If I was the dictator of UK ...

[ScreamingLadySutch]

So many hard and painful threads recently, of mums who want to be married but their 'partners' couldn't be bothered.

If I was the dictator of UK, I would BRING BACK a seriously generous tax allowance for marriage. To be lost on divorce, and not applied to any subsequent marriages

Enough that these idle 'sort of committed' emotionally vacant fuckers would feel pain missing out on

I thought we had a live one but it seems that the OP hasn’t resurfaced since last night 🤣

Marriage is a binding contract which gives each party legal rights and responsibilities to the other other and their property, finances children, etc.

These rights and responsibilities should NOT be given away or taken on by a person without their explicit consent.

People, women especially, need to understand the precarious position they put themselves in when they have children whilst unmarried and are relying on their partner for financial support.

If I was a dictator I would say when divorced everything should be split 50/50 from the get go - Assets / Childcare and stop this "I enabled your career" by staying at home rubbish.

In what way have you enabled the career?

@TheBusDriver I enable my husbands career as if I wasnt at home doing all the housework and childcare he wouldn't be able to work the 60+ hour weeks he does. For him to be able to do so well career wise I do everything else and work PT, currently I cannot progress because we focus on his career

Bus driver, you haven't thought that through either. Lots of couples prefer to have a sahp for their children. Or cost of childcare is prohibitively expensive. Or one person has a very full on career and can't always do 50% of the childcare. Or there is a child with additional needs. The sahp shouldn't be financially disadvantaged as a result of joint decisions. Unless you were going to make sah illegal and provide excellent, affordable childcare across the whole country, for all families.

I disagree with giving common law relationships any sort of legal status. Women need to take some responsibility for their own choice to live with and have children with someone who won't marry them. Better, I think to have very strongly enforced laws to ensure the nrp pays proper child support and is forced to actually take parental responsibility for their dc. That would do more to protect women.

Also OP, this occurred to me - I am childfree. So is my best friend.

If you're offering a massive tax refund, like you say, for marriage, I think it's time I proposed to my bestie. Because why should we pay more tax than anyone else?

In what way have you enabled the career?

I enabled my ex to have a career and children by being a SAHP.

He could go on overseas trips (he worked at Head Office in the EU 3 days a week), not worry about late/early meetings as he wasn't doing nursery/school drop offs and wasn't using his lunchtimes for household errands like I do as a working single parent. He went to work fully awake as I did night wakenings and he could always appear professional by not asking time off for medical appointments and school assemblies etc There are 13 weeks of school holidays a year and he could take time off for his actual holiday rather than for childcare reasons.

When child 1 was born in 2001 he was making about £35k a year. He's now on 3-4 times that. He has a great CV as I was a trailing spouse overseas and he hasn't ever taken a day off work because the kids were ill. (I had more flexibility in my lesser paid job) He could basically compete against single and childless colleagues and have the advantage of kids when he got home.

So I should have stayed with my abusive ex husband to get a tax break? What about those that separate and remain married? I should also it would appear never get any benefit from remarrying

Id do the opposite and make marriage a romantic rather than financial institution.....and not any better than not being married. If people want to leave they should.

@Aderyn19 This is the thing though when as a family nobody was financially disadvantaged. You sat down finances were discussed and you do whats best for your family. Why should this then be thrown up in divorce as a I enabled you to earn this.

The person who was working would of had the job prior to a family and the SAHP has the choice. Why should they be recumpenced when divorced and this thrown well I did this for you? No you did it for the family - the family unit is no longer a unit so why should a SAHP then earn back pay for a family choice.

@doritosdip so was it only your exes choice to have children then was it or did you have a say as well? So was your ex doing all that work out of the goodness of his heart or was he being paid which was enabling you to live at home as a SAHP?

Would you have rather been at work and miss all the growing up these children are doing whilst you are enabling his career?

I'd do the opposite - I'd build blocks of flats to allow women to leave their abusive partners without the worry of having to save up for a rental deposit.

