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 can't I claim child benefit for my elderly parents who I have to care for?

Again with the duh.

Carers allowance is the benefit available to you as a carer for your elderly parents.

A single person pays 50% more council tax than a married person as it goes.

I'm quite happy to receive it

I am sure you are.

Do you think that the £2 billion it costs could be used in a far better way than as a handout to married couples, regardless of whether they have children or not?

A single person pays 50% more council tax than a married person as it goes

Really? - the bill is for the 'house' , not a person...

I get it's to encourage marriage because there is evidence that children from couples who are married have better outcomes. So it's to encourage marriage to help the children.

No it isn't. You are inventing that. Not everything is all about the children. People with children already get child benefit and, if they're lower earners, working tax credits.

It's to encourage adults to stay in long-term committed relationships because (rightly or wrongly) that's seen as creating a more stable society.

People who are in couples do have a default support option (their spouse) which in some cases can take a cost away from the state - e.g. if they need care during sickness.

Arguably, the obstacle of divorce will make married couples less likely to split - which, in the case of one of them earning below the tax threshold (as this allowance applies to) would mean the lower earner very probably having to claim benefits after the split, especially if there were no children and thus no child maintenance in the equation even if this was only a short-term measure while they found another job.

Obviously you can be in a stable relationship without being married, but that's the only administratively straightforward way of implementing it - otherwise what would stop people gifting their tax allowance to almost anyone, thus negating the idea that it encourages marriage?

Labour deserves to be slammed for it because it exposes their lie that only the top 5% are going to suffer tax hikes to pay for their spending splurge. Apparently middle-income couples are the new super-rich according to them

Carers allowance is the benefit available to you as a carer for your elderly parents

I know that. I was using it as an example of why benefits are available for specific purposes. Read posts in their entirety before dishing out the 'duhs'.

I've never really understood why people think that it is a reasonable request for cohabiting couples to have all the financial benefits of marriage or civil partnership without any of the financial consequences should the relationship end. If you want the benefits you have to accept the consequences
Me neither.
Then again I also don't understand people choosing not to get married because it's just a piece of paper and then coming on MN to complain:

• I'm not entitled to a house in ex DP's name, that they bought before we were together and I towards for 5 years.
• I'm not entitled to spousal support in the event of a split so nobody values the contribution I made as a SAHP for 7 years
• Anyone pointing out marriage is a legal contract with benefits and consequences must be a "smug married" who thinks their relationships are better than anyone else's
• it's awful that people who cohabit for 20 years don't have the same rights as someone who has been married for 3... Our 20 year relationship is more stable and serious and yet because we don't have rings on suddenly people think we are a lesser couple (of course nobody says this it's just they don't like being told that their relationship isn't recognised legally in the same way).
• I think if you cohabit then you should automatically become eligible to 50% of DP's assets after X years (aka because I can't be arsed to get the legal protection I want/my partner won't give me, I want to remove the right for others to happily cohabit without bringing the law into their relationship).

If you want to enter into a legal arrangement with all it involves, get married or have a civil partnership.
If you don't want to do that then don't.

But don't pretend that harping on about a legally recognised entity sharing their tax allowance is something only cared about because of cuts to services when it's clearly another "boohoo marriage has protections and benefits"

Surely it's too small an amount for it to be a serious incentive to get married? So in that sense it isn't "encouraging" marriage at all. Instead it's just saying to those in traditional conservative with a small c type of setups that how they live is tacitly endorsed by the government and here's a little bung to seal it. It's keeping people on side

A single person pays 50% more council tax than a married person as it goes.

If you're going to work it that way then they only pay 37.5% more. Although council tax is per house and not per person - you can't possibly know if a couple uses more public services than a single person. What about the single mother with children and the couple with none - I'm sure the single person in this instance uses more public services?

Nothing to do with whether you have children.

Didn't even know this was a thing

As someone who will never get married it seems a little unfair

Yes it’s extremely discriminatory. Obviously.

if you live alone you only have to afford yourself. That is a lot cheaper from getting on the bus to do the shopping to treating the family to the pictures and the chip shop.

One bed flat: £100/week. (Random figure pulled from thin air)

That’s whether there is one person or two people renting it. The rent doesn’t decrease if only one person is living there.

