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

Ffs, why do you think we've ended up with CTax? It's a hybrid of rates and Community Charge. CC was much fairer, but houses don't move, like people, so CTax is easier to collect.

It’s almost like governments have a policy of using taxes and benefits to encourage certain behaviour in the population

Ffs, why do you think we've ended up with CTax? It's a hybrid of rates and Community Charge. CC was much fairer, but houses don't move, like people, so CTax is easier to collect

Not sure why you needed the FFS there - I simply said that Council tax could have its own thread - lots of pros and cons there.

If one partner is not working and their only income is DLA are they still eligible to apply? I am guessing not but can not find an answer on google.

The money is not given to anyone or taken from anywhere as it was never in the pot, it's a tax relief.

Tax relief means that you pay less tax than you would have paid without the tax relief. The net impact is that somebody else pays more tax, or the government cuts spending to make up the difference.

I think it's pretty clear that over the last few years the government has cut spending. Meanwhile I don't think anybody's decision to get married has been swayed by the existence of the marriage allowance.

The marriage allowance allows a retired couple who have minimal expenses and a large amount of wealth to get a yearly bonus of £250, while people on low incomes have struggled.

Many people on this thread have talked about struggling on low incomes and I don't begrudge them the £250. I just don't think it should be a reward for marriage.

The marriage allowance allows a retired couple who have minimal expenses and a large amount of wealth to get a yearly bonus of £250, while people on low incomes have struggled

I think DF gets it. He is retired, full pension, mortgage paid off,lots of wealth...

He also gets the heating allowance and a free bus pass...and that's another thread as well.

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.

I think it should be possible to share (the full) PA but only where finances are truly pooled and the higher earner has made a legal commitment to support the lower including giving them a legal right to claim maintenance should the higher earner change their mind (relationship breakup) AND any benefit eligibility is based on that shared income. The logic being that if I am doing the earning for more than one person it’s reasonable to benefit from their allowances, but it’s not reasonable to say “hey, you don’t use your full allowance so I will take it to reduce my tax” when that person doesn’t benefit from your income.

So in the Dad example, if he supports you such that his money is your money and vice versa then you should be able to transfer your PA to him, but if you were claiming UC, his income would be considered even if you don’t live with him, and if he decided not to support you any more you could take him to court for maintenance.

Marriage is an existing contract that fits but in this hypothetical world others could make the same commitment. I wonder how many would. Parents of special needs adults maybe, or supporting elderly parents.

As things stand, I think it is right that the (small) concession is only open to married people, and it’s justified by the existence of a legal obligation to shared finances rather than an informal agreement.

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

Urgh, this shite peddled by the Torres is truly reprehensible. Because you can only be a family with a married mum and dad, can’t you? His ‘hard working families’ rhetoric, swallowed by so, so many people also pisses me off. Because the only possible working family set up is mum and dad and children. Never once seen any politician, of any persuasion, commit to doing whatever is necessary to affect in society’s thinking and make both parents pay for their children. If there was as much support for making parents pay child maintenance, well, I wouldn’t be 12 years and counting without it, would I? And more importantly, neither would my children.

The marriage allowance allows a retired couple who have minimal expenses and a large amount of wealth to get a yearly bonus of £250, while people on low incomes have struggled

Retired couples will not have benefited from the massive increase to the personal allowance over the last decade and will have mostly paid a higher rate of income tax throughout their working life. They will also not have had full maternity benefits or child care subsidies making it much more expensive to be dual income while raising children.

There is a whole other thread on income inequality and NI earned benefits and changes over the last 20 years. Most married pensioners will be living with working and pensions decisions they made over 20 years ago when societal expectations and support were very different.

Blibbyblobby

Your hypothetical world could apply to co-habiting couples with children as well though couldn't it? If a couple are pooling finances (as me and OH do) then surely we should be able to transfer PA regardless of marital status.

Or maybe I read it wrong.

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

There are already financial benefits to getting married though why does it need further reinforcement?

I don't feel hard done by btw, there's probably benefits we'd be entitled to as low earners that we don't take, it just strikes me as helping people who are already in a better position

Your hypothetical world could apply to co-habiting couples with children as well though couldn't it?

Of course, as long as they signed a legal contract to share finances and give each other the right to claim maintenance.

