindingly sexist. A marriage allowance that encourages women to work fewer hours and stay home with children is exactly sexist.

Therefore using that same logic, we must also abolish paid maternity leave. It encourages women to get pregnant, have children and then take an entire year off work and stay home. Women should be able to give birth using their holiday entitlement of five weeks for the year. That is more than enough time to recover from normal childbirth. If they need more time, they can use statutory sick pay.

(Using sarcasm because your argument is that ridiculous)

I know you don’t understand it. Please have a think about why encouraging one parent (almost always women) to get married and work less might be sexist.

The reason why this is 'almost always women' is not the married tax allowance.

The married tax allowance is not responsible for the gender pay gap - that existed long before this was brought in.

It's not responsible for many women deciding to have children - again, women have gone along with their biological urges and society's expectations for long before this allowance came in.

It's not responsible for many couples blindly accepting the convention that the household work lies with the woman.

The allowance is available either way round - and to same sex married or civil-partnered couples. You are talking as though it was brought in and - lo! suddenly thousands of women jacked in their jobs so their husbands could claim back £250.

That didn't happen

I think you may be allowing your own ingrained prejudices to blind you to these facts.