Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

T

Opening up CPs to different sex couples and dealing with the cost of changing the law and the additional costs in terms of tax advantages for the couples who currently co-habit taht might take up the chance of CPs where they would never have married.

They are all extremely hard to quantify as no-one knows how many people would actually be in any of the groups affected by the different options.

Of course existing CPs would stand -just no new ones.

You mentioned tax advantages to couples ........I'm not sure loss of tax revenue is an advantage.....looking at it from a government's point of view- More a reason not to do it !

onlyroz

zippychick wrote: »

Onlyroz - am interested to know why you regret changing your name?

I don't really regret it, but I did it without much thought because it was just "what you did". I quite like the Spanish system where on marriage a woman keeps at least part of her previous name, and children are given a combination of both parents' names.

I think that if I'd got married after my career had started (I was still a student when I married) I would have been more keen to keep my own surname.

HanSpan

zippychick wrote: »

I will be taking my other halfs name because i think it sounds like a superhero name:rotfl:

Now I really want to know what that surname is!

If the SO and I were to ever get married I'm not sure if I'd be tempted to take his name, or adamant I wouldn't, because of the jokes that would come out of it.
Many will be too young for this but when he and I were first together a friend of his started calling me Odeon - say my name (Hannah) with his surname (Smith) together. At the time it irritated me but with the passing of the years I've mellowed and it makes me smile.
Through the years the joke changed to "Apollo" then I think "Labatts". I think it would have to be "Eventim" now and somehow that's just not so funny.

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Of course existing CPs would stand -just no new ones.

You mentioned tax advantages to couples ........I'm not sure loss of tax revenue is an advantage.....looking at it from a government's point of view- More a reason not to do it !

The consultation document implies that there is no "of course". People were asked about making everyone that has a CP change, or not. It seems they were actually surprised by the volume of people that didn't want the availability of CPs for gay couples to end, and hadn't really considered the backlash and cost of doing something that could be so unpopular.

In terms of the tax advantages you've rather taken it out of context. The cost of those advantages to the govt was exactly my point. Any option comes with costs - whatever the change, or even leaving things unchanged. Those reduced tax revenues from couples formerly cohabiting that chose to enter into a CP would be one of the costs of one of the options.

Which options would cost most to the govt is not at all clear, and not even really estimatable given the existing information. Possibly a very widespread survey of what people would choose to do given their current circumstances under each of the options would give a clue, but that assumes people answer such a survey and, where they do, answer it truthfully.

Petra_70

onlyroz wrote: »

I don't really regret it, but I did it without much thought because it was just "what you did". I quite like the Spanish system where on marriage a woman keeps at least part of her previous name, and children are given a combination of both parents' names.

I think that if I'd got married after my career had started (I was still a student when I married) I would have been more keen to keep my own surname.

The problem with this is that after 4 or 5 generations, the surnames would consist of 8 or 10 different names!

(In Spanish...) "Hi I would like to register for this dental practice please."

"Sure, what is your name sir?"

"Mr Jose Garcia-Fernandez-Gonzalez-Rodriguez-Lopez-Martinez-Sanchez-Perez-Hernandez-Gomez."

Can't work can it really? :cool:

Person_one

Petra_70 wrote: »

The problem with this is that after 4 or 5 generations, the surnames would consist of 8 or 10 different names!

(In Spanish...) "Hi I would like to register for this dental practice please."

"Sure, what is your name sir?"

"Mr Jose Garcia-Fernandez-Gonzalez-Rodriguez-Lopez-Martinez-Sanchez-Perez-Hernandez-Gomez."

Can't work can it really? :cool:

It does work though, in Spain!

seven-day-weekend

Person_one wrote: »

It does work though, in Spain!

It certainly does. An example (with English names)


Ms Smith Jones marries Mr Green Brown. They keep these names throughout their lives.

Their children have the surname Green Smith and keep that name throughout their lives.

And so each generation goes, with children taking one name from the mother and one from the father.

So....siblings have the same name, but husband and wife don't.

Petra_70

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It certainly does. An example (with English names)


Ms Smith Jones marries Mr Green Brown. They keep these names throughout their lives.

Their children have the surname Green Smith and keep that name throughout their lives.

And so each generation goes, with children taking one name from the mother and one from the father.

So....siblings have the same name, but husband and wife don't.

Oh well if it's done like THAT, then I guess it could work. Still seems odd though. (To me...)

I like all of us (me and hubby and our 2 kids) having the same surname. :cool:

HanSpan

onlyroz wrote: »

I quite like the Spanish system where on marriage a woman keeps at least part of her previous name, and children are given a combination of both parents' names.

Maybe they are like welsh surnames in some families - if I were to use everyone involved several generations back on my mother's side I'd still get just Jones, Morris and Davies!

Or maybe they just combine bits of each carefully. I like the idea of half of each surname to make a new one - a bit like those celebrity joined thingies. SO and I could be Monith. I quite like that!

onlyroz

Petra_70 wrote: »

The problem with this is that after 4 or 5 generations, the surnames would consist of 8 or 10 different names!

(In Spanish...) "Hi I would like to register for this dental practice please."

"Sure, what is your name sir?"

"Mr Jose Garcia-Fernandez-Gonzalez-Rodriguez-Lopez-Martinez-Sanchez-Perez-Hernandez-Gomez."

Can't work can it really? :cool:

There is quite a good description of how it works here:
http://perez.cs.vt.edu/twolastnames


From the above, Ms Smith Jones would marry Mr Hughes Willis, and would (optionally) change her name to Mrs Smith Hughes. Their children would have a surname of Hughes Smith.