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?

Marriage is a choice but so is having children so shall we scrape child benefit too? The allowance isn't much anyway so can't see why people are complaining about it.

I've read a lot of threads on MN about the pros and cons of marriage, but I don't think anybody has ever posted that their decision was influenced by the endorsement of the marriage allowance.

We get the Marriage Allowance. But it really isn't that much - and is hardly a life changing amount, I think it's worth about £250 a year between the two of us.

In my case that allowance is wiped out by another tax I do pay. I own a flat that I inherited from my mum but because we are married it is classed a second home. As a couple we can own one home between us. If we weren't married we could own a property each and I would not have to pay 2nd home Council Tax or any other taxes that I will have to pay when it is sold.

It's swings and roundabouts. Nobody beats the tax man. Married or not.

Marriage is a choice but so is having children so shall we scrape child benefit too?

Child Benefit recognises the additional cost of having children. It isn't designed to encourage people to have children.

The allowance isn't much anyway so can't see why people are complaining about it

Because £2 billion can be used elsewhere to better effect

Marriage is a choice but so is having children so shall we scrape child benefit too

Because of the issues about child poverty?

That extra money could be spent on the NHS... wait, I’m having deja vu...

I think there are a lot more worrying proposals in the pipeline than this existing one which offers a maximum of £250 a year which doesn't even have a huge uptake.

You don’t just get it, there are conditions. One of you has to be earning £12,500 or less (non tax payer) for a start.

Because of the issues about child poverty?

What about adult poverty? This helps adult married couples who may be struggling on 1 x minimum wage - without all the working tax credits people get when they have children.

if two members of a couple earn c£18k each they both pay c£1.1k income tax.

if one earns £30k and the other earns £6k with part time work, the pre tax income is the same for the couple, but the higher earner pays £3.5k income tax and the other zero - and as a couple they are paying £1.3k more tax than the other two without the allowance.

with the allowance that disparity is reduced so they are only paying £3.25k income tax, still £1.15k more than they would have with a more equal distribution.

I could get worked up over it if it was accessible to higher rate taxpayers. a couple benefitting from this is not going to be massively wealthy so meh.

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

Of all the things the government waste the tax payers money on, is this really the thing that gets to you?

HS2 is estimated at £30 billion.

Married couples getting £250 a year, single people getting a council tax discount, really aren't the things we should be trying to change.

if two members of a couple earn c£18k each

There wouldn't be any point in claiming the allowance.

The marriage allowance allows one partner to give unused allowance to the other. It's irrelevant if both partners already use all of their personal allowance.

oops sorry, didn't read rest of your post properly soxi

Of all the things the government waste the tax payers money on, is this really the thing that gets to you

There are LOTS of things that get to me.

This is just one of them.

Married couples getting £250 a year, single people getting a council tax discount, really aren't the things we should be trying to change

It all adds up.

A quick Google seems to suggest we are one of the few EU countries who don't provide universal married tax relief and/or child benefit to all families regardless of wealth ie: Sweden. France seems to count "household" wealth for benefits, unlike our individual tax systems. Can any EU MN's confirm?

The trouble with the systems being proposed by Corbyn is that they are punitive. He expects high taxes to be paid, but not for universal benefit. He should be looking more towards the Nordic models.

I still don't understand why some 'benefits' are allocated on the basis of being part of an cohabiting couple (e.g. tax credits), some on the basis of being married (the transferable allowance under discussion here), and yet some are still singular (e.g. non-award of child benefit if one parent earns >£50k).

We've just applied thanks to this thread.

Thanks OP

We get it, I'm a stay at home mum so use none of my tax allowance, my husband earns less than the 50k threshold. We dont qualify for universal credit, tax credits etc. When I was working we didnt qualify for the childcare element of either and as the £400/week childcare costs were more than my wage it made no economical sense to stay in my job (my husband earns more hence why I'm the one at home). Other than the standard child benefit, we dont get anything other than the marriage allowance, which only works out at £5 a week. It's honestly not a lot of money. And its not just for the benefit of men, it benefits us as a family. We are a low income family, leaving paycheck to paycheck, with no help and I'm in the position of not being able to afford to work until my youngest is in school. Why are you begrudging us a fiver? Some working families are just as poor as families on benefits (through no fault of their own, not judging anybody)

We've just applied thanks to this thread

You're welcome

Why are you begrudging us a fiver? Some working families are just as poor as families on benefits (through no fault of their own, not judging anybody

Do you think that unmarried couples - couples who have chosen not to get married - but who are in the same situation as you - should have the same benefit as well?

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

Agree with @MrsFezziwig

However, the couple earning £30K and £6K are still only getting £250. It's not enough to either mitigate unfairness or change behaviour.

eggysMom
Benefits are based on people in the household, so two people cohabiting is the household.

Marriage is a legal contract in which two people actively choose to join their finances and assets, with associated responsibilities, benefits and consequences in the event of a split.

Totally different.

We are a low income family, leaving paycheck to paycheck, with no help and I'm in the position of not being able to afford to work until my youngest is in school. Why are you begrudging us a fiver?

I think you should be getting the fiver because you are a low income family who need the money, not because you have got married.

Discriminatory? Unmarried couples aren't a protected group.

It's been said many times on here but if you want the benefits of marriage then you have to get married.