Pro and Cons for marriage/living together

janb5

I have just noticed that Margaret Clare i s 20yearsolder than me( yes you`re quick!) I am so impressed that you are doing studying as a tax adviser. Wow- have you enjoyed thecourse?

donna-j_2

I'm not against marriage, and we will do it eventually, for the legal and tax reasons etc. I just resent the implications by Bogof_babe and others that we are not married because we want a get-out clause. We just haven't got round to it because we feel totally committed to each other without a marriage certificate. It wouldn't make us any more of a family etc. Why is that hard to understand?

One of the couples in our circle had a big wedding etc and are now separated 5 years on. It really riles me that their relationship was seen by 'society' as 'proper', whereas ours is somehow seen as us just making do until we make it legal or find someone else.

It's just such nonsense and makes me so angry.

margaretclare

Hi Ginger

Good luck with your exams! You might also like to note that this allowance was originally called the 'married man's allowance' and was set against the man's income for tax purposes, not the woman's. Things changed in the late 1980s sometime when women's independent taxation was brought in by the then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson. Before that it wouldn't have been possible for us to split it between us. It was assumed for many years that the man got all the income therefore had all the allowances - a working woman had only basic personal allowance, but the Inland Revenue used to write to him about her tax!!! Sounds incredible now, doesn't it? This was something that I struggled to get changed throughout much of my working life, certainly since the mid-1960s. Apparently the Married Women's Property Acts of the 1880s had left this loophole for the Inland Revenue and they didn't have to regard a wife's earnings as her own but as part of the husband's income. I actually spoke to Nigel Lawson on BBC Election Call (I think about 1986) and after the Conservatives came back after that General Election, Lawson brought that change in at the next Budget.

Obviously others were working for this change, it couldn't have been just me!

In spite of my advanced age, which Jan has noted, I'm doing GCSE Maths from September. Why do I need that, with a good honours degree and a raft of professional qualifications? It's those 'gremlins' that have dogged me since childhood, I intend to squash them under my shoe, once and for all.

Best wishes

Margaret Clare

Bogof_Babe

donna-j wrote:

One of the couples in our circle had a big wedding etc and are now separated 5 years on. It really riles me that their relationship was seen by 'society' as 'proper', whereas ours is somehow seen as us just making do until we make it legal or find someone else.

It's just such nonsense and makes me so angry.

This illustrates my argument exactly! This couple presumably got married in a flush of love and devotion, and five years on things went pear-shaped. It could happen to anyone, and often does.

The fact that they were married bestows upon both parties certain rights to a share of the home and wealth, which would not have applied had they been cohabiting without the "piece of paper" and their relationship then broke down. No one expects to separate at some future time, while they are in love and everything is hunky dory, but things can and do change, and it is a rash person or couple who optimistically maintain that it could never happen to them.

There will always be the "it's just a piece of paper" school of argument, but so is a university degree, a driving licence, a winning lottery ticket, a passport, a £50 note..... the fact is, it's what the piece of paper stands for that matters. A marriage certificate stands for a public declaration of being a couple in the eyes of the law, which is the important thing where finances and security are concerned - far more important and sensible than trusting to luck.

Afterthought - don't forget that sadly people do suffer accidents, heart attacks and goodness knows what, as well as relationship break-down, and in the event of sudden bereavement you might be on very dodgy ground if family members stake a claim to the deceased's assets. They could count as next of kin, and get preference, meaning that even if a Will exists it could be contested.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Sensible people, whether married or not, ensure that who gets what is sorted out when they shack up together, with or without benefit of a piece of paper. Personally I don't give a teacup about whether peoople marry or live together, but I don't subscribe to a patriarchal society which penalises people for what it sees as the 'wrong' choice in terms of being for the greater good of society. It's about time women cottoned on to the fact that there are many ways society still takes their choices away from them, and a worse financial outcome if they choose not to marry is one of them.
Anyone who thinks I sound like a ranting old feminist is dead right.

donna-j_2

Why on earth would we not be entitled to equal shares of our house if we split up? We are both on the deeds and the mortgage. Or the share of our joint account? That makes no sense at all. Please can you clarify Bogof_babe?

Dora_the_Explorer_5

For house splitting: it's a good idea to be tenants in common rather than joint tenants with a legal document specifying what percentage each is entitled to. For the joint bank account: only both can sign, otherwise it might depend on who's quickest to the bank at split up time .

Tribal

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."

This happened to two couples I am aquainted with, both cohabiting, one for eleven years one for nine. The first man in a ghastly accident, every bone in his body broken, massive skull fractures etc., darn near died, and she was not allowed to do anything Everything had to go through his next of kin, in this case his parents in a different country. He did recover after a very long time, completely. The other man's incident happened 18 months ago. He is still in a coma, and she is helpless. Their flat is in his name although she paid half the payments/deposit. His mother "never really wanted him to be with her" and is cool to her. She can't sell any possessions, as everything is ostensibly his as it's his flat, and she is hanging on by her fingertips to not lose the lot as she is finally running out of savings to pay his half of everything. They were always planning on getting married, but not quite yet. "A little bit of paper" would have given her sooooo much peace of mind, it is incalculable.

After 28 years, would anyone notice at all if one very quietly and privately got legally married? Is the idea of having a receipt for the years any worse than having a receipt for a TV? Yup, it's only a bit of paper. Surely, unless it is loudly bragged about, everyone presumes people together for 28 years are married in any case? I wonder when was the last time anyone inquired, "Thinking of tying the knot any time soon, you madly loved up couple??"

donna-j_2

Dora_the_Explorer wrote:

For house splitting: it's a good idea to be tenants in common rather than joint tenants with a legal document specifying what percentage each is entitled to./QUOTE]

That's pretty standard in Scotland anyway.

A lot to think about. I never denied that the legal aspects were there, just that being not married means you are less committed, as was suggested.

Thriftylady

At what stage of living together would a couple be seen as being 'as committed' as a couple who have chosen to marry ? I have a friend who went on holiday for a week, met a man and moved in with him the day they arrived home. If a terrible accident had befallen him the day after she moved in, should she have been classed as his next of kin? She would have known him for less than ten days at that stage......I suppose thats why the marriage, the 'piece of paper' exists, because it is your opportunity to declare legally that you intend this person to be your next of kin from now on.

For the record, this was ten years ago, and the couple got married about six years ago, but I was just using it to illustrate a point.