To think marriage doesn't actually make much difference to most everyday women?

[Dojasayso]

Interested to hear other people's realistic opinion regarding marriage.

In principle marriage in practical terms means a joining of assets/finances and thus meaning in the case of divorce assets are split accordingly.

So therefore I understand on that basis it can be seen as 'protection' as often stated on mumsnet.

However in the real world of modern everyday people where both men and women typically work, I don't actually see how it makes such difference unless you are a high earning household.

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage.

Examples:

1. Many people rent so in the case of divorce then whoever can afford it will take over the tenancy and the other rents somewhere else. Either party may also be helped by housing benefit to top up rent if eligible. Child maintenance also issued to primary caregiver.

Marriage has made no difference?

1. Unmarried couple buy a house together, split up and sell property and split equity or someone buys the other out just like if divorcing? Someone can't run off with the equity of a jointly own home if you've bought a house together. Judges won't demand the party that moves out (usually man) pays the mortgage until children move out unless they are exceptionally high earning. Especially if that means that party cannot go on to buy another house themselves.

So again, marriage hasn't made much difference?

1. Unmarried couple, dad walks out on part time working mum.

Mum then claims tax credits and housing benefits and all other associated benefits which tops up wages. Sometimes even making the mum better off. If house is owned then as above, they split equity and mum still claims plus maintenance. She can either buy another house if she can afford it or rents with housing benefit element if low earning. Being married would have made no difference.

1. SAHM, dad walks out. Same as above, income support plus other benefits and child maintenance. If renting then housing benefit, if owned then equity split.

So unless you are hugh earning how are you protected? A man doesn't suddenly become a high earner when your married so that in the event of divorce you suddenly have money when you previously didn't.

There's also lot of two parent families that still need to claim top ups despite working. Being married then divorcing won't change that?

You get asked to name beneficiaries on pensions and life insurance when you sign up, so again marriage makes no difference there in the event of death. Unless again, one is a high earner with assets on top on pensions/insurances to be split.

And before ANYONE does the classic line of "medical decisions and next of kin if DP is in a coma/life support". Marriage makes NO difference!!
Unless you have Lasting Power of Attorney for someone you CANNOT make any decisions about someone incapacitated regardless if they are your husband/wife. It's a medical decision made by a doctor in regards to procedures. A doctor won't say "we won't perform surgery because his wife doesn't want us too". You have to have an advanced statement in place which is done through a solicitor and not marriage.

Anything else requires a "best interest decision" decided by health and social care professionals (usually social worker). Doesn't matter if your married or not. Unless you have LPA you cannot make decisions on any incapacitated persons behalf.
You don't need to be married to have LPA, you can make anyone your LPA.

Soo mumsnet, am I missing something?! Unless you are a high earner I don't see this magical "protection" thats talked about? Other than widows benefit? But you can only claim that for 6 months.

Please enlighten me to how marriage protects your average Joe family that claim tax credits/rents/jointly owns etc .

Disclaimer: I am not against marriage and infact plan on marrying my DP next year but for emotional/commitment reasons of wanting marriage and not practical/financial reasons.

VOTING:
YABU: marriage does benefit low/middle earners
YANBU: marriage doesn't make much difference to everyday people.

Judges won't demand the party that moves out (usually man) pays the mortgage until children move out unless they are exceptionally high earning. Especially if that means that party cannot go on to buy another house themselves. So again, marriage hasn't made much difference?

Who on earth told you that? My friend got a Mesher Order and Spousal maintenance and her XH is a bus driver!

I think you are rather poorly informed OP.

It depends on where the couple is. This covers the legal differences in England and Wales pretty well. As shown, an unmarried couple have to be far more careful to get many of the same protections that are automatic if married. For the first one - it depends on what type of tenancy agreement there is and who is on it and so on, where as with a married couple it doesn't matter - even if a tenancy agreement or mortgage is just in my spouse's name, I still get protection.

For me personally, I've benefitted repeatedly from being married from little things like my spouse could go to register the births so I could stay in bed (I could barely walk for a while, especially with my younger children) or being eligible for the Adult Dependant Grant when my spouse was at university which we would not have been as partners due to our ages to big ones like immigration which obviously won't affect most people, but many 'ordinary' people on low/middle incomes have benefitted from that.

Yes, wills and life insurance are great and very important to have, but I think focusing on the issues in the potential of separation rather than the certainty of death, which is when I think many have been caught out in not being prepared, is a bigger issue.

@SmokedDuck

If people want to have whatever arrangements they want to, that's absolutely fantastic. I just said that it doesn't have to impact the woman.

