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?

In Britain it is more than 80 % of children below the age of 18 who DO NOT live with both their parents. Everybody know that divorce/parents splitting up is bad for the children and you wonder why the government might want to give people economic incentives to stay together? Yes, it's a fucking mystery! We might never get the answer.... Oooh do anybody know a clairvoyant we can ask?

I'm a sahm (not that I use that title myself) and I think it's great. 250 quid is better than a kick up the arse. it should be more. marriage should be promoted.

@kittenledweaning - lol! It’s a tax break given only to married people (whether or not they have children) where one doesn’t work. It doesn’t have anything to do with children. It’s for married people where one doesn’t work.

As I said earlier, it was really just token by the tories to the sort of people who like “traditional values”. It’s supposed to encourage marriage and one partner not working. Guess which one that is almost always? The policy wasn’t made in a vacuum- it’s intended to promote those traditional gender roles.

It is of course extremely sexist as a policy choice. And utterly pathetic that a load of women on a women’s website jump up to defend it because they are oh so proud of being married.

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?

I am sure you must be aware that the cost of processing waste doesn't end when they pick up your rubbish.

I don't live in a single person household, but I would certainly produce less waste, borrow fewer library books, use the council leisure centre less, use public transport less, use the roads less etc. etc. than we currently do as a 2 adult, 2 child house hold.

@Janaih - why should marriage be promoted and why should your dh get a tax break? Why should he not contribute the same tax as a single man?

@PlanDeRaccordement -yeah, encouraging women to get married and give up work is not really the same as maternity rights (which apart from anything else are designed to support women to return to work).

In any event, you need to take time off when you have a baby and it’s desirable to do so. Why is it desire able not to work because you are married?

merry single people can afford public transport where I live, especially those with season tickets and concessions who use it all the time. Families can't and it is not particularly family friendly either. Families not only pay more council tax they also spend more in all the shops and therefore contribute to supporting the local businesses and to pay the business rates which single people benefit from.

It’s really not encouraging you to not work because you’re married zsazsajuju. It’s the other way around encouraging you to marry because you’re not working (or rather, encouraging your higher earning partner to marry you).

As I said earlier, it was really just token by the tories to the sort of people who like “traditional values”. It’s supposed to encourage marriage and one partner not working. Guess which one that is almost always? The policy wasn’t made in a vacuum- it’s intended to promote those traditional gender roles.

It is of course extremely sexist as a policy choice. And utterly pathetic that a load of women on a women’s website jump up to defend it because they are oh so proud of being married.

I really cannot see why you think it's sexist. It's designed to benefit the couple/family as a whole and many, many couples still share all of their finances. The married man's allowance was sexist in the way you say, because that gave couples no choice and just made the sweeping assumption. This is not sexist as it's available to any married couple that qualifies, whether the non/low-earner is the husband, wife or indeed where both of a couple are husbands or wives.

It isn't up to the government to dictate to couples claiming this allowance which of them needs to work and which one to stay at home, in order to keep it 50/50.

If we were applying it to occupations, it would be very sexist to refuse to employ (or to put any barriers in the way of) a woman as a builder or a man as a beauty therapist, but, if everybody is given the free, unrestricted choice, you can't call the result sexist by virtue of the fact that you end up with far more female beauticians and far more male brickies.

Everybody know that divorce/parents splitting up is bad for the children and you wonder why the government might want to give people economic incentives to stay together

Would you stick together for £250?

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?

You get your bins emptied weekly?😱
I demand that everyone has fortnightly. If I have to fit 2 weeks worth of rubbish into a bin so should everyone else.
#makewastefair

I benefit from the marriage allowance and am certainly not a high earner. We are also a same sex couple with no children. It's only £250 and I'm sure we wouldn't miss it if it was taken off us but for now I'm happy to get some benefit.

@38zsazsajuju because marriage benefits society as well as the couple.

Not read the whole thread but when u get married your finances become one, so it makes sense to share your personal allowance with your partner.
However, money could be better spent.

