Will we save on income tax if we marry or stay single?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same sex people asked & lobbied for Civil Marriage, not a cut down subset of it, which is what Civil Partnership is.

Yes I agree the same options should be there for everyone, but please dont make it sound like the minorities asked that the majority be excluded!


Any why would anybody in the majority think it was discriminatory to have more rights and want instead to benefit from less rights in a civil partnership, seems crazy to me!
 
Any why would anybody in the majority think it was discriminatory to have more rights and want instead to benefit from less rights in a civil partnership, seems crazy to me!

To me, it's not about "more" or "less".

Same sex couples are bing discriminated against by not being allowed to marry.

Heterosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed to enter civil partnerships.

Both of the above statements are true. The motivation of individuals is irrelevant!

Consider a heterosexual couple who may want to make the commitment to each other, but don't have the money for the big wedding that one of them wants. They could enter into a civil partnership, which would at least give the relationship some kind of status, such as tax benefits, to help save for the wedding they ultimately intend to have. Now I know that isn't necessarily the intention of the Civil Partnership Legislation, as it's supposed to be an alternative to marriage, but it could explain what may appear crazy to you!!
 
To me, it's not about "more" or "less".

Same sex couples are bing discriminated against by not being allowed to marry.

Heterosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed to enter civil partnerships.

Both of the above statements are true. The motivation of individuals is irrelevant!

True!
 
I reckon if I could get a SC to take a Supreme Court case or a European case on it, we could get civil partnership for heterosexual couples - but since when do they care about equality for the majority; it's all about the minorities in the politically correct world we currently inhabit.

So its not 'all about the minorities' then?
 
To me, it's not about "more" or "less".

Same sex couples are bing discriminated against by not being allowed to marry.

Heterosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed to enter civil partnerships.

Both of the above statements are true. The motivation of individuals is irrelevant!

Consider a heterosexual couple who may want to make the commitment to each other, but don't have the money for the big wedding that one of them wants. They could enter into a civil partnership, which would at least give the relationship some kind of status, such as tax benefits, to help save for the wedding they ultimately intend to have. Now I know that isn't necessarily the intention of the Civil Partnership Legislation, as it's supposed to be an alternative to marriage, but it could explain what may appear crazy to you!!

You are conflating marriage with a wedding.

It's not discriminatory for the state to not facilitate your desire for a big expensive wedding! What is stopping you undergoing a civil marriage ceremony and then having a celebratory party later? Or do what I did - simply undergo a civil marriage ceremony and focus on the commitment and life long love that decision entails and forget the whole 'beg day' palaver?
 
You are conflating marriage with a wedding.

It's not discriminatory for the state to not facilitate your desire for a big expensive wedding! What is stopping you undergoing a civil marriage ceremony and then having a celebratory party later? Or do what I did - simply undergo a civil marriage ceremony and focus on the commitment and life long love that decision entails and forget the whole 'beg day' palaver?

I'm not conflating anything with anything - an earlier poster had suggested they couldn't see any reasons why people would want to act in a certain way, and I outlined a hypothetical situation that might explain why someone (not me) might wish to act that way.

I never suggested that the state should legislate to suit the wishes of such people. My point, as I said previously, is that it's discriminatory that certain entitlements, namely marriage and civil partnership, are only available to certain classes of people, based solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

And while I (and my partner thankfully) actually agree with you about the whole "big day" palaver, please don't be so patronising to other posters - each to their own etc...
 
There is no discrimination in terms of the notification fees for a civil wedding or a civil partnership. It costs €150.00.

Taken from the General Register Office Ireland website.
Getting married
Civil partnership

Anything else you wish do as regards the wedding/ civil partnership will cost more, but the bare minimum is exactly the same.

For what it's worth, I did get married for tax purposes and it's saved us a fair amount over the last ten years.:)
 
There is no discrimination in terms of the notification fees for a civil wedding or a civil partnership. It costs €150.00.

Taken from the General Register Office Ireland website.
Getting married
Civil partnership

Anything else you wish do as regards the wedding/ civil partnership will cost more, but the bare minimum is exactly the same.

For what it's worth, I did get married for tax purposes and it's saved us a fair amount over the last ten years.:)

WHOOOOOOOOSH!

That's the point of my argument going over your head (unless you're just trolling!)

So in case you're not trolling, I'll reiterate:

Homosexual couples can't get married. This is discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
Heterosexual couples can't enter civil partnership. This is also discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
 
It's new legislation. I'd expect at some point in the future the two will become much more closely aligned. Issues relating to children's rights/adoption etc. will not doubt be contentious though.
 
I'm not trolling and I resent the implication. I posted as a point of information.

As a further point of information, anyone who is in an intimate hetrosexual relationship has legal rights under the [broken link removed]

If they are a "qualified cohabitant" (see Section 172 of the Act above for definitions) i.e in a relationship for two or more years with a child or children or if childless five or more years and are financially dependent on the other partner there are significant legal rights in relation to maintenance, property disposal, pensions etc. that accrue when the relationship breaks down.

Everybody is subject to this law, and it is possible to have a cohabitation agreement, like a pre-nup, concerning these relationships. See Section 202 of the Act.
 
I assume that the original question has been answered?

Please remember to take off topic discussions to a new thread and link back to the thread which inspired it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top