Indo article: "Cohabiting can be costly for couples - why it pays you to get hitched"

A

arbitron

Registered User
Messages
557

"Cohabiting can be costly for couples: why it pays you to get hitched when it comes to personal tax, inheritance, housing and investments"​


A greatest hits of marriage rights versus cohabitation versus single life.
  • Married (and separated) people have a legal right to share of the home/estate if one dies.
  • No inheritance tax if married - cohabiting couples treated like strangers!
  • Married couples with joint tax assessment can potentially pay lower income taxes.
  • Capital gains taxes: losses can be shared across the married couple to reduce tax burden.
  • Single people lose out on economies of scale.
I knew the state rewarded couples but I didn't realise marriage still had so many benefits over cohabitation.
 
Add in the ability to have assets squirrelled away beyond the reach of creditors. Very useful in bankruptcy.
 
It is ridiculous that co habiting couples are still discriminated against in this day and age. I was in Australia in 2021/22 and they had "de facto" status for co habiting couples. Why haven't we introduced something similar?

Through my work, I have been able to point out the dire tax consequences to couples if one of them dies and they are not married. These tend to be couples that have kids together. Yet, they are treated as strangers in the eyes of the law?!!


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Steven Barrett said:
Why haven't we introduced something similar?
Click to expand...
We already have in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Cohabitants who are not in a civil partnership or marriage have limited financial remedies available to them under the legislation after relationship breakdown.

For tax and succession purposes the law is binary though: you are married to one other human or you are not. Personally I'm dubious about putting in place de facto marriage status that people can kind of stumble into. The risks and benefits of marriage are clear for anyone to look up and we should let people either get married or remain unmarried as they see fit.

There aren't really any tax or succession advantages to young couples who are both earning average wages and don't have any wealth yet.
 
If you are a couple where one or both are rich (high income or assets) then get married.
If you are a couple where one or both are in receipt of welfare then don't get married. In fact you'd be out of your mind to get married.

It's that simple.
 
Steven Barrett said:
It is ridiculous that co habiting couples are still discriminated against in this day and age.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Discrimination would indeed be an appropriate word if cohabitating couples were denied the opportunity to get married. This existed for same-sex couples prior to the marriage reform referendum and the introduction of civil partnership.
It existed in spades for separated people prior to the divorce referendum. But now? Seriously? There is no bar to anybody choosing to get married (apart from finding a willing partner!) and availing of the advantages of marriage. Of course it also comes with certain responsibilities which some might see as disadvantages. The responsibility to maintain the other spouse, restrictions on alienating the family home, implications on divorce, etc etc.
Point is (civil) marriage comes as a package; everyone can opt to buy into the package or not - it's a free choice. I don't see any discrimination here. The absence of a right to design your own version of marriage and the package of legal rights and responsibilities that go with it is hardly discrimination. If it is, I'd like the right to design my own package of rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer, please!

Steven Barrett said:
I was in Australia in 2021/22 and they had "de facto" status for co habiting couples. Why haven't we introduced something similar?
Click to expand...
Because people should have a choice. "De-facto" status, or even better de-jure status, is available simply by signing up. Fast, cheap and accessible, if that's what you want! If you don't want that, it's hardly the business of the State to impose it.

Steven Barrett said:
Through my work, I have been able to point out the dire tax consequences to couples if one of them dies and they are not married. These tend to be couples that have kids together. Yet, they are treated as strangers in the eyes of the law?!!
Click to expand...
Again, it's a choice thing. Are any of these couples not allowed to get married? I think not. The State has done its duty by allowing them to marry. We don't need nanny-stateism to second guess their free choice. Especially if they make that free choice after excellent advice from your good self!
 
I think the biggest issue most people have is conflating wedding and marriage. So they consider that the cost and organisation required to plan and pay for it is too much. And maybe things will change following the smaller weddings of the pandemic but the majority of people seem to want the big day out celebration so put off the marriage until they can have the wedding, despite the benefits.
 
I know my spouse over a decade and we share all these nice goodies because of our marriage cert. But my single friend can't share any of these benefits with her single sister of 40+ years. Why not?

One of them dies and the other has a huge tax bill on any inheritance. Jack and Jill down the road who met last year and got married on Sunday pay nothing. And we all know platonic pairs who are closer than some married couples.

The delusion that marriage was about children is thankfully fading - it was of course always about property, power, and patriarchal lineage.

We could have a mechanism for individuals in a non-romantic relationship to be able to get the benefits of marriage.

I'm surprised that more fiscal conservatives and libertarians are not pushing for this as it would allow people to minimise their tax burden.
 
Silversurfer said:
It is also applicable if you are divorced from your spouse. Even if they have remarried. If you have not then you can claim.
Click to expand...
So if my husband dies, his ex wife, who has never remarried, can claim a widows pension from the state???

I am just trying to read about this now, person in question has never worked in her life, she lives on social welfare, so she would get her own pension and then this pension too when my husband dies (based on his prsi contributions) if she never remarries??
 
DannyBoyD said:
Yes as can you; as can your husband if you pre-decease him.

Don't understand your second question.
Click to expand...
So his ex wife, as they have children together, she could apply for this grant?

Widowed or Surviving Civil Partner Grant

Outlines the rules, regulations and application procedure for the Widowed or Surviving Civil Partner Grant which is paid to people with dependent children.
www.citizensinformation.ie www.citizensinformation.ie

But as I have no children with my husband (and never will), I would not be entitled to it.
And I don't get any of his death in service either, it goes to his children for the duration of his employment,
Ouch man I better take out a policy on him, I am very exposed here.
 
In the unlooked for instance of your late husband's demise; his former wife will need to make her own application to DSP.

DSP will make that decision based on the conditions that apply at that time.
 
arbitron said:
I know my spouse over a decade and we share all these nice goodies because of our marriage cert. But my single friend can't share any of these benefits with her single sister of 40+ years. Why not?
Click to expand...
Because they are not married. If they live in the same home then there's no tax liability there.
arbitron said:
One of them dies and the other has a huge tax bill on any inheritance. Jack and Jill down the road who met last year and got married on Sunday pay nothing. And we all know platonic pairs who are closer than some married couples.
Click to expand...
They could still get married, as long as they aren't related.

arbitron said:
The delusion that marriage was about children is thankfully fading - it was of course always about property, power, and patriarchal lineage.
Click to expand...
Yep, thankfully that's changed.
Now it is generally more advantageous to women. We can than Charlie Haughey for the great work he did in making sure women were protected under the law with the Succession Act and the Family Home Protection Act. He was a great feminist and women's equality advocate.
As a divorced man with three children living with me I get the same tax allowances as a single person but my ex-wife, with no dependent children living with her, gets a double personal allowance. That's only because she's a woman. She also gets the children's allowance. I'd have to go to court to change that.
arbitron said:
We could have a mechanism for individuals in a non-romantic relationship to be able to get the benefits of marriage.
Click to expand...
They can, they can get married.
arbitron said:
I'm surprised that more fiscal conservatives and libertarians are not pushing for this as it would allow people to minimise their tax burden.
Click to expand...
Push for what? They can get married now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top