Should co-habitating partner have more legal rights...

[eleusis]

or should those rights be reserved for married partners?

Discuss

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6923373.stm

i think it's a bit like saying people who refuse to wear seat belts should be given safer cars.

I really think if you want all the stuff that goes with marriage then either get married or get some contracts drawn up. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that living together should automatically entitle one to the same rights as a married couple. I've lived with people and wouldn't at the time have considered they ought to be entitled to half earnings etc.

I agree w/WWW, the voice of reason.

Agree with bossykate and wickedwaterwitch.

And I agree with Dinosaur, expat, WWW and Bossykate. This is no fun.

not in my opinion because agreeing to live with someone is in no way the same as agreeing to spend the rest of your lives together and enter into a legal partnership.
if you want to enhance your rights enter into a legally binding agreement. but surely choosing to not get married should be enough to void any implied claims an ex feels they have over your money if you break up?
marriages/civil partnerships are not just religious cerimonies and so are available to all ( hopefully same sex over here soon).

i saw quite an interesting op ed piece in the telegraph today about this. basically said this would put all relationships under the control of the state which presumably is one of the things people who don't get married wish to avoid.

what about the rights to bury your partner the way in which you want to if anything happened to them or other things that dont include money????

I'm not sure about the whole marridge thing because it frightens me as I did it before (long story) but I want M to be able to choose the way he wants things

Hmm, last time I saw something about this it was saying that only cohabiting couples with dependant children would be affected, and I am rather of the view that the non-resident parent should have some financial obligation to the child/ren, and the other parent if he / she is a full time carer by consent, but surely this is what the CSA does? Frankly people who don't marry are making a choice and I can think of very few cases where I would back the right of one or other of the parties to make a financial claim over assets that are not actually jointly owned. If you want to do this surely you just nip down to the register office?

"I'm not sure about the whole marridge thing because it frightens me as I did it before (long story) but I want M to be able to choose the way he wants things"

things like that can be dealt with through other contracts such as wills. if you want the tax breaks of marriage enter into a partnership.

Does marriage have tax breaks in the UK? I have missed something surely.

I agree with the Telegraph.

I find myself doing that quite a bit nowadays.

oh sorry unsure of the uk, they do over here in ireland anyway.

marriage tax breaks were eliminated here a few years ago I think?

Oh right, was that when the wife got an "allowance"?

Yep. By the Tories.

Nigel Lawson iirc.

Oh, well thank God. Anyone who thinks I need an allowance needs to check the date on their tardis.

Isn't that what Cameron wants to reintroduce, though?

Does he? Really?!?! Might have to talk to Samantha about that one.

I'm all for a joint declaration where two people are taxed as one entity. But it souldn't matter whether I have a penis or fanjo. Tax systems should not be gender specific. no no no no no Do I make myself clear?

cameron wants to bring them back doesnt he and he wants to allow the working partner to be able to claim the Stay at home parents tax code as well so it encourages more people to get married and stay at home

Don't agree that co-habitees shld hve same rights as married people. Its easy enough to get married, just pop down to local registry office. There is already power to compel a parent to make provision for a child anyway whether married or not.

This is just another example of the state sticking its nose into people's business. Just because you are living with someone does not necessarily mean that you want to be treated like a married couple.

Ummm... I'm not really a big fan of that. But, I can sort of maybe tolerate it (as if I have a choice) if it works both ways so either man or woman can stay home.

i think most people who do co-habit and not marry do so for a reason...

this is too far in the way of the nanny state!

It deprives people of the right not to be married, doesn't it? I suppose the question you have to ask is, do people have the right not to be considered married if they live together as if they are?

I wonder what the effect would be if they did introduce this? Would people stop living together? Would it either be separate dwellings or marriage?

In some ways, though I disagree with the principle, I can see the social use of it - there would be no such thing as living in an uncomitted relationship for 10 years - all live-in relationships would by definition be committed, because the law of the land would say so. It would stop a lot of people wasting their youth with people they don't really want to be with for the rest of their lives. I'm not sure it's the state's role to stop people wasting their youth though, that's what youth is for.