@malificent7 - I agree and make divorce simple 50/50 split of assets and child maintenance only,

Everybody gets to move on without the animosity if everybody knows where they stand.

Hollow paid for by....?

Decisions that you make when part of a unit, for the benefit of that unit, shouldn't disadvantage one partner only if the unit comes to an end. It gives your joint actions more consequences than you intended or agreed to.
My DH isn't in the same job he had before we had children. He has been able to progress in his career because he has had freedom due to a lot of support at home. He's not ever had to take time off to deal with sick kids/school holidays/to get to the childminder. That's a massive advantage when you are competing against people who don't have children.
The sort of childcare we would have needed for us both to work (and without unfairly placing most of the childcare responsibility onto me) wasn't the kind of childcare we wanted or could easily afford,even with two salaries. At least not when the DC were very young.

This is the thing though when as a family nobody was financially disadvantaged. You sat down finances were discussed and you do whats best for your family. Why should this then be thrown up in divorce as a I enabled you to earn this

Because decisions made to benefit a unit, should disadvantage either party if that family unit breaks down.

I do think it would be worth considering a kind of compulsory post nuptial contract when one person becomes a sahp, where both parties have to legally agree that this is what they both want and it's acknowledged that should they divorce, the person who hasn't been financially disadvantaged agrees to financially support the partner who has been. This process could cover all the advantages and disadvantages so that both parties go into it with their eyes open. If you have a partner who isn't willing to share his or her money but wants the freedom to career build,vthrn this is a useful warning sign not to give up work and to maintain true financial independence. Sad that you would need this in a marriage but I think it might be necessary.

You heartless lot!

Why did it instantly get extrapolated to abuse?
What I am talking about, is the women who 'think' they are in a committed relationship, get pregnant, and then when they bring up the subject of marriage, find out that he can't be bothered, just wants to stay engaged, or doesn't see the point.

There are so many of these 'sort of committed's! I don't know how you can read their pain, how they don't feel cared about but are now trapped (and without legal protection remember)!

Therefore, bring back a generous marriage allowance so that the sort of committeds, who are otherwise perfectly decent men, find the incentive to step up.

Not too sure how this got extrapolated into ending abuse. People in abusive relationships have to extricate themselves, married or not. And married women have more legal protection.

@AutumnRose1 marriage is not 'red tape'. There is too much research that marriage is a far more stable platform for family life and confers a lot of benefits.

There used to be a marriage allowance, I think Gordon Brown ended it.

I'm married but I don't think I believe in a marriage allowance. If you need an incentive from the govt to get married, then it's probably not for you. Financially vulnerable women (or the govt) can't force men to love them enough to get married. What the govt can do is ensure that proper child support is paid post split so that those women and children aren't disadvantaged.

Hi OP “What I am talking about, is the women who 'think' they are in a committed relationship, get pregnant, and then when they bring up the subject of marriage, find out that he can't be bothered, just wants to stay engaged, or doesn't see the point.“

Yes, I know that’s what you mean. But why on earth didn’t the suggest marriage if that’s what they wanted? And if the answer is no, move on, don’t have a baby with that guy if you want marriage and he doesn’t.

There are so many of these 'sort of committed's! I don't know how you can read their pain, how they don't feel cared about but are now trapped (and without legal protection remember)
So like any man who has sex, and becomes a parent as a result, they should accept that they chose that when they had sex. They chose the possibility of having kids out of wedlock. That's how it works for men on MN.

Well, you’ve got the right attitude for a dictator....

If you bring in common-law marriage, couples will be forced into a marriage contract that they don't want. If you add an opt-out clause, all that'll happen is that people who don't want to commit will come up with reasons why they should opt out (i.e. "It's too soon, if we don't opt out it'll put pressure on our relationship... I want to keep opting out until we get married, otherwise the wedding will be pointless and not as special...") and their partners will go along with it.

I would get the state's nose further out of individuals' living arrangements not nestle it further in.

how romantic - sticking together for the sake of cash - I can see so many otherwise unhappy relationships transforming for £20 a week - genius plan