And if it's out of (financial) necessity, unless SEN, when kids are in school whoever stayed home can return to work.

I think a lot of people are like me. Well, perhaps not entirely like me but in relation to marriage.
It’s not about financial security- although clearly that is an upside. It’s about a personal and public commitment to remain steadfast and faithful through life’s ups and downs. It’s about a shared future and the best environment to raise a family in.

May be different where you are, but marriage has benefits here:

1. If a married couple rents, they have to prove that they can afford the rent. If an unmarried couple wants to rent, they each must prove that they can afford the rent independently, in case the other person defaults on the lease.
2. Auto insurance rates are lower for married people than for singles. Autos are an absolute necessity here, so insurance rates are important. By "lower", I mean the difference between $525/mo for living together vs $285/mo for married couple.
3. Mortgages are more obtainable for married couples, even if only one person is an earner.
4. Private and faith schools can refuse to admit children whose parents are not married. They can also refuse to employ persons who are living together "without benefit of marriage".
5. Marriages lasting over 10 years give the surviving partner a claim to social security benefits and private pensions, even if there has been a divorce and remarriage by either partner.

I see what people are saying, but again, your mostly discussing high earners or people with significant assets.

A lot of people don't have these so you can't take half of nothing?

In regards to medical treatment which snother poster said they dont have time to involve social services.. every hospital has a social work team. If doctors go on the words of someone's mum/dad/mate/partner who do not have LPA then they will have a massive legal battle on their hands. I work in a hospital. That's my job.
All medical decisions are made by medical staff unless there is an LPA in place or advanced medical statement. In the UK at least.

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage

And many men just don't, and get away with it.
We need to make CMS like council tax- possible jail time if not paid.

Who on earth told you that? My friend got a Mesher Order and Spousal maintenance and her XH is a bus driver!

These are becoming rarer and rarer, the former usually only for couples who have children near to finishing school who might find moving disruptive and spousal maintenance because circumstances could change (job loss, ill health resulting in income loss, retirement) so most courts favour a clean break, which of course includes split of pension for married couples.

Friend just finished a divorce after 26 years of marriage. Clean break.

Honestly the best thing because the worst thing many women do in divorce is try to hang onto a house they cannot afford.

One other benefit is if, God forbid, one of the couple dies.
Pension and life insurance etc etc are much easier to sort out if you have a spouse rather than a common-law partner. Even if there are wills, it may make your life more difficult in an already incredibly difficult time.

@LemonRoses

I think a lot of people are like me. Well, perhaps not entirely like me but in relation to marriage. It’s not about financial security- although clearly that is an upside. It’s about a personal and public commitment to remain steadfast and faithful through life’s ups and downs. It’s about a shared future and the best environment to raise a family in.

Yes, that's what marriage means to me personally also.

It actually will be a financial risk for me when I marry DP. House/mortgage is in my name and I earn more. If I decide to go part time if were blessed with kids then we'll be on the same take home amount.
I also have a great pensions whereas dp has a very basic one.

For me it's not about that.

However I don't see how marriage will financially benefit many everyday people that much. If they don't have assets , have 2K in savings and claim top ups then when divorced, what exactly will mum get extra when there wasn't much to begin with?

@ImAlrightThanx

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage

And many men just don't, and get away with it.
We need to make CMS like council tax- possible jail time if not paid.

I agree. Its appalling. However if someone isn't going to pay maintenance then marriage can't exactly stop that.

If they are able to fiddle their books then you'll still fiddle them after a divorce unfortunately.

@LemonRoses

I think a lot of people are like me. Well, perhaps not entirely like me but in relation to marriage. It’s not about financial security- although clearly that is an upside. It’s about a personal and public commitment to remain steadfast and faithful through life’s ups and downs. It’s about a shared future and the best environment to raise a family in.

I went into mine with the same. We wanted to do it. The practicalities later were a bonus.

@ChocOrange1

Better education of girls from an early age to be self sufficient and not tolerate/identify abusive behaviour in partners could be a welcome step to help this in the next generation

Also: Better education of boys from an early age to not be abusive dicks would be a welcome step to help this in the next generation

Absolutely!

have 2K in savings and claim top ups then when divorced, what exactly will mum get extra when there wasn't much to begin with?

Where are you getting all these 'top ups'? Do you realise how punitive and paltry UC is? Or LHA caps?

Life is messy and unpredictable. When I married I didn't really think about assets, neither of us had any, but I knew that I wanted to spend my life with my husband. I wasn't terribly worried about children and I thought I'd always work.

