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

[E30chick]

Never understand grudges, so I probably wouldn't.

Not so much a grudge, just hate enabling people who elect to live off the state and other people's hard earned incomes, when they are completely able bodied and have no lawful / physical impediment stopping them from taking up taxable employment, that's all.

If she wants to feed off the crumbs she may get her dust pan and brush out, I eat at the top table.

 

[Right Winger]

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.

That's an interesting point. There is actually a strain of thought among some libertarians that the State should have no role in marriage and couples (or thruples or whatever) should be entirely free to come to their own contractual arrangements, romantic or platonic or whatever.

The libertarian instinct would be to reduce taxes across the board and to shrink the State and give more agency to individuals. I don't really think there'd be much support for making a tax saving conditional on complying with any particular state-mandated domestic arrangement.

 

[Purple]

That's an interesting point. There is actually a strain of thought among some libertarians that the State should have no role in marriage and couples (or thruples or whatever) should be entirely free to come to their own contractual arrangements, romantic or platonic or whatever.

The libertarian instinct would be to reduce taxes across the board and to shrink the State and give more agency to individuals. I don't really think there'd be much support for making a tax saving conditional on complying with any particular state-mandated domestic arrangement.

I'm in favour of an egalitarian society; equality of opportunity etc. Therefore I favour reducing taxes on earned income (work) and increasing taxes on unearned income such as inheritance, dividends etc. I'm also in favour of wealth taxes but not higher taxes on high income.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

There is actually a strain of thought among some libertarians that the State should have no role in marriage and couples (or thruples or whatever) should be entirely free to come to their own contractual arrangements, romantic or platonic or whatever.

There are wider social benefits to long-term, monogamous relationships and in my view the tax-benefit system should give it some support.

I agree it should be possible to tailor a marriage contract however to some extent and pre-nups should be given validity under Irish law.

But I think that (like with many things) a simple, commonly-understood legal default of what marriage is should still prevail. Allowing people to vary marriage contracts too much can put one party at a big disadvantage.

As a general point I see far too many money makeovers on AAM where unmarried partners are running the risk of large tax bills and lack of eligibility to survivors' benefits. For most people living together in stable, monogamous relationships it makes sense to marry.

 

[Purple]

There are wider social benefits to long-term, monogamous relationships and in my view the tax-benefit system should give it some support.

So why does our welfare system encourage the opposite?

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

Interesting case of a man suing the state claiming he is entitled to widower's pension even though he was never married to his late partner and mother of his children:

The appeals brought by John O’Meara and his children, of Toomervara, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, concern the Minister for Protection’s refusal to grant him the Widower’s (Contributory) Pension following the death of Michelle Batey, who was his partner of more than 20 years and the children’s mother.

Ms Batey died in January 2021 after contracting Covid-19 when she was recovering from breast cancer.

Mr O’Meara, an agricultural contractor, and his children, who are suing through him, claim sections of the 2005 Social Welfare Consolidation Act are discriminatory in preventing him from receiving the pension due to not being married to or in a civil partnership with his late partner.

 

[Marsupial]

Interesting case of a man suing the state claiming he is entitled to widower's pension even though he was never married to his late partner and mother of his children:

The Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 outlaw discrimination in " all services that are generally available to the public whether provided by the state or the private sector."
The grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Equal Status Acts include:

• ‘the civil status ground’ (formerly marital status) and
• ‘the family status ground’

given this, it's hard to see how the State can justify discriminating against a widower just because he wasn't married to his late partner.

(But then I'm no lawyer! I am however a right wing nutter, so my suggested solution is for the government to abolish the survivor's pension for everyone! )

 

[DannyBoyD]

discriminating against a widower just because he wasn't married to his late partner

Doubt the case will succeed.

There is a simple remedy available to couples who wish to be able to avail of these benefits.

Update - from what is in the article, the case didn't succeed.

 

[Cervelo]

it's hard to see how the State can justify discriminating against a widower just because he wasn't married to his late partner.

But to be a "Widower" you have to be married first, just saying

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

But to be a "Widower" you have to be married first, just saying

It's worth reading the article.

The legal argument seems to be that the children are being financially deprived on the grounds of the marital status of their parents.

 

[Marsupial]

But to be a "Widower" you have to be married first, just saying

Ah, but in 2023, the delicious word "Widower" is wokespeak for bereaved partner!

 

[Marsupial]

It's worth reading the article.

The legal argument seems to be that the children are being financially deprived on the grounds of the marital status of their parents.

Yep; and to my layman's eyes it looks as though the Supreme Court judges didn't like that approach so have asked the plaintiffs to rejig their case and try again.