Legal status as unmarried partners

M

michaelm

Registered User
Messages
2,077
Moderator note: split from this thread where it was not .

RainyDay said:
I don't believe there are any circumstances where an unmarried couple can be taxed as a couple under current legislation. As for the 'why' question, we could spend weeks on that.
Click to expand...
As to the 'why', the state has discriminated in terms of tax in favour of married couples as the Family based on marriage is seen as the best model for raising children and underpinning society in general. This bias towards marriage has been diluted in recent years with the steady creep of Individualisation. I suspect that ultimately any tax benefits for married couples will be done away with in the interests of 'equality'. Everyone in the country is entitled to marry someone from the opposite sex (assuming they are agreeable to this), surely that's equality.
 
Unless you happen to be one of those who would prefer to marry the same sex. You can't have only some people equal and call it equality.
 
Gordanus said:
Unless you happen to be one of those who would prefer to marry the same sex. You can't have only some people equal and call it equality.
Click to expand...

Nicely put - Equality is there for all - not the select few.

Bad test case in the UK this week - An English same sex couple tried to get their (Full, Equal) canadian marriage granted the same rights in law as would be granted to them if they were M-F. So while there is an equality law - They were discriminated against because one of them was female (if she was male - there would be no case) or because of their sexuality (if they were straight there would be no case).

Cant wait to see the Irish version of this case when it finally hits the courts. Especially since we dont have an "equivalent" civil partnership type arranglement to equate it too
 
Sol28 said:
Nicely put - Equality is there for all - not the select few.
Click to expand...
The Equality Authority, GLEN, and friends are flogging a dead horse with this same sex marriage stuff. Sol28, both you and I have the same marital rights ie. to marry someone of the opposite sex. I can no more marry someone of the same sex than you can; oh, and my old posts are not worth trawling through:).
 
michaelm said:
The Equality Authority, GLEN, and friends are flogging a dead horse with this same sex marriage stuff.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not especially when same sex civil partnerships and adoption rights are already available in the other jurisdiction on this island and elsewhere in the EU. Personally I reckon it's only a matter of time before there's something similar in the Republic.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=northern+ireland+same+sex+partnership&btnG=Search+News
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=spain+gay+marriage&btnG=Search+News
 
Who says that marriage is the best building block for raising children and society? Hetrosexual monogomy may be dominant in most Western civilisations but surely its recognition in law is merely a reflection of its prevalance. Marriage (monogomous and polygomous) has been a constant in successful and distastrous societies alike, so it can't be the cause of either one or the other. And everyone knows its roots were originally more to do with protecting inheritance (i.e. money and land) than society.

Since time immemoriam marriage has been enshrined in law or enforced by societal pressures but ignored in private practise. I think we are maturing and want a less hypocritical legislature that reflects reality rather than enforcing a blanket ideal. As more of us are educated to higher standards, the less we are prepared to accept law as a means of keeping us in line as good little soldiers in an economy, oops I mean society, and the more we want the law to do what it's supposed to - to make it as easy as possible for us all to live together in peace/harmony, including protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

I think too that as more of us gain even a basic grasp of mainstream psychology we become convinced that the "sweeping under the rug" of things is more unhealthy and destructive on an individual and societal level than the alternative of facing (the often not-so-nice) facts.

Also, if we take michaelm's logic a little further; what if you want to marry and choose not to have children; isn't that wilful abuse of the institution? Shouldn't the couple be viewed as individuals from a taxation point of view?

I'm not anti-marriage. But I'm pro minimal intervention in people's private lives by the government. A lifestyle choice of the majority should not be rewarded with tax breaks at the expense of the minority.

Rebecca
 
MissRibena said:
Who says that marriage is the best building block for raising children and society?
Click to expand...
Article 41 of BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN for one.
MissRibena said:
As more of us are educated to higher standards . . I think too that as more of us gain even a basic grasp of mainstream psychology . .
Click to expand...
If I were paranoid I might think that you are suggesting that those of a different opinion than you, including me, are simply not as smart as you. :)
MissRibena said:
Also, if we take michaelm's logic a little further; what if you want to marry and choose not to have children; isn't that wilful abuse of the institution? Shouldn't the couple be viewed as individuals from a taxation point of view?
Click to expand...
Yes. Absolutely. The tax system should favour families i.e. parents with children.
MissRibena said:
I'm not anti-marriage. But I'm pro minimal intervention in people's private lives by the government. A lifestyle choice of the majority should not be rewarded with tax breaks at the expense of the minority.
Click to expand...
It is in the States interest to discriminate in favour of families under the tax system. For the State to maintain a stable and healthy population there needs to be an average 2.1 children born per woman. It is also in the interest of childless people that the state encourages childbirth, through various schemes, in order that in the future pensions will be paid, hospitals staffed etc., and society perpetuated. This 'lifestyle choice', as you put it, of having children is the lifeblood of society.
 
michaelm said:
Article 41 of BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN for one.
Click to expand...

