Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married

[Sofabitch]

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about how widows allowance isn't paid to couples that weren't married, even if children are involved.

Aibu to think marriage is essentially the legal joining of people and if you want to be recognised legally and finacially then you should get married.

I guess the supreme court will ultimately decide if I am being unreasonable. But i can't help but think people dont realise the legal security marriage offers and they should.

Whilst I am sure there is many people who do just pay the court fees there are many who don't.
I am sure I read somewhere the average cost of divorce in the UK was around £70,000.

Friend although she did everything herself she did take legal advice to check through her paperwork. Her ex I think spent nearer 6 figures.

“Whose interests are protected by preventing unmarried couples having the protections married couples have?”

Unmarried couples who specifically wish to stay legally and financially separate and don’t want to be considered “common law” spouses?

The rightful and intended heirs and beneficiaries of a person who has recently shacked up with a not too serious or opportunistic partner and then carks it?

When you get married it invalidates any previous will you might have made.

If cohabiting partners had the same rights as married couples, at what point do you say that someone’s estate goes to the person they are living with rather than the relatives or friends they specifically left it to in their will?

I think the inheritance tax clause needs changing. What about siblings who have lived together for decades or an elderly parent and child where the child (owner) dies? They have to sell the home they live in to pay the other's IHT. The clause states spouse, civil partner or charity have exemption if they are the sole beneficiaries. Easily inserted there could be 'or other nominated person'. The 325k threshold is extremely low when you consider 3-bed terraced houses can be worth over a million in the SE.

He’s named you the primary beneficiary in his will? Great. Terrific. Good for you. But he could revoke it tomorrow and leave everything to the Battersea Cats and Dogs Home if he wanted to.

Actually, unmarried partners who have been cohabiting for 2 years can apply to the court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Court will grant them maintenance from the deceased's estate if reasonable, but the test that the court uses is less generous than the one used for spouses, and there's no way of getting around the inheritance tax limit.

But I agree with the central point which is that you can't replicate all the advantages of marriage without a marriage.

BertrandRussell In many cases deciding - after the event, perhaps after one was dead and could not give evidence, conceivably after both were dead, whether there had been such a mutual chance commitment as the law should recognise would be difficult and expensive. A marriage certificate settles it.

Then there’s the man who leaves more than one claimant on his limited assets. The one with the certificate has the better claim and rightly so.

It's been explained at length on this thread, Bertrand. Some couples who have children from an earlier relationship want to live with a new partner but very definitely don't want their assets to go to the new partner on death, they want them to go their children. If there was any assumption that a cohabiting couple were now partners on the same footing as married people, that wouldn't happen.

Also, see the Doctor's glorious long post with lots of scenarios. When does a transient relationship become one that merits being treated like a marriage?

I just don't get the problem with this. If you want the legal protections that go to married people when one of them dies or when the relationship ends in another way, you get married. If you don't want that, you don't get married. The end.

If you allowed just anyone to inherit tax free, there would be no point in having inheritance tax. As it is, only a tiny percentage of estates incur it, although with current house prices, that will obviously increase.

Only for sole beneficiaries, multiple beneficiaries would still be liable for IHT.

Ain't gonna happen, however much you might want it to.

That’s true, Speedy. Those cases are awful and costly though, and essentially you are having to prove to the court’s satisfaction that you should be provided for, rather than being automatically entitled to it. That’s because the courts place a lot of importance on testamentary freedom and won’t generally interfere with the deceased person’s wishes (as expressed in their will) without good reason.

I guess the point I’m making is this. An unmarried couple can put in place all the arrangements they like to protect each other financially upon the death of one of them. But there are some benefits that you simply won’t be entitled to (such as provision for widows and the IHT exemption). And if you’re unmarried and the relationship ends, the other person can unilaterally undo all of those arrangements and there is very little you can do about it. If you’re married, you have rights.

Inheritance tax is a bit of a red herring. Only about 4% of people who die leave enough for IHT to be chargeable. How many people outside the South East leave more than £325k?

Having said that, it's extremely valuable to a surviving spouse in the SE not to have to worry about IHT on the marital home.

Lovely The 'civil partner' clause was inserted recently so I can't see why other changes would be so outrageous.

LoveInTokyo I agree 100%z

Of course it's not dog in a manger Bertrand certainly not from me, I'm happily divorced. I have no particular fondness for marriage.

Attempting to give cohabiting couples the same advantages and obligations as married couples is to full of too many grey areas. How do you decide they've cohabited long enough, in a committed enough relationship to grant these rights.

I know so many young couples who have lived together for a few years or so, because they're in love at the time. Does each of these relationships have to be judged in the same way as a marriage for the purposes of tax, maintenance and inheritance etc? How is that going to work?

I am sure I read somewhere the average cost of divorce in the UK was around £70,000

That includes lost work, money paid in settlements, debts, moving house and all other costs.

". How do you decide they've cohabited long enough, in a committed enough relationship to grant these rights."
When they say so? Just like people who get married?

Disingenuous, Bertrand.

When they say so? What if one of them's dead?

Are you being purposely obtuse Bertrand?

Why is it disingenuous? People are saying how quick and easy it is to get married and nobody questions a couple about their commitment or how long they've been together.

Imagine I invented a flat piece of metal I could use to dig into the ground. It looked exactly like a spade/shovel. The patent office would tell me ‘this already exists’.

The reason people don’t get married is because the don’t want to be ‘locked in’. Why would they want to be ‘Locked in’ to an almost identical arrangement called something different?

When they say so? Just like people who get married?

So if I meet someone and they move in in a week, thats us as good as married and I should get all rights that go with that? And then I throw him out and get another one and thats us like married as well now?

Because they're signing a legal document. But you know that anyway.

"So if I meet someone and they move in in a week, thats us as good as married and I should get all rights that go with that?"
How long do you think you should be together before you're allows to get married?

"The reason people don’t get married is because the don’t want to be ‘locked in’." That may be the reason some people don't get married. But certainly not all of us.