Pro and Cons for marriage/living together

calleyw

donna-j wrote:

That comment has really annoyed me. We have a substantial mortgage and a child together, so marriage would not make that any more 'real' or our commitment any stronger.

You personally may not feel that marriage would make you any more "real" or our commitment any stronger. And that is fine and your choice.

But in the legal world where it counts then it is totally different. And being married makes a lot of difference in some cases.

Personally if I was a man and I had a partner with children I would marry them. Reason it looks a lot better in eyes of a court of law when you want access to your children. Courts and judges look better on men when they are married to the mothers of their children. Non-married men loose out as judges are very old fashion. But are getting better.

And I don't believe for a long while, co-habiting couples be given the same rights as married couples. And from a personal stand point they should not. As you have choice if you want the same rights you get married. If you don't you don't.

But for pensions and things I was under the impression that it went to who ever was nominated and had nothing to do with if you married or not. As you can even nominate a child.

As has been said when does a co-habiting relationship become legally cemented. When you have children, when you buy a house together. Or what a lot of people talk rubbish about is common law marriage. Which does not exist and has not since 18 something.

We all make choices. I don't think I am any better than anyone else because I married. I always knew I would marry but have no children and that is how is happened. You know if it is right to marry. But the law lords etc still believe in old fashion values and I suppose do to. That marriage is best place to bring children up. yes I am well aware that couples that co-habit for many years is the same as being married but with the legal bit. But a lot of stats seem to suggest that co-habiting couples are more likely to split more often and have shorter relationships than married couples.

To me you marry for the right reasons. Because you love and want to be with the other person for the rest of your life. And you want to show your commitment openly to all the people you know.

I do believe that if I had not been married there have been times my husband and I would have split. Reason because legally (please note I am not say emotionally)it would have been easier to walk away from each other and get on with our lives. With out the mess of a divorce.


Yours


Calley

calleyw

calleyw wrote:

I do believe that if I had not been married there have been times my husband and I would have split. Reason because legally (please note I am not say emotionally)it would have been easier to walk away from each other and get on with our lives. With out the mess of a divorce.


Yours


Calley

Just realised what that sounded like. We do still love each other and we don't stay togther because we don't want the hassle of the divorce.

But being married makes me stop and think about our relationship and how to get it back on track rather than just running away.

But then I take my vows serious and would never mess around with anyone else.

Mind you don't anyone would want me



Yours


Calley

ChrissieI

calleyw wrote:

Just realised what that sounded like. We do still love each other and we don't stay togther because we don't want the hassle of the divorce.

Don't worry I'm sure all married couples out there know what you mean;)
Marriage can be hard work but its worth it.
I know a lot of marriages don't last I have been divorced and I'm now remarried but I do feel that when children come into a relationship the parents should marry to show their commitment to each other and their child. May be I'm just old fashioned.
And Am I the only one waiting for the OP to say why she is so against marriage?

[Deleted User]

I believe another advantage of marriage over co-habiting is inheritence tax. Even if the co-habiting partners Will everything to each other I believe that inheritence tax affects them more than if they were married.

Perhaps someone could confirm?

Thriftylady

And although living together does not give the same rights as marriage, a co-habiting couple in the UK have many more rights than they would have elsewhere. I read recently that this is the only country in Europe where the tax system is not designed to provide extra support and incentives to the 'traditional' family i.e. married parents and their children. Other countries, even broadly secular ones, do not see any shame or controversy in promoting marriage as the ideal basis for society as a whole, but here there is a tendency to view people as some sort of crazed extremists if they suggest that marriage is preferable to living together.

For the record, I don't actually have any objection to couples co-habiting, but I also feel that marriage should be valued for the serious commitment that it is (or that it should be !! depending on how you want to look at it !)

gingercordial

No matter what we think the law should be for cohabiting couples, as it stands married couples/civil partners have a number of legal benefits over cohabitees (there are probably more):

1. Pensions - I assume your husband's employer has the same kind of set-up as mine. If I die, the pension pot that I've contributed to will go to whoever I've nominated. But there's an additional contribution on death of four times my salary that my employer would pay into a pension for my spouse (or civil partner), but would not pay to anyone else including my boyfriend despite us cohabiting. So as you rightly point out, at present the company keeps the money.

2. Transfer of assets on death - if you/your partner dies, their assets/share of the house would not automatically pass to you/him unless there was a will to say that should be the case - it would instead go to the next of kin, which would be parents/family NOT the cohabiting partner. This is automatic for married couples, hence why marriage overrides any previous wills.

3. Access to children - parents who were married have more rights over access etc if they split up. I don't have children myself so not too sure about the details of this one.

4. Power/rights as next of kin - ie if your partner was seriously injured and went to hospital, as a cohabitee you have no say in his treatment if he is incapable of agreeing to things himself. His next of kin would have to be tracked down for important decisions. You may have fewer visiting rights etc depending on the hospital. You would not be the first port of call regarding funeral arrangements.

5. Inheritance tax - this is zero on the estate you leave to your spouse, which I suppose could be an issue if you have an expensive house and one person leaves their half to the other. But if you do have lots of assets, and one of you died, could the other afford to raise the cash for the tax bill in order to keep the family home?

6. Capital gains tax - again zero between husband and wife, so if you have something expensive to sell (eg a second home) you can use both of your annual tax allowances rather than just one.

7. Married couple's allowance for income tax - mostly phased out, but since margaretclare mentioned it I thought I'd better have it in the list!

I'm certainly not saying that any of the above are grounds for marriage, but they are the benefits that go along with doing so.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Looks like bribery to me.

margaretclare

gingercordial wrote:

7. Married couple's allowance for income tax - mostly phased out, but since margaretclare mentioned it I thought I'd better have it in the list!

Sorry about that. This allowance applies to us, and we split it between us (i.e. we're each allowed to set half of it against our income). But it doesn't apply to anyone who was born after April 1935. It wouldn't even apply to me, if I'd married someone the same age as me (DH was born at the end of December 1934 and I was born in August 1935).

Margaret Clare

abbecer

I can see both sides of the argument.

I am newly married and like the security this brings, emotionally financially etc. However we were together very happily for 12 years before tying the knot. We had our two beautiful sons out of wedlock which was frowned upon by some.

We felt that our boys had a loving secure family life and that in itself was more important than any piece of paper. We were never anti - marriage we just didn't feel it necessary to prove our love and commitment to everyone else.

One day something changed. It was like a bolt from the blue. We both decided we wanted to get married as soon as possible. Eleven weeks later, on New Years Eve we got married in Scotland in a beautiful candlelight ceremony.

For us being husband and wife has been the icing on the cake. It was right for us at the time that we did it. What made it even more special was sharing our special day with our boys. Our 3 year old was best man, and our one year old was pageboy.

I feel that people should only get married when it is right for THEM and not for financial gain. But i do think most of the system is outdated and should recognise people who show commitment in their relationships who chose not to get married.

gingercordial

margaretclare wrote:

Sorry about that. This allowance applies to us, and we split it between us (i.e. we're each allowed to set half of it against our income). But it doesn't apply to anyone who was born after April 1935. It wouldn't even apply to me, if I'd married someone the same age as me (DH was born at the end of December 1934 and I was born in August 1935).

Margaret Clare

I'm doing my Chartered Tax Adviser exams at the moment and this is one they love to throw in to see if we notice the birthdays!