Yes but it's only a reflection of what the population want, not an absolute truth in itself.

michaelm said:
If I were paranoid I might think that you are suggesting that those of a different opinion than you, including me, are simply not as smart as you. :)
Click to expand...

Education and intelligence are not the same. High levels of education based on logic for all members of society in an environment of freedom of expression can only lead to tolerance. If the education comes from another source which claims a source for truth outside the individual's ability to think a subject through logically (e.g. a religion), then that will clearly lead to conflicting opinions. That's what we have now. But even so, I think the movement away from Catholic edict will lead to a shift in the majority opinion and a change in the Constitution.

First you said:

michaelm said:
As to the 'why', the state has discriminated in terms of tax in favour of married couples as the Family based on marriage is seen as the best model for raising children and underpinning society in general.
Click to expand...
(bold type is mine)

.. which I take issue with because I don't think marriage is here nor there in society.

But then you said:

michaelm said:
It is in the States interest to discriminate in favour of families under the tax system. ..... This 'lifestyle choice', as you put it, of having children is the lifeblood of society.
Click to expand...

No mention of marriage, which is fine by me. So which is it?

The livestyle choice I referred to was whether or not people choose to get married (the children were not the lifestyle choice I was writing about - that's a seperate issue). I'm not against people who need state assistance in rearing their children getting it; I just don't think that it should be dependent on whether the child's parents are married or not.

BTW, how many children per man does the state need and where does the 2.1 come from?

Rebecca
 
MissRibena said:
Education and intelligence are not the same. High levels of education based on logic for all members of society in an environment of freedom of expression can only lead to tolerance. If the education comes from another source which claims a source for truth outside the individual's ability to think a subject through logically (e.g. a religion), then that will clearly lead to conflicting opinions.
Click to expand...
Why? You say this as if it were an absolute truth. What leads you to this conclusion? Iran has a very high level of education that they see as logical. Your second point seeks to negate this type of education but any individuals logical thought framework is based on the environment that they live in. Many very clever people can construct a logical argument that proposes that your humanist views are bad for society and the individual.
Personally I agree with you but I lack your moral certainty. In other words things are better now as we move to a more agnostic society but it may turn out that the inevitability (IMHO) of less social cohesion creates more problems than it solves in the long run.

MissRibena said:
The livestyle choice I referred to was whether or not people choose to get married (the children were not the lifestyle choice I was writing about - that's a seperate issue). I'm not against people who need state assistance in rearing their children getting it; I just don't think that it should be dependent on whether the child's parents are married or not.
Click to expand...
I think that in general marriage, civil or religious, is the best framework to raise children in. Therefore I see no problem with favouring a married couple over an unmarried couple from a taxation point of view.

MissRibena said:
BTW, how many children per man does the state need and where does the 2.1 come from?
Click to expand...
Men don't have children. They are not biologically able. Once the child is born they are responsible for the ones they fathered but that's not relevant in the context of the point that michaelm was making. Since the population is split about 50/50 between men and women in order to maintain the population. The extra 0.1 allows for those who die young and the desired organic increase.
 
MissRibena said:
Yes but it's only a reflection of what the population want, not an absolute truth in itself.
Click to expand...
In practice/law the former, in particular in the form of the constitution of the state, is more relevant than the latter whether you or others like it or not.
 
ClubMan said:
In practice/law the former, in particular in the form of the constitution of the state, is more relevant than the latter whether you or others like it or not.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see Bertie and Enda Kenny debating the relative and absolute truths underpinning a piece of legislation.:)
 
michaelm said:
The Equality Authority, GLEN, and friends are flogging a dead horse with this same sex marriage stuff. Sol28, both you and I have the same marital rights ie. to marry someone of the opposite sex. I can no more marry someone of the same sex than you can; oh, and my old posts are not worth trawling through:).
Click to expand...

Sorry - But when I saw your opinion on the previous thead I was just interested in your general perception. Hence re-raising this discussion.