I do wonder why they'd be happy with that but not marriage/civil partnership though.

FWIW my DH and I co-habited for a long time without considering marriage, but as we got older we got more financially intertwined and started to think about future infirmity and eventually inheritance, and we found ourselves wondering why there wasn't some sort of legal contact we could enter into that formalised our shared finances and ensured we would be each other's next of kin.

We felt a bit daft when we realised there was one! Then we got married :)

"Personally I think it should be ditched - and the money invested in systems that give all children a good start in life, and in systems that enable parents to access relationship counselling to help reduce the impact of separation."

I think this is a bit of an odd thing to want to scrap to put more money towards early years etc.

My fiancé works for the NHS - he works very hard and often unsocial hours yet an enormous amount of his wage is money he never sees because a big chunk of it goes towards 'government admin'. When we get married are we not allowed to enjoy a tiny £250 a year (or whatever it is)?

Why not choose to scrap the high wages of professional footballers or politicians? If their pay was reduced even marginally that would save a fortune.

What do you mean whats it for? To give one partner money off their tax, in my case my husband. I don't understand what you mean.

Why not choose to scrap the high wages of professional footballers or politicians?

Because it isn’t the government who pays footballers salaries?

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.

Since it's available to married same sex couples too, not really!

Yes - it's clearly discriminatory and rewards a 1950s style of married couple with non earning / low earning wife

Or husband. My parents claim it. The lower earner in their house is my dad.

IIRC the majority of couples claiming it are male/female with the female the lower earner, but all the comments about traditional setups etc seem to be missing the fact that it's available to and used by people whose setups are anything but.

I wouldn't personally have introduced this policy, but of all the dubious uses of public money, it's pretty low on the list. And I do think Labour should be clear and accurate about how this policy will mean some lower earning households, like my mum and dad, will pay more tax. And own it. If they think it's the most equitable thing to do, say so and say why.

I think this is a bit of an odd thing to want to scrap to put more money towards early years etc

Invest so all children from families have a better start in life rather than just giving a small amount to a family who are married,

Which has the better cost / benefit outcome for society?

Invest so all children from families have a better start in life rather than just giving a small amount to a family who are married

People who have children already get plenty of 'reward' from the state for reproducing. Given the environmental cost of increasing the human footprint, the last thing we should be doing is incentivising people to create even more people.

I do wonder why they'd be happy with that but not marriage/civil partnership though.

I'm happy to explain why it would work for me. Having been married twice in the hope it would afford some stability I have now realised that it doesn't so what's the point? Me and OH have talked about civil partnership as an option but it's not available to straight couples until next year according to the articles we've read. We pool our money, share household expenses and he's on the tenancy agreement so do all the things marrieds do but according to the Government ours is not a committed relationship whereas an abusive marriage is.

Hope that has answered in some way the question.

If you want the law to recognise your relationship, get married.

Dont sit there saying you dont want the law involved in your relationship, then moan that your relationshop isn't legally recognised or eligible for benefits available to legally recognised relationships.

Its nor difficult. So many people in the 'marriage is just piece of paper' camp, cant be bothered to look into what it actually means to not have the piece of paper. That's their own choice.

People who have children already get plenty of 'reward' from the state for reproducing. Given the environmental cost of increasing the human footprint, the last thing we should be doing is incentivising people to create even more people

Money invested in Sure Start and Early Years is not a reward for adults for reproducing, but ensuring that all children benefit from a good start in life.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

We pool our money, share household expenses and he's on the tenancy agreement so do all the things marrieds do but according to the Government ours is not a committed relationship whereas an abusive marriage is.

No the government is judging how committed you are. They are recognising you have opted to not bring the legal system into your relationship.

Money invested in Sure Start and Early Years is not a reward for adults for reproducing, but ensuring that all children benefit from a good start in life.

Do you not think that the parenta hold some responsibility for that?

Do you not think that the parenta hold some responsibility for that

Yes - but there are parents who have struggled with that and this has an outcome on the children and society.

I think that Sure Start and high quality Early Years education is a good thing. Maybe you don't?

This is like moaning about having less rights than citizen, but refuse to apply for citizenship, because you've lived here a decade and that should show your intention to stay enough...

Legalities are important and make a difference for a reason, people.