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.

So do those who think you shouldn’t have to get married to get the benefits of a marriage also think they should be entitled to the marriage tax breaks?

This is like groundhog day. I don't want the benefits of marriage. I own half my house and am dealing with the pension issue. But I really object to getting penalised twice for the same issue because the government is inconsistent.

And as for Butterflies who do they think they are,WHY are they not married? post- words fail me. Have we timewalked back to Victorian England.

Did somebody really say living in sin on this thread?

No Anya but you seemed to think your "lifechanging decision" should have an impact and entitle your children more than other bereaved children.

This is such intellectually dishonest and over emotive bollocks that I'm embarrassed for you.

What I actually said, as anyone who reads my posts can see, is that I think people should choose when they wish to opt in to such a life changing commitment, and not be brought into it by stealth. Certainly a lot of unmarried people here are adamant that they want to stay that way, so I don't understand why they'd choose to fuck that option over. Plus I thought PaulDacreRimsGeese made an excellent point about this particular benefit and reproduced the comment in full.

I also denied the frankly loopy suggestion that my husband and I committed legally to each other to "spite" other people.

Ffs. And that other poster who thinks our marriage is like joining a racist hate cult. What are you people smoking? And why aren't you sharing?

You can dedicate life insurance to whoever you want. It's nothing to do with being married.

I'm not anti-marriage in the slightest, but for this particular benefit / payout I agree with the ruling that it was discriminatory to exclude unmarried couples that cohabited and had children together.

Awwwwww save your embarrassment.

And re over emotive bollocks- no just telling it as it is. Your children aren't more deserving and shouldn't be entitled to bereavement support just because of a decision made by their parents.

A bereaved child is a bereaved child- end of.

That isn't true. This benefit is based on the deceased parent's NI contributions, it's not universal so, regardless of marriage, not every bereaved child will benefit from it, just those whose parent has paid the requisite amount.

Then hopefully that will change too.

Now maybe some posters could explain why they are so desperate to continue connecting 'marriage' to benefits and human rights. Is it a matter of validating their own marriage? Trying to enforce their perceived religious privilege perhaps? It just makes not sense in the 21st century to deny people rights just because they refuse to join your chosen club.

It's interesting that people wanting change in the laws for cohabitants invariably frame it as giving rights, not taking them away. In fact it's both, but there is remarkably low appreciation of this.

Some people consider the right to be able to live with a partner without the legal and financial aspects of marriage to be a very significant one, especially those who have assets they want to pass to children (@oldsockeater yes a married person can certainly make a will leaving everything to their kids, but it is much easier for a spouse to challenge it than an unmarried partner. If you want to pass assets to someone other than your partner, it's better not to be married). I give short shrift to people who think others should lose rights because they like to be selective about the historical sexism and homophobia they associate themselves with: I'd give the same short shrift to a married person whining that they weren't considered worthy of the same testamentary freedom an unmarried person gets.

But for those talking about something exactly the same as marriage, an opt-in contract taking the same form and procedure and with the same rights who just want to call it sparkly unicorn instead, meh, whevs. If you want. The marriage option would still need to be there, for those of us who want our relationships recognised internationally so there's no chance of us not being recognised as spouse if one of us drops dead when on holiday. So it would be essentially parallel provision, because I shan't be losing any rights to indulge any of you. But on principle, knock yourselves out. We're still going to be left with the problem of people not formalising their relationships through ignorance or disorganisation either way. And ultimately that's the real problem here. It seems to be what caused the issue for McLaughlin and Adams.

Lastly much as I do want the discussion about the differing rights of spouses and cohabitants to be had as often as possible, because the level of ignorance is so deep that the more the information is written the better, I'll repeat that this isn't the standard issue complaint. I take the point about admin issues, but making this benefit available doesn't make anyone else lose any rights.

This is the a bemefit I feel shouldn't be tied to marriage.

What about children whose parents never married, but the deceased parent supported them? (Or not.)