20 years, 2 kids and a breakdown later it was a good decision. I work part time, it works for my health and has been useful for me to take a significant chunk of the childcare. He earns more, but I've got a better pension, I've inherited so probably in financial terms if we divorced I'd be worse off than if we'd stayed unmarried, but I'm still happy with our decision, there was no way of knowing what would happen over the past 20 years and we're not planning to split. If one of us died it's reassuring that there would be no inheritance liability.

I think people need to have there eyes open to the implications of marriage and children.

You still have to pay up front for the childcare under UC and claim it back later. You go 5 weeks minimum with nowt. You have to find a landlord who will take it as there's not much council/social housing left or available and when you do, you have to make up the difference in the rent from your UC award.

@Increscendo

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men. I would never have children with someone that doesn't take 50% of children workload. It hasn't impacted my career in the slightest.

And that is great for you (truly) but unless you have been living under a rock, you may be aware that some people make different choices

However I don't see how marriage will financially benefit many everyday people that much. If they don't have assets , have 2K in savings and claim top ups then when divorced, what exactly will mum get extra when there wasn't much to begin with?

For us, it was that commitment and trust that allowed us to improve our financial circumstances as a couple. We had trust and had committed to a lifelong union. There was no ‘his earnings’ or ‘my earnings’. It was and remains, ‘our money’. My willingness to take a short term career compromise and his willingness to work all the hours God send knowing our children were being well cared for meant we could move for jobs, share struggles and see his career as a joint success until the children were older. In the interim ‘we’ funded postgraduate qualifications for me, where his were funded. In time, were comfortable enough for me to decide to focus on my career again.
There was never a risk of financial loss and additional costs of two households. There was never distress for children of blending families. There was never any doubt that the children were the priority for both of us.
Marriage continues to bring more pleasures and renewed benefits as we head towards retirement.

@osbertthesyrianhamster

*Unmarried couple, dad walks out on part time working mum. Mum then claims tax credits and housing benefits and all other associated benefits which tops up wages. Sometimes even making the mum better off.*

Haahaahaa! There's no more bloody tax credits or income support. It's all been amalgamated into UC and has been for at least 3 years across all councils. It's far more restrictive. LHA caps have been in place for years.

Your ignorance about the welfare system and assuming it's the default to relationship breakdown makes your entire OP rather nonsensical. As it is is alarmingly simplistic.

Some parents still receive Child Tax. If there's been a change of circumstances, they would be advised to claim UC.

It made a difference to me when I got my first British passport - Dad is British, mum is not. As I was born after January 1983 and my British nationality comes from my father I had to provide my parents marriage certificate to show they were married when I was born. His name being on my birth certificate made no difference to HMPO. I did challenge them but they said no marriage certificate = no passport.

As you can see www.gov.uk/apply-first-adult-passport/what-documents-you-need-to-apply
On or after 1 January 1983
You’ll need your full birth certificate or adoption certificate and either:

your mother’s or father’s full UK birth certificate, or the Home Office certificate of registration or naturalisation, or a British passport belonging to one of your parents that was valid when you were born, or a British passport number for either parent
evidence of one of your parents’ immigration status in the UK at the time of your birth, for example a foreign passport belonging to one of your parents that was valid when you were born
If you send documents relating to your father, you must also send your parents’ marriage certificate.

This is a bit off topic, but I've never really understood why people are so against unmarried couples buying a house together. Yeah, it might require a bit of paperwork like a will. But I don't really understand the other risks. Maybe I'm just very naive.

I think it is very individual if marriage makes sense especially with kids. In a lot of cases it makes no difference. In a lot of cases it does protect one or both members of the couple. I also do think it is important to acknowledge that marriage is not always the best choise.

Most people in my social circle have kids but are not married. Some have broken up but there has yet to happen any disaster cause they were not married

If you own a house together and aren't married, and one person dies then you will have to pay almost 25% of the value of the house in inheritance tax (not the equity, the current value). For many this would mean having to sell the house to pay the tax bill.
If you are married there is no inheritance tax to pay.
@Thesagacontinues this is the one of the main reasons we got married, couldn't risk this.

Some parents still receive Child Tax. If there's been a change of circumstances, they would be advised to claim UC.

They may be compelled to if they move house/change housing benefit claim. It's one of the known triggers.

You forgot inheritance rights between married couples.

YABU. My Mum was situation #4. SAHM. My step dad was not a high earner by any means. She gave up her job when she had my younger brother and then stayed at home when my younger sister came along. They are disabled so she never went back to work.

You’re right, she claimed universal credit when they broke up but the divorce meant that she was entitled to a percentage of his pension too, she wouldn’t have been entitled to that if they were not married.