benefits of being married vs living together

StaffieTerrier

As others have already said, the paperwork becomes simpler when you're married. We're going to get married but we're going pay for the simplest ceremony, which works out at less than £150. Neither of us want a fuss and we could probably get married without anyone even knowing (I'm not taking his surname).

When my Dad was in hospital then was a guy in the bed next to him who had a massive head injury and was unable to communicate. The hospital wouldn't speak to his girlfriend about his condition as they didn't consider her next of kin. They would only speak to his parents, who didn't get on with the girlfriend. It's something that's always stuck with me and my partner doesn't want his family overruling me in a similar situation, and vice versa.

Kynthia

zagfles wrote: »

Some do but still won't necessarily give the same rights to the pension as a spouse. For instance with mine, the 50% spouse pension is automatic, but the pension to a nominated partner/dependant is only paid if they are "financially dependant" on you.

With the Civil Service Pension the Classic Scheme only pays a lifetime pension to a spouse and no-one else. It's only the death in service lump sum (only if you pass away while still employed) that can be paid to a nominated person. This was the main scheme until 2002 and most people remained in it until 2015. So there's a lot of people out there with a pension won't pay out to an unmarried partner.

I personally felt more secure once married as I felt we were officially a couple in law, were legal next of kin, had made declarations to each other, and couldn't split up easily. I know this is subjective and many don't need to be married to feel this security.

I think if you have children then getting married first is sensible. Rarely does having children affect each of you equally when it comes to income, expenses, future career development and ongoing pension growth. So it's now virtually impossible to split all the finances equally and be equally impacted on an ongoing basis, yet splitting up when unmarried is only about the financial contribution you have each made. Too many times we hear of someone who gave up work, possibly later taking a low paid and part time job to fit around school hours, having many bills coming out of their current account or all the savings in their partner's name, perhaps not being a joint owner of the family home due to no income making the mortgage application more difficult, splitting up and being left with virtually nothing. There are no courts for unmarried people to ensure their is a fair split and divorce is only for those who are married and means the assets are divided fairly.

HeatherTaylor

There are lots of benefits of being married, especially in the event of the death of a partner, also affects ownerships rights between the two parties in a relationship.

TBagpuss

OP, you are right that it taks a lot of organisation and paperwirk to approximate sim,ilar rights for you both as parteers as thoseyou would have if you wrere married.

Another factor which is worth considering is what happnes if things don't work out and you were to separate.

If a couple is maried, then on divorce, a court has to try to sort out finacial arrangmetns taking into account all the circumstnaces, including looking t both party's neds and the neds of any chilren. In particualr, this can help ensure that a parent who has taken time out to care for a baby or small child is not disdvantaged.

If you are not married, then none of that is relvant, a court has no jurisdiction at all ovr assets held by one person in their sole name and can only divide up other assets based on a pre-exisiting agreement, proof of a joint intention or on a straight 50/50 split.

When you are both working and have no children this isn't a majr probalem as each of you is likely to have your own income, be paying into your own savings and pensions retc.

However, once you have children that often changes - and the person who takes on the child care role and goes part time to fit aroud child care, or doesn't apply for the promotion which would mean longer hours or more travel, or stops paying into their pension because it's mortx efficiant for the other partner to pay into theirs, can lose out significantly.

You can to some extet control things the opposite way round - if you chose to marry, you can have a pre-nup to provide for you to each keep any assets you bullt up before the relationship started, for instnace, but if you are married then you have more of a safeyty net if things later go wrong, and you can focus on manking choices which work best for you and any children in the short term, without having to worry about whether that will leave you badly disdvantaged down the line if the relationship doesn't work out.

If the relationship does work, and you saty together life long, then being married can benfit you both as you get older, in terms of benefits from pensions, what happens if one of you dies or is incapcitated etc.

chesky

This post was resurrected from two years ago. The law has changed in some areas so don't take it all as correct now.

lincroft1710

Pollycat wrote: »

You don't have to have a big wedding to get married.

OP hasn't visited these boards for 5 months

Pollycat

lincroft1710 wrote: »

OP hasn't visited these boards for 5 months

It's rare that I'm caught out by a necroposter. :mad:
I've deleted my comment.

kezzygirl

Personally, I got married because I love my husband and love being married. The financials did not even factor in my decision!

Mrs_Ryan

This is why me and OH are having a civil partnership- we need the boring legal stuff. After seeing someone die alone because their long term partner was not allowed to be with them and also seeing a dementia patient almost uprooted from their familiar surroundings and moved to a nursing home hundreds of miles from home because an estranged daughter who they hadn’t spoken to for 25 years had more rights than the partner who adored her- I want something legal in place.

onomatopoeia99

Kynthia wrote: »

legal next of kin

(I know this is an old post, but no-one else corrected it)

"next of kin" has no definition in UK law and carries no rights, so becoming "legal next of kin" is going to be impossible.

On admission to hospital, which has been referred to on multiple occasions in this topic, the patient can nominate any other adult as their "next of kin" that the treating physicians should inform, but the person so nominated (or spouse, or relative, in default situations), doesn't get any rights. If they are unconscious, a next-of-kin card can be pre-made to nominate that person and kept in a wallet / purse / mobile phone case etc.