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?

danmthatonestakentryanotheer

It does, but I'm not sure that you'd have been better off in those abusive relationships if you weren't married, and marriage does give you legal rights and protections.

The ones we cared about were (1) being each other's next of kin in the event of serious illness or accident, (2) inheritance tax, and (3) a legal framework if we split up. For DH there is also the security of being able to claim maintenance as he is a SAHH, which helps my career.

In your position I would be worried about the first two, as they could hit you regardless of how healthy the relationship 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.

But many married people aren't committed to their relationship are they? People still have affairs, walk out on their spouse and kids. I've been with OH for 17 years some of my friends have been married twice in that time (one is on her 4th marriage). I'd say we're pretty committed.

It's actually the opposite of judging how commited you are. It's using marriage as a guide to avoid spending time and resources how commited people are.

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

Precisely. Marriage is an easy way of confirming to the government and any other agencies that you are in a committed relationship. Surely the last thing we want to do is force cohabiting couples into signing contracts (which is what marriage is).

If you want the government to recognise your relationship, then get married. If you don't want to do that, don't complain when you don't get the benefits of marriage (widows allowance, tax allowance, pensions, spousal support etc.)

Too many people say that marriage is just a piece of paper. It might well be - until things go wrong and you need help. Being married can give you access to help if your partner ups sticks, dies, or becomes terminally ill and can no longer pay mortgage.

If you choose not to marry, then you don't get the benefits that marriage brings.

But many married people aren't committed to their relationship are they? People still have affairs, walk out on their spouse and kids. I've been with OH for 17 years some of my friends have been married twice in that time (one is on her 4th marriage). I'd say we're pretty committed.

Marriage is a legal contract - nothing more. If you don't want to get the law involved in your relationship, then you have that choice.

I can see why it's considered sexist as it is built around one person being a SAHP or part time/low paid worker. On average this will mean women forgoing a career. I know there are all sorts of family set ups and probably no one will quit being a heart surgeon to gain £250 off their DH's tax, but it's about the underlying assumption. Everyone knows deep down that "traditional values" as quoted by the Conservative party don't involve strong, confident, financially independent women.

Blibbyblobby

Both our families have no issue with us being next of kin.
Inheritance tax isn't a problem as we own nothing that goes above the threshold
We have a written agreement as to what would happen should we split. maintenance is not applicable as we have no children and he isn't responsible for my adult DD.

It doesn't particularly matter to me either way. The person has to earn less than £12k a year to transfer any, I can't see many people benefiting other than couples where the wife is part time.

I don't want that either way so doesn't matter if I'm married or not

But many married people aren't committed to their relationship are they?
People still have affairs, walk out on their spouse and kids. I've been with OH for 17 years some of my friends have been married twice in that time (one is on her 4th marriage). I'd say we're pretty committed
Every single time this comes up someone always says "yeah but me and OH have been together longer than some married people..."

It's really not that difficult to understand:

1. Some people CHOOSE to enter into a legal agreement that bestows on them a range of benefits and protections, responsibilities and consequences. That legal arrangement is called marriage.

1. Some people CHOOSE they would rather not enter a legal contract with someone else and are happy with their current arrangement where their affairs are legally separate.

1. Nobody gives a flying fuck about either relationship beyond that. A factual comment about the legal status of two people's affairs is just that: a factual statement about their legal status and associated financial affairs.

Literally, so not difficult to understand.

Jeez it's the only "benefit" we get as we are childless. Please don't take the tiny wee tax break off us!

Thank you @Blibbyblobby for explaining that to me. I totally get it now.

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

I don't want the law, the government or the church to recognise my relationship. It's none of their business

That still doesn't explain why the govt should give married people 250 quid a year extra. They are in a beneficial position already through their choices. I understand i could get those pre existing benefits by getting marrie and would be eligible for the new one as well.

I just don't understand what it is for? It's not going to make hardly a difference to many of the people eligible to get it, it is going to make a fair difference to tax receipts at a national level. It's not going to make a slew of people get married, it's not going to stop a slew of people getting divorced. So what will it do?

