Marraige questions

AdamOHare

I was going to post this in the wedding category, but I figured it would probably get a better response here as I doubt "single" men would visit the wedding section very often.

So Im wondering about marriage.

Now forget the religious end and forget the "what if you dont like her in a years time" end of things. They're whole different arguments for a different day.


The cons are:

The obvious big one is if we do split up I lose half my stuff..... but I think I can live with that.
The second is apparently married couples get hit harder on tax, and will be provided with less welfare if they need it... (is this true?)


The pros are:

Keeps her happy
Makes life easier AFAIK if you want to adopt (which probably will)
She can change her name (trust me, she has a certain distant relative that everybody asks about when they hear her surname)


Now is there anything Im missing on either list? Im particularly interested in things like the tax and welfare point. Id hate to pay higher taxes every year just because married :mad:

dutopia

AdamOHare wrote: »

I was going to post this in the wedding category, but I figured it would probably get a better response here as I doubt "single" men would visit the wedding section very often.

So Im wondering about marriage.

Now forget the religious end and forget the "what if you dont like her in a years time" end of things. They're whole different arguments for a different day.


The cons are:

The obvious big one is if we do split up I lose half my stuff..... but I think I can live with that.
The second is apparently married couples get hit harder on tax, and will be provided with less welfare if they need it... (is this true?)


The pros are:

Keeps her happy
Makes life easier AFAIK if you want to adopt (which probably will)
She can change her name (trust me, she has a certain distant relative that everybody asks about when they hear her surname)


Now is there anything Im missing on either list? Im particularly interested in things like the tax and welfare point. Id hate to pay higher taxes every year just because married :mad:

Hmm, where to start. Firstly: I'm married.

Cons: Losing half your stuff... first off all how do you know it's all your stuff? If your wife makes contributions to income etc it may be shared. If you mean you only get half of your combined 'stuff', I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly by saying you could live with that. What about your family home? The place you've built all your memories since you were married, who knows what else you may have to lose that may be very hard to be separated from. It's not a case of wife keeps the PS3 and you keep the Xbox (Personally I would make sure I'd have the Xbox).

I don't see how married couples get hit with more taxes... anyone have references for this?

Pros: I'd hope you'd want to both be happy, if you're just trying to make her happy that's not going to end well. I don't even know why you brought up those other points, but anyway... IMO, marriage has the following benefits:

• Gives you a very clear direction in life. The two of you are working together to make yourself happy and have a great life together.
• You always have someone there to accept everything about you, friends are great but if you have a really deep relationship with your partner it's healthy to talk about everything with them.
• It gives you a certain 'status' which can be beneficial in the workplace and in social circles: Boss may consider you more responsible, more settled now that you're married. He knows you have commitments and will work hard to fulfill them.
• New female friends seem to trust you more easily since they figure if a girl dedicated her life to being with you, you must be doing something right.
• Dude, overall you have to love the hell out of her, if you're thinking marriage is a bad idea just because of tax/welfare stuff I think you've got it all wrong!

Challo

I thought it was the opposite - if you're married, you get better tax breaks?

helimachoptor

Challo wrote: »

I thought it was the opposite - if you're married, you get better tax breaks?

I think thats only presuming the wife stays at home with the kids and you get her tax free allowance, so more net pay.

Married nearly a year, so far its been pretty good :pac:

Most stressful thing about getting married for me is actually getting married!

dutopia

helimachoptor wrote: »

I think thats only presuming the wife stays at home with the kids and you get her tax free allowance, so more net pay.

Married nearly a year, so far its been pretty good :pac:

Most stressful thing about getting married for me is actually getting married!

That was super easy for me, I got married in a foreign country... went into registration office, signed some forms, done in 5 minutes.

helimachoptor

dutopia wrote: »

That was super easy for me, I got married in a foreign country... went into registration office, signed some forms, done in 5 minutes.

That was going to be the plan but grand parents too old to travel, we book something in ireland, then they all die :eek:

Aineoil

dutopia says

dutopia wrote: »

[*]Dude, overall you have to love the hell out of her, if you're thinking marriage is a bad idea just because of tax/welfare stuff I think you've got it all wrong!
[/LIST]

I agree with this sentiment totally

The Big Red Button

Married people get better tax credits. So you can take that off your 'cons' list.

I'm pretty sure welfare works out the same whether you're married or not (assuming you're living together.)

Don't get married to keep her happy. Worst way you could possibly start a marriage!

As for the name change - she can change her name anyways, if she wants to.

As for adoption, I'm sure there are ways and means even if you aren't married? Certainly something you'll have to research further yourself.

It sounds to me like the only reason you're even considering marriage is for an easy life, the path of least resistance. Terrible reason to get married, in my opinion, and unfair on both yourself and your girlfriend.