What about children whose parents divorced?

Children deserve the support of their parents, end of. And if a parent dies, they should be entitled to continued support until they are adults/out of education through the bereavement benefit.

Like they do in the states with social security

But if my partner makes enough money that it effects his children's child benefit, then the same should apply here.

AFFECTS

And YY to all kids getting this regardless of NI contributions. Kind of shocked that a couple can pay NI their whole lives and have their bereaved kids penalised because they aren't married. So very wrong.

Well, the less said about that whole child benefit withdrawal fiasco the better! Ridiculous situation and I don't know if it's even saved any significant amount of money.

It's true though, the unevenness is at best unfair and at worst contributes to people's mistaken beliefs about cohabitant rights. If you move someone in, they affect any benefits straight away, meanwhile if you die without a will they may as well have been a lodger.

Your children aren't more deserving and shouldn't be entitled to bereavement support just because of a decision made by their parents.

This is not what I or anyone else have said. Read the posts, especially the one I reproduced by PaulDacreRimsGeese and stop making up intellectually dishonest and over emotive bollocks.

I dunno why you're shocked p3onypenny, it's come up in enough of these threads over the years.

That's because the whole thread has spiralled into something else, when it really is just about this particular benefit.

But at the end of the day that is what it boils down to,however emotive you think that is.

And re reading other oosts I'll do what I like thanks.

Feel free to explain why it's fair that bereaved children whose parents aren't married should be penalised due to a parental decision instead of relying on others to do it for you.

How many people realise this benefit is now time limited to 18 months?

Everyone. I bet it is still very welcome though.

Oh I think so. To most people anyway. I and others have mentioned this as one of the possible advantages of marriage in so many threads, simply because for most people it would be really welcome, as you say. Given that the law hasn't changed, I might link to this thread in the future.

Eligibility
You may get Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA) if all the following apply:

your husband, wife or civil partner died before 6 April 2017
you’re under State Pension age
you’re entitled to Child Benefit for at least one child and your late husband, wife or civil partner was their parent
your late husband, wife or civil partner paid National Insurance contributions, or they died as a result of an industrial accident or disease
You may also claim WPA if you’re pregnant and your husband has died, or you’re pregnant after fertility treatment and your civil partner has died.

If your husband, wife or civil partner died on or after 6 April 2017 you may be eligible for Bereavement Support Payment instead.

You cannot claim WPA if you:

were divorced from your husband, wife or civil partner when they died
remarry or are living with another person as if you’re married to them or as if you’ve formed a civil partnership
were over State Pension age when you were widowed or became a surviving civil partner – you may be able to get extra State Pension
are in prison

--------
So maybe this should change to Bereaved Childrens Allowance, you’re entitled to Child Benefit for at least one child and your late partner was their parent or contributing to their income via maintenance payments (which would cover divorced parents paying maintenance) as currently if the parent dies then maintenance would stop?

not an expert, but why is it fair that they only get the benefit if the parents are still together, surely a bereaved child is still a bereaved child even if the parents are not together?

I personally dont think this should be under a persons cohabiting status at all

(although i do still think if you want the protection of marriage, then just get married)

stop making up intellectually dishonest and over emotive bollocks

Accusations of intellectual dishonesty from someone whose username references Ayn Rand?

I'm trying to think of the legal benefits I would have had from marrying the DC's dad and I just can't think of any.

I'm trying to think of the legal benefits I would have had from marrying the DC's dad and I just can't think of any

Depends on your own situation and financially setup as to whether you're the lower earning partner, or if you have assets intended for your children only

Much easier to disinherit a partner than a spouse

Tax allowance

IHT

Spousal maintenance in the event of a breakup

There's a number of things that can be put in place with a legal cohabitation agreement but you can't get round the tax law

Depends if any of these apply to you

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Quite possibly the downsides would've outweighed potential positives (such as this benefit) you'd have acquired on marriage smellbelina. This is why imposing it on you is something many people are strongly against.