'While any savings and investments kept inside tax-free ISAs are exempt from inheritance tax...'


Is there a 'not' missing in this sentence?

Knowingly and willingly put yourself in a position where you have a 65-70% chance of losing 50% of your entire wealth (not to mention a 95% - for men - chance of losing custody of your children) when your spouse need not become anything more than bored for a £900 a year tax break? Erm, no thanks.

Pretty sure some of the other points can be done by separate legal agreements anyway; will etc. Most people under 30 won!!!8217;t get a state pension, or it!!!8217;ll be so negligibly small. Inheritance tax for a good majority of people is zero anyway. Legal marriage in this country is dead and exists only as a corpse; people think they are going to win the lottery jackpot but for some reason, are mighty surprised when they don!!!8217;t.

northernstars, you post as if being married makes you more likely to lose access or residence concerning your children, if male. (It's no longer called "custody".) I don't think there are any circumstances in which an unmarried father would get better access to his kids than a married father, if all other circumstances were equal.
Also, as a widow, I get a widow's pension from each of his DB pension schemes, which are several thousand a year for the rest of my life, which I wouldn't have got if we hadn't been married. I also get WPA from the DWP - although that's fairly recently been reduced, and is much smaller for new claimants than for those like me whose spouses died before April last year.

To add to list:
Widowed Parents Allowance
https://www.gov.uk/widowed-parents-allowance
Not sure how to work out equivalent value as insurance.

You should also list the tax disadvantages of marriage. For example a married couple can only have one main residence: if they have two homes and change the one not deemed to be their main residence, they have to pay capital gains tax on the profit on sale (an inflation tax) and 3% stamp duty on the whole of the cost of the replacement (not just the part over the lower limit).

If you are not married and you split up no matter how long you have been together or how many kids you are entitled to NOTHING. Beware .

What really annoys me is the current presupposition that weddings have to cost a massive amount and put a new couple (or their parents) in debt. Have a pared-down wedding where what really matters is your promises and the (small number of) close friends and family you want to spend time with.

Martin says the Marriage Tax Allowance is social engineering, but nothing could be further from the truth. The rapid increase in the personal allowance over the past 10 years, coupled with the lowering of the higher rate threshold and HICBC means that single income households (that's over a third of all families with kids under 18) have taken a financial hammering. If anything, the changes to the tax system have been an act of social engineering aimed at destroying the so called 'traditional family'.

My daughter's partner of 11 years died suddenly, and intestate, a few years ago and while she, personally was entitled to nothing from his small estate, their son, my grandson WAS, as his natural son and heir.


My daughter's partner was a young man, in his 30s and, like so many, had not given a second thought to writing a will.


Thankfully(?) the circumstances were not complicated, having just the one child and the matter was dealt with very quickly on production of the appropriate paperwork (Birth Certificate etc.)



My daughter and I had to register and sign as co-trustees with a mandate that any and all legacies were "to be used to the benefit" of my grandson, the estate was a matter of a few thousands of pounds, including a small pension pot, plus personal items and there were no other claimants.


Lest it be misunderstood, the quote marks are to indicate that this was the precise wording used.


We have, of course, used the legacy as specified and continue to do so, but the point is, that not being legally married, any natural offspring of an intestate deceased are AUTOMATICALLY considered to be beneficiaries in equal right, not the surviving partner, subject to the appointment of trustees if they are minors, as in this case, and a guarantee that any legacy be used to their benefit - it does not automatically go to the state if there are children involved.


Of course, it would be more complicated if there is more than one child, so the lesson is make a will, even if you think you are too young to need one.

Martin,

What a disingenuous article you write.

Marriage is an institution that was created by God, whether you choose to believe or not in his existence, and reconfirmed by his Son and Saviour Jesus Christ our Lord being between one man and one woman for life.

First of all, marriage is not just about money and it saddens me that our society has stooped so low that it has come to this.

If my wife strapped me to the top of our car and drove to visit our friends in Southampton for the weekend, negating the fact that we would be pulled over by the Police, we could technically make the trip with both of us arriving at our destination.

However, it is much better for me to be in the passenger seat during the journey, would you not agree?

The same is with marriage. Folks claim that they can have a happy healthy relationship for life without the need of a wedding ceremony and I'm sure many do, but that is not the point of marriage.

It's better for society in many ways for a naturally born man and woman to be married for life. One husband and one wife. Sorry, but God does not condone homosexual relationships.

When two people take a vow to spend their lives together it gives both husband and wife a contract that both can depend, and when children come into the scene, having a contract of marriage also gives children the security and stability that their mum and dad are together for life. It's that comforting feeling of leaning on a sturdy wall or knowing your house is built on a firm foundation. Imagine if your home was built on sinking sand or a swamp, could you sleep at night?

Martin, no sensible person enters into a business agreement through word of mouth. You have a contract that you both sign. Why, because it keeps both parties honest towards each other, and it's honourable to have a contract or an agreement that both parties can rely...why should a contract of marriage be any different?

This benefits the psychology of children who grow up happy and healthy in a loving family, drug free, depression free the way God intended.

Show me poverty, crime and social breakdown and I will show you broken marriages, single mother's trying to raise a family where the father of the children has done a runner, etc.

I know plenty of folks aren't happy in their marriage, but that's not Gods fault and it doesn't change the mathematics that marriage is good for society, families, mental stability, etc.

I am old enough to remember when folks were not stupid enough to be even discussing these kinds of issues. The fact that we are having to teach each other the basics and reconfirm what has always been a given about marriage and family just shows how absolutely and positively broken Britain has become as a nation.

My grandparents would roll over in their graves if they knew the government had actually legalised and given their permission for two men to call themselves 'husband' and 'husband' and vice-versa for two women....Shocking, absolutely shocking!