The best policy the Tories could introduce is a proper married couples allowance

Idiophreak

Really2 wrote: »

You can still get married in church, the spending £1000's is not the wedding.

Totally agree with the bold bit, but if love was the only reason you don't have to show that on a mega bash afterwards.

Not getting married because of money is also confusing love and money if you ask me, you can get married without the £1000's like I said, church or no church.:)

Love isn't the only reason, these days, though, is it? Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear...

There's love, commitment, standing in front of your piers and, sorry to say it, having a big fork-off party, big princess dresses and all the other stuff society conditions young women these days to want. My point was, simply, that tax incentives isn't presently a reason I need to consider.

Hate to see it, but I view marriage these days as being much more about the wedding than the marriage itself. If there were financial incentives for having it sooner than later, I might think about going in to debt to pay for the thing. As there isn't, I won't.

Degenerate

boyse7en wrote: »

What are the legal benefits of a marriage? Our house is tenants in common - so we each own half. I'm named as father to my children so would have legal rights the same as an ex-husband if we did split up. My will is made out to ensure that my partner and children inherit whatever I have at the time (and vice versa)

Its an honest question. I don't know what the advantages of marriage are. Cheaper car insurance? War widows pension?

You have indeed achieved many of the benefits of marriage through your current arrangements, but off the top of my head...

Next of kin privileges for one. If you get hit by a car tommorrow, as you're fighting for your life intensive care, who should the police contact? Your parents, and if they are not alive the closest relative you have through their line. Of course, police and hospital staff usually exercise common sense around such situations, but it's important to understand that an unmarried partner has absolutely no standing in such situations. If your lawful next-of-kin dislike her, they could exclude her completely.

lostinrates

Idiophreak wrote: »

Love isn't the only reason, these days, though, is it? Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear...

There's love, commitment, standing in front of your piers and, sorry to say it, having a big fork-off party, big princess dresses and all the other stuff society conditions young women these days to want. My point was, simply, that tax incentives isn't presently a reason I need to consider.

Hate to see it, but I view marriage these days as being much more about the wedding than the marriage itself. If there were financial incentives for having it sooner than later, I might think about going in to debt to pay for the thing. As there isn't, I won't.

The wedding isn't the be all and end all for all of us. My marriage, however, and my husband couldn't mean more to me. Love certainly was the only reason for us.


I have no issue what so ever with unmarried couples: each to their own and if for some people the ''official/paper work'' isn't necessary for them then neither should the paper work for any associated benefits to marriage/ civil partnership be- an that is fine too.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I have no problem with marriage, but it should be a free choice. The only role govt should play is in setting lower age limits, protecting against forced marriages and the setting the framework for divorce and the suchlike. Govts should certainly not bribe people to get married.

Pressurising people into marriage only benefits divorce lawyers.

Lots of free choices are encouraged/discouraged as govt sees fit. Things which are bad for society get taxed more, things which are good for society get taxed less (or even subsidised). This is not something new!

Personally, I wouldn't go for a married couple's allowance. I would go for a co-habiting parents' allowance - I think childcare vouchers are a good thing for people who can't afford to look after their own kids, but an allowance for people looking after their own kids is needed to level the playing field.

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't go for a married couple's allowance. I would go for a co-habiting parents' allowance - I think childcare vouchers are a good thing for people who can't afford to look after their own kids, but an allowance for people looking after their own kids is needed to level the playing field.

Co-habiting allowance is a different argument, and I would not have a problem with that sort of policy. That would be supporting people's circumstances rather than their legal status.

Vouchers however = lots of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Gorgeous_George

The horse has bolted I'm afraid.

We live in an immoral society. Marriage is no longer respected and has no valid function other than to be an excuse for a party. It should be replaced with a legally binding contract.

GG

prowla

The Labour government we've had for the past decade has been so anti-family that anything will be an improvement.
(It's a wonder they haven't brought in a 3rd child stealth tax!)

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Co-habiting allowance is a different argument, and I would not have a problem with that sort of policy. That would be supporting people's circumstances rather than their legal status.

Vouchers however = lots of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Okay, yeah agreed.

The_White_Horse

there is NO reason why these people cannot marry. If they choose not to, then they miss out. Why get a driving license? its only a bit of paper - if you can drive, you can drive.

I am not saying people have to get married. they can live together all they like - I am not religious in the slightest - but they should not get the same rights as those that are married.

If they want those rights, get married. there is no reason not to - other than commitment issues as I keep saying. You don't need to spend anything to get married.

Idiophreak

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but they should not get the same rights as those that are married.

For all your huffing and puffing, you've still not said why?