Set of Pots for the kitchen: £20

That’s whether one person or two people are buying them. No reduction if only one person is using them

Electric:
Lights/fridge/heating/oven have to be on whether one person or two people are using them. You can’t turn half the light on just because only one person is living there.

It’s cheaper to buy lots of things in bulk which you can only do if you have enough money upfront to do that. A couple have more income to buy in bulk and get the reduction than a single person has. So the single person is paying more for the same thing than a couple.

BerwickLad Council tax discount and child benefit are the only tax breaks I get as a single parent. I think it's 25% off so I pay 75% of the bill while when I was married my share was only 50%.

My understanding is that this is a tax break which supports one half of a married couple to stay at home or work very part time, single people including single parents have all the same basic costs, no one to share fixed costs with and no tax breaks.

I'm not talking about what people use but about what they pay.

Two houses, side by side, one a two adult household, the other a one adult household. Council tax is £160 a month. Each member of the couple pays £80. The single householder pays £120. That's 50% more than each of his next door neighbours

Op not suggesting everyone should pay the same Council tax, but a single person living in the same building as me uses the same street lights and gets the same bin service etc etc. In fact I have a few SAHM friends who became students so their HH could benefit from single person discount.

Were I single I would be happy in a bedsit with a relatively small Council tax bill. If DH and I and our 3 DC downsized to a bedsit to save on Council tax we would be somewhat cramped and would still be paying 25% more than a single person. If the single person moves in their student bf they will still be paying 25% less than us - if he is a working student he might even help with the bills. If he becomes a pita they can easily kick him out. Ridding myself of DH and 3 DDs is not so straightforward.

It is not more expensive to be single - I have done both.

easy
Why is it unfair?

Two people who choose to legally combine their assets get an arrangement in law that is different from people who choose to remain legally separate.

I don't qualify for it so have no personal gain from it, but some of these responses seem to be very much "boohoo someone has something I don't".

People who are child free don't get the benefit of child benefit or tax free childcare. Should they be complaining about wanting their tax reducing to make it fair because they don't have children?

It seems a fairly slippery slope when people start resenting the fact that different situations means different provision, and one that can only seem to benefit the Tories who want to divide and conquer. There's already people bitching about how a small amount extra tax a month on income over £80,000 isn't taxing the wealthy at all and is hitting all these middle income people! It's people who sit in the top 5% who are so appalled at the idea of payig a few coffees a month extra in tax to benefit society that they whine like they're some hard done to folk who are living paycheck to paycheck (just that they happen to also have over a grand in mortgage payments / private fees / nice cars / holidays etc).

It was sold as being about 'families being the bedrock of society' by Cameron.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/559287/David-Cameron-launches-Government-Marriage-Allowance-tax-relief

Families are the bedrock of our society. It’s families who raise our children, look after our old and keep our country going. And this tax change is about saying as a society, we recognise that

There is more than one way to be a family than to be married.

There is more than one way to be a family than to be married.

Yes, and people without children have families too - Cameron mentions caring for the elderly in your quote - the lower earner in a marriage might well be doing that, and might be helping with care for in-laws as well as their own family.

I know that. I was using it as an example of why benefits are available for specific purposes.

Ok. I’ll break it down for you.

Child benefit: to offset the costs of raising children. This could be food costs, clothing costs or reduced earnings due to providing childcare.

Carers allowance: to offset the costs of being a carer for someone. This is usually the reduced earnings and associated losses (work pension) due to having to be physically present for the other individual.

Marriage allowance: ummm- what costs?

You said it’s “simply” a way for two people to benefit from personal allowance. Which I actually have no problem with. I think people should be allowed to transfer their allowance. To whoever they like. I don’t understand why just married people should be allowed to do this. Can you explain why it’s just available to married people? Is there a specific cost to being married that the allowance is offsetting? Because that’s the only reason I can see for it being restricted to married couples.

@howabout yeah and if your auntie had baws she'd be your uncle.

Cameron mentions caring for the elderly in your quote - the lower earner in a marriage might well be doing that, and might be helping with care for in-laws as well as their own family

It's not just married people who care for older parents though.

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

You can put it in capitals but you are still entirely wrong!

Agree it should be scrapped. It’s worth little and the money could go to education and hospitals instead. Marriage is a choice, yet it should be encouraged but I highly doubt for the approx £200 a year the allowuos convincing anyone to do so.

It’s not discriminatory though, plenty of legalities apply to being married vs not.