Personally I don't think it really makes much difference - but it's not worth getting up in arms about it being a benefit only available to married couples.

Marriage is a contract that comes with its own benefits (and pitfalls in some circumstances). If you don't want to be locked into a contract then that's your choice - but you can't refuse to sign and then complain that you don't get any of the benefits.

I can't see many people benefiting other than couples where the wife is part time.

Why is it the wife who is assumed to be the part-time worker?

Well said Kitten. I get the allowance as my husband doesn't usually earn the minimum allowance. He did get a bill last year for £100 as he had crossed the threshold. I simply paid the £100 for him, as I'd had the benefit.

I can honestly say, I have never heard of marriage tax? I’m married? Where did this come from? How come I don’t know?

@allthegoodusernameshavegone Its nothing to get excited about, if you earn under £12000 you can give some of your tax allowance to your husband if he earns more.

@allthegoodusernameshavegone Its nothing to get excited about, if you earn under £12000 you can give some of your tax allowance to your husband if he earns more.

But not if he earns £50000 or over. I earned nothing but DH couldn’t benefit from it.

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

In some cases, yes. I grew and still live in a deprived area. I spndd lots of time with kids from deprived backgrounds. Unfortunately, these things were used by some parents as a way to cop out even further. Personally, I think we need to be looking at the parents and alot of this papered over cracks of the actual problem.

I think it's awful and we would be entitled to it. Only been married two weeks. I won't be applying, even though we could. It smacks of the government judging families.

I agree MsRomanoff I would prefer to support parents directly via the benefits / tax system than organise things such that they pay much less tax if they both work and hand over their DC to the State in "subsidised" care.

SureStart was available to all not just targeted at those who needed it. Support to parent your own DC surely works better. Also times have moved on since SureStart which was predicated on the notion that there was a primary caregiver at home during the day who would benefit from a Community outreach programme and interaction with fellow parents.

Far fewer parents from both ends of the income spectrum are around to benefit from interaction at a Surestart Centre than there were 10 years ago.

But many married people aren't committed to their relationship are they? People still have affairs, walk out on their spouse and kids. I've been with OH for 17 years some of my friends have been married twice in that time (one is on her 4th marriage). I'd say we're pretty committed.

Ot was a typo. It should have been that the government arent judging how committed you are. Simply the legal status of your relationship.

I don't want the law, the government or the church to recognise my relationship. It's none of their business

Exactly, its non of their business. So why would they take your relationshop as a legal status, when its nor and you declare you dont want them involved. That's what they are doing. Not getting involved.

That still doesn't explain why the govt should give married people 250 quid a year extra. They are in a beneficial position already through their choices. I understand i could get those pre existing benefits by getting marrie and would be eligible for the new one as well.

Thoss choices are available to you. You chose not to benefit from them. Just like those one, you are choosing not to benefit.

It's not going to make hardly a difference to many of the people eligible to get it

So what's your issue then?

Its barely anything to get excited, you dont want your relationshop recognised under law and so dont get the benefits associated with it.

It's so ridiculous. As pp said its like saying you want the rights that come with being a citizen but dont want to apply for citizenship. Whatever benefits that are applicable to those who did apply, are available to you. You would be choosing not to access them.

And I say this as someone who happily cohabits with their dp, with no intention to marry.

•you can't refuse to sign [a contract] and then complain that you don't get any of the benefits•

It's perfectly reasonable to ask the rationale for the benefit and whether the money handed out in this way could and should be better spent.

It's not some sort of law of the universe that married people, including quite a number of fairly well-off childless married people, should get a benefit denied to other people who may need it more.

including quite a number of fairly well-off childless married people

There's a ceiling to how 'well off' you can be to benefit from this, as one person must be earning less than their personal allowance and the other can't be a higher rate tax payer.

There are many examples of non-means tested benefits that the wealthy can take advantage off - free prescriptions for children even when parents are earning ££££; ditto prescriptions and dentistry for pregnant women who may be high earners; free bus passes and winter fuel allowance for pensioners who might be wealthy ... but the ceiling on married tax allowance means this can never happen.

Let's means test the benefits above before we think about scrapping this one.

• advantage of ^