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?

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

They could put the money into helping those children whose parents separate or who have issues achieve those better outcomes instead of giving married couples (with or without kids) £250 a year.

Married couples without kids - why should they get it if it's all about the outcome for children

Married couples whose children have left home - why should they get it if it's all about the outcomes for children?

You can ONLY get it if BOTH OF YOU are in the 20% tax bracket

Well, not even that - one of you has to be either not earning or earning below the personal allowance of £12,500 and the other has to be earning between £12,501 and £50,000 (£43,430 in Scotland).

Its an odd one isnt it? The easiest way to make use of your tax free allowance is to make sure you earn that amount or more. I can see why being disabled or a carer would prevent people from earning that amount but not the mere fact of being married. I suppose being a trailing spouse can prevent /hinder earning.

Actually, you don’t have to be married. Civil partnerships apply as well. A stay at home spouse or civil partner can transfer some of their allowance to the other spouse/partner, if it helps.

I’m 90% sure most of the poster here don’t actually know what it is. It isn’t even a real marriage allowance - HMRC got rid of that ages ago - it just lets you transfer some of your tax free allowance to your spouse if you’re not going to use it. And only if they don’t earn loads.

I can’t get worked up about it tbh. It’s easier to make sure the claims are genuine if the couple is married I would have thought. If you just had to be living together or whatever it’s be open to a more abuse. They should probably just scrap it but it’s hardly something to get excited about.

I think it might help families more if the non working, or part time working spouse could transfer all of their unused tax free allowance to the full time working one. It's a miniscule amount that is gained, so it's a token allowance, and not that many people know about it, or claim it.

Well if you want it and you're in a couple, get married.

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?

If you're not married though how do you define a relationship in law in order to get the benefits and responsibilities of marriage?

How long do you have to be together? How will you prove your relationship is real if you've only been dating six months? What's the legal difference between someone you've been dating for a few weeks and someone you've been with for a few years? There is none.

Can you define it by whether you live with someone? I've lived with a few people for a number of years, none of whom I'm in a relationship with. Living together is not proof of a relationship.

How about if you have children together? Lots of people have children with a person they're either not in relationship with any longer, or never were. And lots of couples don't want or can't have children. The existence of children is not proof of a relationship.

Is it that you've been living together for X number of years AND have children? Well that would discriminate against new boyfriends / girlfriends and those couples who don't or can't have children.

How about those who are in polyamorous relationships? (Rare but they happen I understand).

What if you don't WANT the legal ramifications of a formal relationship, maybe because you're both older and have your own children from previous relationships and you want to keep your finances and assets separate? And yet you've been living together for several years. Should the law deem you to be in a relationship and force you to have all the attendant benefits and responsibilities you don't want?

Do you see the problem? The law cannot determine people's relationship status unless the people concerned tell them. A relationship cannot be recognised in law unless the two people concerned go to an official venue and make a declaration in front of witnesses that this is a relationship and they want to formalise it. This is called getting married. Up until that point as far as the law is concerned you're single.

If you want your relationship recognised in law, go to a registry office.

They should probably just scrap it but it’s hardly something to get excited about

Andrew Marr questioned Angela Rayner about it for 5 minutes this morning.

She seemed not to hear what he was saying - whereas Corbyn clearly said it would go as he thought it discriminated and the money could be used better elsewhere.

No doubt the Tories will talk about it this week.

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

What - a benefit available to the childfree? How dare they! Everyone knows only those who churn out children deserve to have money sent their way.

I’m single. I can’t see why married adults should have an allowance simply for being married (life as a single person is expensive so you could argue that there should be a single person’s allowance). I would however be happy for the money saved to be spent in more targeted ways even if they don’t benefit me.

Want the benefits of being married? Get married.

As others have said, if you want the allowances get married, otherwise stop going on about it

Yes there maybe reasons couples don’t want to get married, but at the end of the day you have more rights as a married couple if something does go wrong.

It’s not exactly worth a lot anyway is it now?

Sexist policy? I'm the earner in our family, DH can't work due to PTSD from serving his country. No benefits, should get PIP but that's a whole other story. I've had to support us both for almost 20 years. At least this pays for his medication and we can afford therapy now.
I would suggest it's sexist to assume the men are always the earners in relationships.

Can't resist... how about the self-partnered...

It’s not exactly worth a lot anyway is it now

It's not worth much to the individual, but collectively it's a lot of money that comes from the public purse

4.2 million couples can claim £250.

That's a LOT of money that could be used elsewhere.

But what’s the allowance for?? What costs of being married is it supposed to be offsetting? What happens when you get married that costs more money than if you were just fiancé and fiancée?

It's a Tory policy so given their demographic I'd imagine it's designed to appeal to the man earning: woman working very part time set rather than to outliers such as your household.

I don’t understand what it’s for either.

Maybe to offset the possible cost of divorce?!

We use it and it was benefit when we first applied as it was back dated and we got a lump sum, nowadays I don't notice a difference tbh, but a little back in return is better than nothing. I do think the married aspect is questionable and understand why people think it's discriminatory but could you imagine the paperwork involved in making sure people are actually in couples.
I don't see married people trying to get the single person council tax reduction taken away. Sometimes they have to implement policies which can benefit different people.

I could bring up the point that the marriage tax allowance benefits me and my DH but extra funding for children's services doesn't as we don't have any. If I wanted extra money for having children, then I should have had children. We all benefit or not depending on our individual circumstances.

I’m single. I can’t see why married adults should have an allowance simply for being married (life as a single person is expensive so you could argue that there should be a single person’s allowance). I would however be happy for the money saved to be spent in more targeted ways even if they don’t benefit me.

Ditto. Agreed.

I could bring up the point that the marriage tax allowance benefits me and my DH but extra funding for children's services doesn't as we don't have any

It does. It helps the outcomes of all children, which leads to better educational outcomes which ultimately is good for society in so many ways.

The Aviva website says this, is it wrong?

I agree with you baguette

Dh would be claiming this within seconds if he could...and he can’t

What costs of being married is it supposed to be offsetting?

It doesn't offset costs - it simply allows both people to benefit from their total personal allowance.