Pawwed Rig

Tax is a non issue if you are both on PAYE and both earning > €32,800 a year. There is a slight benefit to being married if one partner is not working or on a low income. There are no tax disadvantages I can think of to being married.
Everyones tax is different though so it would depend on your personal circumstances.

Pre nup agreements have no basis in Irish law (before someone mentions them).

She doesn't need to get married to change her second name.

The welfare point I don't really know about but I would think that your household income would be taken into account. This is irrelevant though as it will be taken into account when you are living together anyway (before marriage).

You are probably right wrt adoption.

adamski8

I think the only thing the OP got right was the adoption issue.

A big pro is that you have the right to visit yoir partner in hospital say if they are critically ill, something which can be denied if your not.

seamus

If "to keep her happy" is top of the your "pros" list, then you don't want to get married.

Also, IMO, if you're getting married and "what if we split up" is a realistic outcome in your mind, then you probably shouldn't get married. Being pragmatic is one thing, being pessimistic is another. I'm married; for me, "What if we split up" is a possibility, but then so is winning the lotto. That's the level of surety I'm talking about.
If you think "what if we split up" is as realistic as "what if I lose my job", then you're probably not that secure in the relationship...

As said, tax is a non issue. At worst nothing changes, at best you benefit.

Pawwed Rig

adamski8 wrote: »

A big pro is that you have the right to visit yoir partner in hospital say if they are critically ill, something which can be denied if your not.

Not forgetting inheritance rights if anything tragic were to happen.

Corkbah

im getting married later this year and never even thought of those things ..... OP ... might be time to take a good look at your life/relationship.

Where do you both want to be in 5yrs, 10yrs, 20yrs, etc

I currently have income tax issues so its something that we have looked at as a couple .... once you are married you have the option of being jointly assessed or individually assessed - so your tax situation doesn't have to change if you don't want it to.

have you also considered if you have any kids, how do you raise them ? (religion, discipline, schooling, etc) ...its important to discuss things like this with your partner.

Sanchez83

I am getting married later this year.
In the exception of wondering if we could afford it,i dont think i ever looked at it in terms of pros and cons.
Its something that either your 100% sure you want to do or not at all.

pwurple

You have it upside down with the tax. Individualisation removed the previous advantages, but there are advantages are if there is a difference in income, so if one person loses a job or goes part time, the other gets their tax credits. There is also an extra tax credit for children. I can't think why welfare would be lower. Should be the same.

There is tax free transfer of assets between married couples. Shares, property, that kind of thing. It makes a difference with shares, as you now get double the tax free allowance before the taxes if you transfer to spouse and both sell.

It can make a difference for insurance, lowers risk apparantly, so that gets cheaper.

Getting a mortgage, apparantly you are a better bet if married.

For us, marriage was just linking us to eachother, rather than our parents for the following:
-Inheritance. Now we inherit eachothers stuff tax free in case of death. Previously our parents inherit by default, partner could be named, but pay whatever inheritance tax is... 40%?
-Next of kin. We got in an awkward situation when there was a medical issue and I couldn't consent to the treatment for him. Had to call his mum for it... seemed a bit stupid in our 30's to have to do that.
-Guardianship. The father becomes legal guardian by default if the parents are married. Not so otherwise.

Disadvantages would be if you can't stand the person, it's a good bit of hassle to disconnect yourself from them. So if you're not planning on staying together for a longish time, I'd give it a miss.

Peregrinus

As to the cons:

Losing half your stuff - If you do break up, all your stuff (and hers) is up for grabs. But, since a law change a bit over a year ago, this is also true if you are simply shacked up, as opposed to married.

The law change is too recently made to be able to say whether the the courts will take the same approach to dividing the assets of unmarried couples as they do to the assets of married couples. We’ll need to have a few cases, and a few appeals, under our belts before we know the answer to that one. While they have all the powers that they would have on the breakdown of a marriage, they may tend to exercise their powers differently where the couple have never made any commitments of mutual support, etc, to one another.

But, at a minimum, it’s no longer true to say that by not marrying you protect your assets in the event of a breakup. They are very much in play.

Tax - As others have said, the tax effects may be neutral, or they may be beneficial - sometimes very beneficial. They are never disadvantageous.

The tax benefit is greatest where one partner has low income, or none. As long as you are both working, and earning a reasonable salary, there is no benefit, but if you think that in the future one of you might work less or not at all for a time - while providing childcare, while caring for an elderly relative, due to personal ill-health, while going back to full-time education, whatever - then the tax advantage would really come into play.

As to the pros:

Adoption - Yes, a considerable help, if you want to adopt as a couple.

And, though you didn’t mention natural childbirth, as a bloke I’d very much want to be married if and when that happened - legal presumption of paternity, no issue or doubt about guardianship, absolute equality of position as regards parenting with the mother.

