Discrimination?

I think that the point of this new scheme was actually to encourage marriage, rightly or wrongly.

It's not just the tax issue either. If you're not married, no matter how long -term your relationship is, you have no rights at all.

Many people think after a while, you become a "common law" wife (or husband) with the same rights as a married couple but this is a myth.

Personally I think all committed relationships should be equal in law and there are moves towards this. May take a while though.

I've never understood how people who do not feel committed enough to each other to get married feel that having children is desirable. Surely any encouragement and acknowledgement from the government of marriage is to be commended.

It's worth about £200 a year - that will encourage marriage? We're supposed now to have independent taxation - how does this fit in? I don't think it should exist at all ( the married allowance, not marriage- the latter is a personal choice). There are other tax advantages with marriage - inheritance tax and dome benefits - not sure how I feel about that

It's not about not being committed to each other but not being committed to the institution of marriage.

I don't think it will encourage or discourage marriage. It was one of Cameron and Osborne's bright ideas, that's all.

If you are a committed couple with a mortgage and/or children, getting married makes practical common sense. You don't need a big affair but marriage does confer legal extras,as well as this tax allowance. As a widow, I automatically inherited my husband's assets, regardless of whether he had a will and when he was ill I was automatically his next of kin. I know someone whose partner died intestate and his half of the house went to his children from a previous relationship and she lost her home.

Grandma. I agree with most of what you say but you are not correct about automatically being next of kin - that is widely misunderstood and is why we all need health and welfare LPAs ( see other thread)

'The legal order of next of kin is defined as the spouse, adult children, parents, adult siblings, other relatives and public administrators, according to the Knox County Coroner in Ohio. This is the order by which benefits are handed out, relatives are notified of the death of a family member and responsibilities after death are delegated.'

If you're legally married, you are your spouse's next of kin.

I know that's an American quote but it applies in the UK as well.

I was referring to the specific issue of illness as the pp had mentioned

This is useful

www.stchristophers.org.uk/leaflet/frequently-asked-questions-about-%E2%80%98next-of-kin%E2%80%99-and-power-of-attorney

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!

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

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.

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.

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??

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.

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

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'

U=I

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.............

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).

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?