Discrimination?

My daughter, her father's only child, was banned from seeing him for his last few months and at the chapel of rest when he died because his wife and step daughter didn't want her there, (no logical reasons!) the undertaker had to go along with it because there is no legal order to next of kin and they were paying the bill. They even tried to ban her from the funeral but failed because the crematorium is a public building.

The whole subject area of benefits and taxation policies as instruments of social policy and social engineering is fascinating . A society's values system can be inferred from much of this

Everyone should have one of these LPAs, as well as make a will. If the question arises, they might also throw light on who are or are not committed couples, if the other half is mentioned on them.

Preturned = perturbed - flipping phone

Elegran how does the taxman know anything about anyone? Because of the forms they fill in. The negligible amount that might/might not be collected from a couple who say they are co-habiting, when they aren't, is as nothing to the amount that wily accountants wangle for businesses. This whole issue is nothing to do with money but is purely a way of assuring Tory heartlands that the party is still the party of the establishment and that they still believe in marriage, in spite of the rocketing divorce figures.
This legislation links in with the abolition of the "no blame divorce". Both are fairly useless and create complications but imply that there is some sort of moral code in this government.

In training sessions with medical staff of all types and grades I have been known to put my head on pthe table and sob be a trifle preturned at their lack of understanding of NOK and/ or consent and competency issued

At hospital admittance, if competent to give consent, you can choose anyone to be your next of kin but whilst you remain competent, you make all the decisions about your treatment. If you lose competency during your stay or are not competent on admission, no one I can consent to treatment on your behalf. The law is quite quite clear - the doctor has to act in your behalf in your best interests but would be expected to discuss issues with any named NOK. If no named NOK, common sense would prevail but it would still be the doctors call. And that is why we should all have LPAs for health and welfare - I've given instructions and preferences on mine ( 2 different categories on form) about what I want in various situations

Diddy interesting post.
Especially pointing out that most swedes do not marry but live together.

Rigby I had heard something re the french system about going to see the mayor to make a declaration.
I agree very sensible.
Also agree that the benefit system also manages to decide whether or not individuals are a couple.

So perhaps employ the same benefit criteria to the marriage allowance.

That is one good idea, Cherrytree There must be others too.
Rigby, yes, whatever system is used, it should work across the board. Hospitals because of the mention of next of kin, though people are generally asked on admittance who is NOK. What happens when they are admitted unconscious or unable to answer that question? Would a spouse be the default?

annodomini exactly what I am trying to say.
I'm not averse to marriage, we have been married for almost 36 yrs.
The longest in our 'living' family.
My cousins are either divorced or single.
Quite different to my GPs and their siblings generation who celebrated golden weddings.
Times have changed
We now no longer have couples living in sin
Or heaven for bid their DC labelled B*****ds.

Elegran perhaps lower the tax threshold for those living at same address with children
They would be paying joint mortgages or rent.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact

Here's what the French do and have for years - very sensible suggestion. So there's a declaration of being together without it being marriage or a civil partnership - in some areas you can have a sort of ceremony but the people I know who've done this haven't bothered. The continuing irritation for me is that the DWP seems to have no problem in deciding people are a couple for some benefit purposes (because that will save the state money) but the same couple after death of one of them would not have their relationship recognised for IHT or survivors benefits (because that would cost the state money) .How in a thousand years is that fair? BTW Elegran what have hospitals to do with any of this?

DS2 and his partner have been together for 22 years and have two lovely sons. They have made wills and have joint ownership and mortgage. I don't know why they are so averse to marriage, but since they both come from broken families, that may have set an example that they don't want to follow. I have been divorced for almost 30 years and wouldn't want to go through that again.
Marriage should not be 'encouraged' by the taxation system - the more marriage, the more divorce. If I'd been a solicitor I'd have been very well off by now!

Here in Sweden, even if a will is made, the the children automatically have their share of the estate, they are never left out.
If a couple are living together, unmarried, previously divorced, and one dies, without leaving a will, then the children, say from a previous marriage, get everything, the person left behind gets nothing, so no security if things arent written down, the partner can basically be homeless, if children dont approve! But still not an excuse to get married, most people here live together!

OK, most people accept that people in committed relationships should be treated the same as people with a piece of paper stating that they are in that committed relationship.

My question still stands - how, in practical terms, does anyone in any tax department, lawyers office, hospital, or other organisation know that they are a united bonded pair and not two people who in reality have completely separate lives but are shacked up together temporarily and by next month could be in another relationship entirely? Sometimes it is necessary to know that.

How can that be done in a legally certain manner that doesn't disadvantage someone somewhere? Any serious suggestions?

I believe that in the UK, unlike many other countries, anyone can leave anything in their will to anybody. For example, the first husband of my father's second wife - IYSWIM - was totally cut out of his father's will. All the money (a very considerable sum) went to his church. And this was despite the fact that most of the assets had been inherited from first husband's mother, who undoubtedly would have wanted her son to get them.