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

You are missing the point. You said married is a protected status. Therefore its not discrimination. Because non married isnt protected.

Also it's not about people getting sacked because they are married. The fact that people used to assume and force women into quitting work when married, doesnt mean that happens today.

By getting married you are deciding to have your relationshop legally recognised. As everyone has the choice to make their relationship legal, it's not discrimination.

You have very outdated ideas about marriage. It's like you havent realised things have moved on.

You can be married and financially independent. You may be shocked by that. But I left my marriage and bought my own house, immediately. Because I was financially independent AND married.

Therefore its not discrimination. Because non married isnt protected

Just out of interest - do you think that people can be discriminated against even though their status isn't protected?

This tax break riles me despite being modest, as it implies moral superiority in the state of marriage as it addresses no specific need. It was abolished and then brought back to placate traditionalists. Equally inequitable, and even more wrong as children of unmarried parents lose out, is the bereavement support benefit.

It’s supposed to encourage marriage and one partner not working. Guess which one that is almost always? The policy wasn’t made in a vacuum- it’s intended to promote those traditional gender roles.

No one gives up work for a free £250 per annum. No one.

Most couples without kids have 2 working adults. Where one doesnt, theres a reason. The other maybe a high earner and one has decides to stay at home (risky, but their choice), these people wont get it so it doesnt factor into the decision.

Usually, it will be health issues. That's not a choice and no one made themseleves ill for £250 per year.

No one decided to be a sahp because of the £250 a year. And if the man is a sahp, you can still claim it. So it's not sexist.

As pp said following your logic all mat benefits need to be scrapped.

Your view of marriage is stuck in the 1950s. I say that as someone who wont get married again, because I have assets. I am not having kids with dp and so dont need to even things up. If we did have kids he would give up work. Not me.

Just because you think of marriage in the 1950s sense, it doesnt mean all marriages are like that.

Just out of interest - do you think that people can be discriminated against even though their status isn't protected?

No, not when they have the free choice to opt in.

Equally inequitable, and even more wrong as children of unmarried parents lose out, is the bereavement support benefit.

Parents make decisions for their kids that impact their kids hundreds of time a day.

If 2 parents decide to not have their marriage legally recognised and therefore dinr get bereavement support benefit, that because they chose that. The parents chose it. They need to take responsibility for that. Theres a choice, get married or dont. I wont be. Therefore I wouldnt get bereavement support. That's my choice.

Maybe parents need to think about the disadvantages to their kids if they dont marry, like financial support in the event of a parent dying. Weigh it up and make a decision that's best for you as a couple.

(Still in the process of rtft)

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.

Actually it benefits us, a female just above the threshold and a male under the threshold. While we're entitled we will claim, but I'd be happy for it to be abolished for the money to be better spent elsewhere.

I’ve been married for 20 years and I’ve never had it. Is it to do with how little or how much you earn aswell!

No, not when they have the free choice to opt in

So you think discrimination is only discrimination when it's a protected characteristic?

Yet we have class discrimination, 'old school tie' discrimination, discrimination on appearance. They aren't protected characteristics.

I know it's a slight derail - but just because something isn't a protected characteristic doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't take place.

It is possible for people to discriminate against someone because they are not married.

If 2 parents decide to not have their marriage legally recognised and therefore dinr get bereavement support benefit, that because they chose that

I suspect that many people aren't even aware of that benefit until it comes to the point when their partner dies - and then they realise that it exists and they aren't eligible to claim it.

Yet we have class discrimination, 'old school tie' discrimination, discrimination on appearance. They aren't protected characteristics.

Claaa is something you cant change. I am a high earner. But I am working class.

The government giving a benefit, to people who are in legally recognised relationships, isnt discriminating against those who chose to not have their relationship legally recognised.

You have a choice. Opt into marriage and get the benefits. Dont or in and get those benefits.

I am far better off not married. So I choose to opt out. Its nor discrimination, because you choose the legal status of your relationshop.