AIBU benefits of marriage without marriage

[serbska]

Yes another persona complaining LIFE ISN'T FAIR because they can't access a benefit for married people, because they weren't married.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45348176/bereavement-allowance-widowed-mum-on-why-her-kids-are-penalised

If you want to be free and easy, stay as DPs. If you want the legal protection and benefits of married, get married. It costs a few quid down the registry office.

Most of the people that refuse to marry claim it's outdated and just a piece of paper and unnecessary. So they disrespect the institution of marriage so why should society that is founded upon marriage and family now respect and give money to those that didn't respect the institution they are now seeking money from? Get married if you want the privileges of marriage.

What an appalling last post.

• cohabiting couples with children are families

• um why on earth are non married couples with or without children worthy of respect?

-supporting bereaved families with money they have paid into has f**k all to do with marriage.

And yy to zsas 's post- with bells on.

Such a nasty op and rather unpleasant thread.

National Office for Statistics certaining regards and classes cohabiting couples with children as families.

Society has thankfully changed somewhat. We no longer feel the need to punish children born out of wedlock.

And the money we as an unmarried couple have paid in NI and tax the last 35 years isn't owned by married couples.If we're going to be excluded from its use in any way we'll have it back please.

Society changes.Rules and laws need to adapt to the society they serve.This needs to change.

47% of children are born to unmarried couples and it's rising. Eventually they will be the majority.

^ agree. Can't understand why people are so pearl-clutching about this. It's really simple.

The benefit was created to help after a family had a loss - that's the case whether they are married or not. People harping on about marriage being a choice but insisting that benefits like this are only for married couples is bizarre, to say the least.

Times change.

But obviously anyone whose partner was earning £60k+ isn't as bereaved as those earning under that, because you are only entitled to the payments if you are entitled to child benefit. How do those arguing for unmarried parents to be entitled to claim, reconcile this? And don't give me the "wealthy enough to manage without" nonsense; it's just as likely that with both parents working the income drop could be substantially less than with a sole earner.

Your post doesn't make sense.

I agree User.That isn't right either.

The worst time imaginable in the life of a child or bereaved partner,what kind of a society are we if we turn our backs on half the nation's children. It's shameful.

P3onyPenny
And the money we as an unmarried couple have paid in NI and tax the last 35 years isn't owned by married couples.If we're going to be excluded from its use in any way we'll have it back please.

Yes, because tax and ni only benefits married couples....

This actual benefit needs looking at as what happens.to the children the deceased was paying maintenance to (I know this case didn't have any, I'm talking in general)
And as above, if they were not claiming child benefit die to earning levels (although if you are earning 60k + you will most likely have life insurance than someone on nmw)

You can't morally exclude somebody from a benefit using a pot they have paid into just because they're not married. It's wrong. Should unmarried mothers be excluded from help with housing or any other benefit? No. If you're not going to get all the benefits from the pot maybe we should be paying less. Oh hang on we pay more tax as don't get the other woefully unfair marriage tax break.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense.

That marriage tax break only applies if one spouse has an income below £11850, the number of people getting that "benefit" must be minuscule.

That would be me then. Don't get CB either. Although I claim and we pay it back.

No children should not have to suffer but if that suffering is due to the fact that their parents couldn't be bothered to get married then any suffering could have been avoided.

If the numbers are true I don't personally think 47% of children born to unmarried couples is anything for a country to be proud of.

What doesn't make sense? If the deceased had been paying maintenance then that child would not get a bereaved child payment? Is that fair? Or is it fair that only the children he was living with get the payment?

I earn between 40 and 50k pa, and I have a death in service payout, so my dc would benefit from that

But obviously anyone whose partner was earning £60k+ isn't as bereaved as those earning under that, because you are only entitled to the payments if you are entitled to child benefit. How do those arguing for unmarried parents to be entitled to claim, reconcile this?

Umm, by not agreeing with that provision either?

No it isn't fair. Surely it should go with the child wherever it lives,however much it's parents earn and whatever they chose to do with their relationship.

If the numbers are true I don't personally think 47% of children born to unmarried couples is anything for a country to be proud of.

Mydogisthebest - really, really? Sheesh. I can’t say more than that really and I know I might as well not bother anyway cos I doubt you are open to discussion.

I know lozter it's incredible.

Well I'm proud of our 28 years together, our 3 children,all they have achieved and what we have achieved.

So you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

And re suffering. Bereaved children suffer because their world has crashed, they’ve lost a beloved parent, it’s partner is on the floor with grief, their finances are up in the air.....

Bereaved children will suffer regardless of whether their parents were married or not.

An interesting thread! I also can’t understand why signing a marriage certificate is such a big deal for those couples that wish to have all the legal protection it brings to them and their children. It feels very wrong to assume people who chose not to sign this document in their lifetime would want to be treated as married after death. I worry for people wanting to cohabit freely without such assumptions, even those with children. - and by freely I mean unmarried in law to their cohabitee.

P3ony, if you fall into that bracket, presumably you've sacrificed your career to support your partner's and do the lion's share of childcare. Do you not worry about how vulnerable you are? Your partner could walk out and leave you with no income tomorrow. Wouldn't it be better for you to have the protection of marriage?

An interesting thread! I also can’t understand why signing a marriage certificate is such a big deal for those couples that wish to have all the legal protection it brings to them and their children. It feels very wrong to assume people who chose not to sign this document in their lifetime would want to be treated as married after death. I worry for people wanting to cohabit freely without such assumptions, even those with children. - and by freely I mean unmarried in law to their cohabitee.

I completely agree, but I don't think this particular benefit falls into that category. One can't reasonably assume someone who had a partner and didn't marry them wasn't making an active choice. A person could have all kinds of sensible and well thought out reasons not to marry, even setting aside the I don't like the name I can't be expected to go to a registry office and find two witnesses brigade. But there seems no rationale at all to assume a dead person chose not to marry their partner in order for them not to get bereavement benefits.

No.I own one half of a house I'd be happy to downsize from( won't be long until my dc leave). I have an ok pension and other provision we've set up in my name. I also have a fairly secure job I love, albeit a low paying one. I would be fine longterm.