http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21303765

What is the Tory obsession with couples of varius descriptions? It's not like there's a clamouring from those it'll actually affect. Is it just a smokescreen for something else? Or even just the backbenchers?

I think it would be nice, but like you said it's hardly a big issue.
The only thing that's ever pissed me of with marriage and taxes / benefits is that in the past (and I don't know if this still happens) married pensioners got a smaller combined pension than two unmarried individuals? Why? They've each paid the same lifetime's worth of NI contributions. Why should they get less pension?

Also why should benefits be based on what your partner earns? You would not get away with it with wages, or even a private pension.

Yes, making the tax system more complicated is a glorious idea.

What they are proposing is not worth it for most people. Only £150 overall tax cut for most people will be more than offset by the cuts in child benefit.

It generally costs a little less for 2 people to live together (regardless of gender) than it does for 2 individuals to live separately. Housing costs are generally lower per person as are things like food, heating and so on. It wasn't right but I can see the reasoning behind it.

Secondly, in the past at least, there was a significant likelihood that both partners had not made the same number/amount of NI contributions. A lot of women (it was predominantly women) had not made a complete set of NI contributions because they had been out of work raising children. It was of course possible (and I assume it still is) to top up an individuals NI contributions at or just before retirement by making a payment directly to the government (probably the DWP or HMRC, not sure which).

Indeed. I got almost nothing when I was unemployed as my wife had a job.

So what? If unmarried people lived together, they still got the two pensions. Also, if you've paid NI to get a full pension, then you should get that based on what you've paid, not no how much the government thinks you need to spend.


Women don't get full pensions automatically. If they hadn't made enough NI payments, then they wouldn't get a full pension.
I think my Mum looked into topping up her NI payment. It worked out that it just wasn't worth doing.

It also means that you if one of an unemployed couple is offered a job it makes it very hard to work out if they would be better off. So why bother? It would also stop people separating because of benefits. Separate benefits are invariably more than couples benefits. The government would save a fortune in housing benefit by not treating couples so badly. If they were to get the same as two individuals there would be no need for people to claim to be living apart and so would not cost the government extra housing costs.

I agree with you and refer you to the third sentence.

Married couple allowances be it for tax allowances, benefits or pensions are about the government trying to reinforce the idea of the nuclear family (with married parents) rather than acknowledging that society has changed dramatically since this was the norm. Abolishing separate treatment of married or cohabiting couples would provide a decent simplification of the tax system.
I also think that, from the point of simplicity, it would be better to stop trying to work out 'household income' and treat everyone as individuals. It comes down to whether or not the savings in administration outweigh the cost of giving benefits to people who probably don't need them. If you've paid into the system and you are entitled to something back it shouldn't matter what your partner earns.