I think every society needs balanced discussions to make it healthy. A dictated view from a govenment or religious head is not healthy. There is one prominent religious figurehead which I have issues with and specifically in how they are trying to dictate the laws of certain countries with a high population of that religion.

Church and state should be seperate. So many of our laws were written with a religious view point. This is not a healthy way for a society to exist and develop. Science has shown that there are natural variations in populations - some of those variations preclude the possibility of children. Should natural sterility be a reason for exclusion. Are married childless couples entitled to be married - Since marriage by your view point is for the raising of a family?

Laws as they stand do favour the couple with kids - the childrens allowance, the new annual sum introduced in last years budget, even the provision of education - all state funded - My tax and yours. I fully agree with this - Kids are our future - But how would me getting married devalue your marriage? I would only be making a life and contributing to society in the same way as you did when (if) you got married.

There was a horrible case I heard of down in Cork (?) recently. A M-M couple - together for years. Lived on the family farm of one of the guys. The farm owner developed parkinsons. So he signed over his farm to his partner to look after him in his old age. The partner unfortunalty died of cancer first. The original owner paid something like €30,000 in inheritance tax on his own family farm. No society can condone that, surely?
 
Like I said, my point about education and logical thought progession is dependent on freedom of expression. I don't think Iran fits the model that well. The more religious influence you have, the less pure rationality you can have. So no state (or very few) will be purely one or the other but the more room for logical thought and freedom of expression you have, the more likely people will move away from a societal model based on historical religious/feudal/patriarchial norms.

This is really an aside but in general, I don't agree with tax breaks automically for those with children. If you can't afford them, then no problem; state support should be provided. It's the duty of society to look after those that cannot provide for themselves (IMHO). No-one should feel restricted from having children because of money. Those with the money to support their children themselves, should do so without recourse to state. The way I look at it, the very fact of having kids isn't necessarily to the automatic benefit of society so there shouldn't be automatic tax breaks. You could argue that plenty of childless people contribute to society in ways that simply wouldn't be possible had they had children. You could also argue that every child is not to society's benefit. There are some scary statistics about this stuff but I don't want to get overly controversial on this part of the issue that isn't so close to my heart.

The 2.1 thing is funny to me probably because my feminist slant colours some of this stuff. I just think it's ironic that the two posters proposing the stability of marriage by the use of a statistic that relies on the children being tied to their mother while their married (?) father has a hazy status. Don't loose the heads guys! :)

And sure I recognise the Constitution is more powerful than my opinion but if I persuade enough people, one day we might be as one :)

Rebecca
 
MissRibena said:
Like I said, my point about education and logical thought progession is dependent on freedom of expression. I don't think Iran fits the model that well. The more religious influence you have, the less pure rationality you can have. So no state (or very few) will be purely one or the other but the more room for logical thought and freedom of expression you have, the more likely people will move away from a societal model based on historical religious/feudal/patriarchial norms.
Click to expand...
In general I agree with you. And this is better for the individual but it may result in a less stable society. This causes it’s own problems.

MissRibena said:
This is really an aside but in general, I don't agree with tax breaks automically for those with children. If you can't afford them, then no problem; state support should be provided. It's the duty of society to look after those that cannot provide for themselves (IMHO). No-one should feel restricted from having children because of money. Those with the money to support their children themselves, should do so without recourse to state. The way I look at it, the very fact of having kids isn't necessarily to the automatic benefit of society so there shouldn't be automatic tax breaks. You could argue that plenty of childless people contribute to society in ways that simply wouldn't be possible had they had children. You could also argue that every child is not to society's benefit. There are some scary statistics about this stuff but I don't want to get overly controversial on this part of the issue that isn't so close to my heart.
Click to expand...
Again I agree. The reason that the state should encourage marriage through the taxation system is to encourage people to commit to a stable relationship to raise their children. This is accepted as the best model. It may not be but as long as it is accepted as being the state is right to do what it does.


MissRibena said:
The 2.1 thing is funny to me probably because my feminist slant colours some of this stuff. I just think it's ironic that the two posters proposing the stability of marriage by the use of a statistic that relies on the children being tied to their mother while their married (?) father has a hazy status. Don't loose the heads guys! :)
Click to expand...
The point about the 2.1 thing has nothing to do with a fathers role in marriage. It is a point on biology and population sustainability. The state needs 2.1 children per woman over her life. One man is biologically capable if fathering them all so that's why men aren't used in the equation.
 
