The referendum, as it is intended, helps people like me. I would, in theory, be able to claim children's allowance for by school aged children who live with me without going to court. As a divorced parent I could get the same additional income tax allowance that divorced women receive. My concern is that the unintended consequences could be many and expensive since we live in a rights based (but not responsibility based) society with a very generous welfare system.This isn't about the woman's place in the home and it is worrying that this is how it is being framed. It is extending the definition of family beyond traditional marriage to include 'durable relationships'. Has huge implications for tax, inheritance, children custody etc.
It's hugely welcome but also extremely complicated.
Unmarried couples with children do not get the same tax benefits as married couples with children but get treated the same for social welfare which is grossly unfair. Men are also treated very badly when it comes to custody rights just because they are not married.
This will change that. You shouldn't have to marry to get treated the same by the State.
The referendum, as it is intended, helps people like me. I would, in theory, be able to claim children's allowance for by school aged children who live with me without going to court. As a divorced parent I could get the same additional income tax allowance that divorced women receive. My concern is that the unintended consequences could be many and expensive since we live in a rights based (but not responsibility based) society with a very generous welfare system.
It will also have major implications around inheritance tax for the children of blended families where the parents aren't married.
All that said I'm not sure that it's a good idea to discourage marriage.
Our kind of Democracy has its faults, weaknesses and drawbacks, but it is the best of what's around. Let's keep it.We are having a referendum to remove the reference to the role of women in the home next March. I think that's a good idea but why can't we just remove that bit instead of replacing it with some new definition of what a family is? That sort of stuff has no place in a Constitution.
I'm not a fan of referendums. People are smart but the Mob isn't. Referendums can be won and lost on a narrative built on emotion. I'm not an expert on legislation so I pay some people to act as experts on my behalf. They are called TD's.Our kind of Democracy has its faults, weaknesses and drawbacks, but it is the best of what's around. Let's keep it.
No, but it gives the relationship a standing in law and confers rights to shares assets, inheritance and the status of the children. I don't see an alternative structure, or lack thereof, that can perform the same function.Marriage doesn't mean people love each other more than unmarried committed couples and it doesn't mean either party won't do their hardest to hurt the other person.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?