The right to be single

The married tax allowance (reintroduced by Cameron, as I recall) is ludicrous.

As a long-term single person I am also very familiar with the "inclination to stereotype people who are not married as miserable or lonely or self-centered or broken". It's an enormously damaging tendency, and I'm sure (as many threads on the Relationships board attest) that it makes unhappily married people much more likely to stay in shitty relationships, and unhappily single people to jump into shitty relationships.

Plus the 'two sisters' scenario is always rolled-out by the right-wing press, because frankly signals to me that they don't see lesbians as a valid relationship or family, hence this direct comparison as being either equally valid or more valid

That's not really a fair comment .Two lesbians can get married or enter into a civil partnership and have the same benefits as a married couple . 2 sisters can't.

As regards hospitals, it was a big issue for many gay men during the AIDS years, when partners of many years would find they had no rights to even bury their partner, once unsympathetic family had arrived on the scene.

What about responsibilities as well as rights? I have a different viewpoint, since for many years I thought I would never see gay marriage. So when the option arrived, we had to say, what are the rights and responsibilities? There is more involved than just tax breaks, you take on responsibilities as well! Plus there is the social capital and frankly the recognition you get from being married! People at least know that it means some level of commitment. I guess that is the difference between marriage and siblings co-inheriting -- you choose your partner, you can't choose your family!

Plus the 'two sisters' scenario is always rolled-out by the right-wing press, because frankly signals to me that they don't see lesbians as a valid relationship or family, hence this direct comparison as being either equally valid or more valid. But if they don't take on any responsibilities for each other (Would your rights to benefit be altered if you declared you shared a house with your sister? Would you expect her to support you financially if you lost your job?), they why should they get the benefits that (some) married people do?

I think we should all be able to nominate a significant person to share our IHT bands etc - maybe with suitable checks to ensure it wasn't a con artist at work (so a sibling would pass straight away)

I agree. It was very unfair in the case of the 2 sisters. Also the situation of children of a single parent losing that parent whilst the children are still minors (or for that matter losing both parents whilst still minors)

There should be tax benefits for having children, but not for being a heterosexual couple.

Yes.

You can share a double room with a female friend, though, can you?

Yes - if they are not busy with being a parent or partner, and if they want to do the same sort of things that you do, and can get leave at the same time, and have the same sort of budget.

TBH, I've given up trying to organise holidays with other people. If I don't go by myself, I wouldn't ever go anywhere.

I agree society discriminates against single people in lots of ways. I'd love to go on holiday on my own but all deals are for 2 people sharing a room and there's a massive premium for single people. ' Singles' holidays, although a big market, are also massively overpriced. It sucks Tbh!

I think we should all be able to nominate a significant person to share our IHT bands etc - maybe with suitable checks to ensure it wasn't a con artist at work (so a sibling would pass straight away).

The 25% council tax discount seems v logical as you create less rubbish, only have one library card etc etc vs a couple or family.

For the hotel, isn't a room, say, £100 to rent for a night and breakfast, say, £10 per person, so a "fair" rate for a couple in the room is £120 and for a single occupant £110? Space is usually the most valuable/scarce commodity.

There are lots of things about tax and inheritance which happen automatically when you marry in the UK. Most of them (not all) can be done separately if you're in a relationship but not married/civilly partnered.

I mostly don't think the law needs to change for that, but I do think that inheritance laws should be extended include close relationships like siblings who live together, and I also think that some people who live together wrongly think that gives them rights over property or children which they might not have - I think it's fine not to marry if you know what that means legally when you buy property or have children - but many people don't. I'm not sure how you force people to have knowledge, though.

I have a German colleague who said the main reason he and his spouse married was because of the tax benefits.

I'm not sure I should get any benefits because I'm single (although I quite like my 25% council tax discount.) I do think I shouldn't have to be charged extra for being single when I go on holiday and so on. There are some benefits to being single in that I mostly don't have to do things I don't want socially, but there are also a lot of things which are crap about being single, and paying single supplements are one of them.

I think the hospital thing is a bit of a red herring for most people - I'm not married to DP, so for both kids I double checked that he'd be allowed to make decisions for me if the worst happened, and in each case I was assured that he was, and that I didn't need to write or sign anything.

I don't know if I was worried or comforted by that now that I think about it.

red - communal property is the biggie - especially given how much houses are worth now.

www.which.co.uk/money/tax/guides/inheritance-tax-explained/rules-for-married-couples-and-civil-partners/

I think that's right...

OMC, I didn't realise that civil partnerships are treated the same as marriage. I stand corrected.

Redbinneo, the spouse/civil partner can inherit without tax, for one.

The UK has various judicial precedent to define civil partnership and can be far more case-by-case than the USA.

GTJ I'm not aware of any benefits that marriage allows.

America is ruthlessly right wing though, so Quelle surprise.

I quite agree, I knew new some elderly twins who were in that position, very unfair.

Isn't this a (I agree, not particularly clear) argument similar to one I read in a newspaper, pointing out that whilst marriage and civil partnership were all well and good, there were both inextricably linked to romance.

His example was two sisters, who had literally lived their entire lives together, but, because they weren't in a civil partnership or married (what with them being related and all), when one died, they had to pay inheritance tax on half their house etc. He felt (and it does sound fair to me too - although I don't know how it would work in practice) that there should be some way to support relationships like this - as close, or closer than any marriage, yet unable to share any of the benefits marriage allows.