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?

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?

The father of those children is also using those services Via his children. Single mother isn’t the only one responsible for them.

What about single people?

Errr - do you actually understand what the married tax allowance is? You don't get £200 a year given to you just because you're married you know...

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?

😂😂😂

So it's essential a legal tax avoidance (rather than evasion) scheme then.

Yes

*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...*

The reduction of council tax for a single person is 25% so you are still paying 75% of the bill on your own.

I think the married tax allowance is unfair...why should I be penalised for my independence? Give the allowance to pensioners.

@Joerev

Load of old crock. We don’t get it. I’m a low earner. Hubby isn’t. We can’t apply. You can ONLY get it if BOTH OF YOU are in the 20% tax bracket

Well that is certainly INACCURATE since one of you needs to be a non-taxpayer. I.e. NOT in the 20% tax band. YOU can't get it because you both already use your personal tax allowance.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss agree that it's not discriminatory. Is it unfair? Yes, broadly. There are lots of anomalies in the tax system though and basically my take on them is that if they don't benefit me they're unfair LOL. However this particular one doesn't even have a coherent policy reason behind it - it's blatantly just keeping the kind of people who would always vote Tory anyway onside so that makes it annoying. At least if it were scrapped it would stop this endless bollocking on about how married couples are the only people who raise children properly/look after elderly parents/put their recycling in the correct bins etc.

oops bold fail

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

Okay I get what you are trying to say but it's not as clear cut as that. And it's still not 50% more.

Two houses, side by side, one a two adult household, the other a one adult household. Council tax is £160 a month. The couple pay £160 a month, and earn £25k jointly. The single householder pays £120, with a 25% discount because they are single but earns 30k.

Can you explain why it’s just available to married people?

As I said in my post above, marriages are seen (rightly or wrongly) as contributing to a more stable, settled society.

I imagine what they're trying to encourage is people who earn less than their personal allowance and therefore are less likely to be self-sufficient getting into a relationship and staying in that relationship, rather than bouncing from partnership to partnership, perhaps having a child here by this person, and a child there by that person, maybe claiming benefits for a bit while they're single, perhaps suffering from stress and depression due to the chaos of their life.

That's an extreme example, obviously, but some people do live like that, and it's not ideal.

I think Council tax could very much have its own debate! - remember the poll tax.....

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

No, but you're unlikely to be around to care for the elderly parents of the boyfriend you lived with for five years back in the early 1990s and haven't heard from since you split; whereas you might well be there to help with your in-laws when they reach old age.

it's blatantly just keeping the kind of people who would always vote Tory anyway onside so that makes it annoying

I doubt they are buying many votes with it. I vote Tory and wouldn’t care of this was scrapped in the slightest. Plenty of other ways to encourage marriage if that their stance.

So let’s break this down
Torres cutting benefits = nasty party
Labour cutting benefits = what are these benefits even for, benefits are discriminatory

Lolz

Quite frankly I'm more outaged by the £58 BILLION Corbyn pledges to waste on "compensation" to women born in the 1950's who demand it on the basis that they've chosen to wallow in their own ignorance for a couple of decades.
I've known about the changes since they were first announced in the late 90's, so have most of my friends.
I was wavering about voting Labour because of their consistent lack of clarity on the EU - this has definitelt made up my mind.

No, but you're unlikely to be around to care for the elderly parents of the boyfriend you lived with for five years back in the early 1990s and haven't heard from since you split; whereas you might well be there to help with your in-laws when they reach old age

True...but there are many more couples in long term relationships now...and also there are many couples who divorce in later life, as it becomes more acceptable to people.

I am not sure if £250 is a big enough bribe to encourage marriage or to keep people together.

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

but legally, if you want to be recognised as a LEGAL family, you need to get married / civil partnership

No one is saying you cant have it, if you want it, get married

I am not sure if £250 is a big enough bribe to encourage marriage or to keep people together.

I don't think it's a 'bribe' as such, more of an endorsement.

Whether or not it is unfair, it is pretty pointless.

It is only worth max £250 a year, only available if both partners are lower rate tax payers, and only a benefit if one of the partners isn't making full use of their personal allowance.

I can't believe that anyone's decision to get married is swayed by the existence of the marriage allowance.

I don't think it's a 'bribe' as such, more of an endorsement

One person's bribe is another person's endorsement.

Oh for fucks sake, can we please stop rehashing this. Are people really this thick? If you want the legal benefits of a certain type of contract, then undertake that contract. If you want to abolish the contract altogether then campaign for that. But shut up whining about wanting the benefits without being part of it!!!

It's one of the only things that childfree couples get so why should it be stopped?

I can't work due to ill health but apparently I am not ill enough to qualify for any benefits. DH can't work full time because of his health but, again, is not entitled to anything.

This £250 is not a lot but it helps us a bit.

I can't believe that anyone's decision to get married is swayed by the existence of the marriage allowance

This - and the £2 BILLION could be used to have a much greater effect on society.

One person's bribe is another person's endorsement.

Not really. A bribe would be an amount of money that would make a significant difference to your life. An endorsement doesn't even have to be financial - it could take any form as long as it was positive rather than negative.

If I 'endorse' someone's decision to get married, that doesn't mean I'm paying them cash. I'm simply showing that I approve of it.

This - and the £2 BILLION could be used to have a much greater effect on society.

Remind me how Labour just committed an additional £58 billion pounds to the pensions bill without a second thought or any idea where it’s coming from?