However, if someone has been financially dependent on the dead person, and has not been left "sufficient" in the will, they can petition the courts for an adjustment, but this is not guaranteed and may, in the case of a child, amount to support only until the end of full time education.

If someone dies without making a will, then the property will be divided according to the intestacy laws - which would mean that an unmarried partner could be left with absolutely nothing. Also the inheritance tax payable on intestacy can be a great deal higher.

I do think that if couples live together without marriage they really must make mutual wills after legal advice, particularly if there are children involved, and doubly particularly if there are children of a previous relationship(s).

It would have to be much more than £400 to induce me to get married again..........and himself would have to be a living marvel........there is a ridiculous government urge towards making people get married. None of the government's business really but another way of rewarding the faithful via the tax system.

Now if they made the incentive more like the corporations get, say a few million a year, I would consider it.............

U=I

ab I posted a link above re NOK - it is not a legal concept in E and W - don't know about S and NI. Gay people I thought wanted civil
Partnerships and marriage mainly for societal recognition and validation of their relationships. U don't think it's fair to dismiss people's views on not wanting to get married but have a recognised relationship as 'daft' a you may disagree with that view but you'll have to come up with something better than that if you want to have a proper discussion. Going back to NOK - I am as I said married but am not my husbands NOK - doctors and nurses are as guilty as anyone in not understanding this. There is no automatic conferment of this 'status'

Gays fought for civil partnerships then same sex marriage because this made them next of kin, now heterosexual couples want to be next of kin and for some daft reason - my opinion - dismiss marriage because they don't believe in it yet want the securities it offers

Marmark I do think it's a bit more complicated than that. There have been huge huge changes in relationships , families and family life over the last 50 years or so. Many of these changes are inter-related with increased rights for women and gay people. Inevitably the nature of marriage and relationships has changed. My group of four friends are four examples of this - I chose to marry firstly as we intended to have dc and because of my profession I understood all the benefits re the legal status of marriage. One friend had had a very unhappy first marriage and so chose co-habitation but just before her partner retired, they married to give her rights to his ( very good ) pension. The third never married her partner because he didn't want to and now she wishes they had ( again because of his pension) and the fourth has never married because her and her partner just don't believe in it. She knows that financially this will cost them but to them it is a point of principle. I don't think your analogy with insurance really works. Insurance is paid for annually for one thing whilst marriage isn't. Also, I think the system of income tax and benefits is quite inconsistent. Marriage makes you potentially eligible for the married tax allowance and widow/ers benefits and double inheritance tax allowances but for all means tested benefits, cohabiting and married people are treated the same - this doesn't seem fair to me. I think there are some valid feminist arguments around the concept of marriage and that's why I think we should have the option of civil partnerships for all.

Yes Marmark you have choice to tow the government line and be rewarded.
But why does the government care whether a happy loving couple who have created a family (that will be future tax payers) are married or not

I have a friend who has been married 3 times.
The divorce lawyers are the only beneficiaries.

I was the OP not my DD
As a family, they pay their mortgage bills and taxes.
My DD will be going back to work and paying in to the tax system
But she wants to look after her DC whilst they are still young.

So how does that make them part of
The bleddy I want it all brigade??

Here we go again.The I don't want to commit to the institute of marriage,it's my choice.
Quite right,it is a choice if you don't want to commit,don't,you don't have to.The thing is you won't get any benefits either.
It's the same as not getting insurance,and expecting a payout if something goes wrong.
The bleddy I want it all brigade.
You know what,you can't have it all.
You have a choice.

Rigby, so does Spain. You can have a civil partnership, which is registered with the town council where you live. It requires very little faff and gives pretty much the same rights as marriage. Now that gay marriage is legal in Spain, it is probably no longer much use, as the main users of such a legality were people who could not marry due to being homosexual.

I don't think the married tax allowance should exist. Also I don't understand why we can't have civil partnerships for heterosexuals - France has a form of this and I think some Scandi countries do as well

But how can the taxman know that they are in a committed relationship so that their tax can be adjusted accordingly? He doesn't know each person as though he lived next door, he is not family, who are aware of their life together.

What defines a committed relationship, come to that? At what point does a one-night stand become "being with someone"? At what point does "being with someone" become staying with someone permanently? Is it when the relationship leads to a child? But two people can have an intense affair that results in a child and part soon afterwards. The existence of a child is no proof that their parents are committed to one another. Living together is no proof either.

Traditionally, a marriage defined the change point of a relationship to a permanent one. After that, they were treated as a unit and their finances were linked (linked too closely, in the days when a wife had no money of her own)

There is still no other legally binding and officially recognised way of labelling a committed couple (except a civil partnership) A marriage is a public declaration that they are committed to one another, and it is registered where it can be checked.

If marriage lapses as a legal link, then in a complex bureaucratic state some other link is needed for official definition. An annual certificate, like a car road tax? What a faff!