MissRibena said:
(Purple and michaelm are different people, aren't they?)
Click to expand...
Yes. Purple is far more articulate than I am; indeed, I may have briefly crossed swords with him on some thread way back in the day, and also with MissRibena but that may have been before AAM switched host:). Stick to your feminist guns MissRibena and don't worry about the 2.1 thing, we're due our fifth on Christmas day so we've got you covered;).
 
Who accepts marriage as the best model and on what basis? Has someone assessed the contribution to society of children of married parents compared to those of cohabiting couples/single parents/same sex couples? I don't think so. Or has someone assessed what kind of a marriage provides the "best model"; surely not a discontented marriage? Marriage doesn't guarantee stability of any meaningful kind. And what's so good about stability anyway; the world is in constant flux; maybe adaptable kids would be better for society. Marriage may look stable through a historical lense because there was no divorce but that's back to the hypocrisy thing again. Of course marriage will look stable if there was no other real option in the first place and no way real way out of it in the second. To be frank, I think people's opinions about the special place for marriage is based on religious beliefs and/or sentimentality rather than on anything that might persuade a rational thinker.

Even if you could prove that marriage was the best environment for raising children (of presumably the better type), I still wouldn't agree that it is the state's place to encourage or reward it. Because then you have the state shaping the society rather than the society shaping the state and you're on a very rocky road IMO. The state should only interfere when it's necessary. What if we discovered that only the wealthy and well-educated raise the kind of kids we want in society, would we only give the tax breaks to them?

Rebecca

PS I'd still like to see the science behind the 2.1 stat. Not that I don't believe you like :)
 
MissRibena said:
PS I'd still like to see the science behind the 2.1 stat. Not that I don't believe you like :)
Click to expand...
I don't want to upset your feminist or intellectual sensibilities by suggesting that girls aren't great at maths, so I wont;). On the basis that the population is 50/50 male and female and the children born are also 50/50 male and female, and, As Purple explained, men cannot give birth to children so that leaves the other half of the population (women) to produce on average 2 children over their lifetime in order to replace themselves and one man (both of whom will expire at some point), thus maintaining the population. As Purple states 'The extra 0.1 allows for those who die young and the desired organic increase.'
 
MissRibena said:
Who accepts marriage as the best model and on what basis?
Click to expand...
The state did when they put it in out constitution. The basis was perceived wisdom.
MissRibena said:
Has someone assessed the contribution to society of children of married parents compared to those of cohabiting couples/single parents/same sex couples? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I don't either.
MissRibena said:
Or has someone assessed what kind of a marriage provides the "best model"; surely not a discontented marriage? Marriage doesn't guarantee stability of any meaningful kind.
Click to expand...
Nothing is guarinteed in this context. All the state can do is legislate for what they think will best serve society in general.

MissRibena said:
And what's so good about stability anyway; the world is in constant flux; maybe adaptable kids would be better for society. Marriage may look stable through a historical lense because there was no divorce but that's back to the hypocrisy thing again. Of course marriage will look stable if there was no other real option in the first place and no way real way out of it in the second. To be frank, I think people's opinions about the special place for marriage is based on religious beliefs and/or sentimentality rather than on anything that might persuade a rational thinker.
Click to expand...
You're getting uppity again;)

MissRibena said:
Even if you could prove that marriage was the best environment for raising children (of presumably the better type), I still wouldn't agree that it is the state's place to encourage or reward it. Because then you have the state shaping the society rather than the society shaping the state and you're on a very rocky road IMO. The state should only interfere when it's necessary. What if we discovered that only the wealthy and well-educated raise the kind of kids we want in society, would we only give the tax breaks to them?
Click to expand...
I disagree on your first point and don't see why the second follows the first. As for "What if's"; what if your aunty had balls...

MissRibena said:
(Purple and michaelm are different people, aren't they?)
Click to expand...
Yes. He's more prolific than me by one, soon to be two. Between the two of us we've let two of you feminist types off the hook!:D He’s probably less argumentative as well.
 
Well seeing as you're not casting aspersions on my maths, I won't cast them on your English :)

LOL, I see where both of you are coming from with the figures. What I don't see is why 2.1 children per woman (although this must be skewed for Iceland presumably!) is the magic number required to maintain
michaelm said:
a stable and healthy population
Click to expand...
. At best, all it will do is perpetuate the population figures (I have me doubts about the 0.1 bit too); the population's stability and health will remain unchanged.

What's happened to this site - once upon a time you wouldn't just post a stat off the top of your head willy nilly or you'd have to run for cover. Standards lads, standards :)

Rebecca
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top