Pros you didn’t mention:

Myself and herself lived together before we married. Then, we married, and it did make a difference. Hard to put your finger on it, quite intangible, and yet we both felt it changed our relationship signficantly, and for the better. Deciding to make that commitment, and to make it formally, and to make it publicly, and to share it with our family and our friends, couldn’t but be a signficant development for us. But of course I can’t guarantee that everybody will experience this the same way.

And there’s lots of smaller stuff like your position should she die without making a will. Of course, you can both make wills. And there are various other things you can do to secure legal, administrative, social etc treatment as a couple. But the fact is that if you marry all the adminstrative and bureaucratic “defaults” line up with the reality, which is that you are a couple. At a minimum, you are saved hassle and expense going around making wills and executing powers of attorney and whatnot, and it could matter a bit more if, heaven forbid, one of you is medically incapacitated and the question arises about who has the right to make medical and care decisions. This would probably get sorted out if the situation arose, but it’s a hassle you could do without at that point.

iptba

Cons (?): A lot of women get pregnant within a couple of years of getting married. If you're not ready for that, you might want to postpone it for a while. Of course, a lot of women won't wait indefinitely either to have children (i.e. might have them anyway even if not married), or if you're not showing willingness to commit (i.e. could leave).

pwurple

iptba wrote: »

Cons (?): A lot of women get pregnant within a couple of years of getting married. If you're not ready for that, you might want to postpone it for a while. Of course, a lot of women won't wait indefinitely either to have children (i.e. might have them anyway even if not married), or if you're not showing willingness to commit (i.e. could leave).

The OP has said they want to adopt, which implies fertility issues. So I imagine getting pregnant would be a Pro rather than a con.

fenris

Getting married does make a big difference, we were together for 12 years so I reckon I have some basis for before and after.

When we got married and it made a difference in a good way, lads make the mental commitment at engagement, girls don't seem to really believe it until after the wedding!.

The next 10 years were great, we had our moments as everyone who is not a doormat does, but there was an order of magnitude more ups than downs. You pull together more than you thought possible and the expression "other half" is actually true, you kind of grow into each other for want of a better expression. We had two fantastic kids, which is a real two person job, you can do it on your own but it is hard.

From a legal perspective the next of kin thing is very very important as has been mentioned before. You are a legal stranger to the other person and this is enforced in hospital type situations.

When my wife died suddenly late last year it really bought home how close you get without fully realising it. The mental and emotional hit is massive.
Being married, I was able to see her in the hospital, make the funeral arrangements without having to get permission from anybody else. I am lucky in that her family are fantastic and incredibly supportive so there was no issue.

We were quite organised as we were due to close on a new house the next day so we had a lot of the paperwork that becomes very important to hand, but it is still a bureaucratic nightmare that you never want to have to deal with, but the chances are that half of us will have to.

Being married makes a huge difference in getting through that stuff as you are the go to person and can actually fill in the documentation. There is a lot of stuff around the kids that goes smoother if you are married that otherwise would pass out of your control.

The main thing is that we made sure never to part on a bad word or leave things unsaid, no matter how late for work it made us, if there was anything left unsaid or needed taking back it would have made coping much harder.

Not being married would have felt like a great big additional open wound that would never be possible to set right.

If you love her and she loves you, you are good together and will stick by each other in the face of all the world has to throw/give then just go for it, don't spend you time waiting for something better, make the time you have better instead.

wallycharlo

If your misses is the type who really would like to be married, then you're going to find it difficult to give it a swerve indefinietly.

In the Ireland of yesteryear marriage had real practical implications, as living together was simply not the done thing done. These days though the majority of the population would not bat an eyelid at a couple co-habiting, having children outside of wedlock, etc. Hence marriage has become largely more symbolic of a sense of permanence rather than a thing of absolute necessity. Some people may be able to achieve or feel an adequate sense of commitment by such gestures as buying a house together, having children, etc, but for others the big day out must be included in order have the same sense of fulfillment.

It's a very personal decision at the end of the day.

helimachoptor

@fenris, that is a very very true post.

AdamOHare

I talked to the person at the source of my confusion regarding tax, and what she actually said (I must have been only half listening the first time around) was that shes married and out paying tax at work, whereas her co workers (single mothers) are working less hours claiming all sorts of benefits and making just as much and that she'd be better as an unmarried mother. (yeh she went on a long rant about it).

I have to be honest. I didnt realise there was so many married lads on here. Thought marraige was pretty much dead in this country.

Pawwed Rig

AdamOHare wrote: »

I have to be honest. I didnt realise there was so many married lads on here. Thought marraige was pretty much dead in this country.

It is still popular
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/birthsdeathsandmarriages/numberofbirthsdeathsandmarriages/
The rates have dropped in the last 60 years but not hugely. I guess people wait longer now than they might have before

pwurple

AdamOHare wrote: »

I talked to the person at the source of my confusion regarding tax, and what she actually said (I must have been only half listening the first time around) was that shes married and out paying tax at work, whereas her co workers (single mothers) are working less hours claiming all sorts of benefits and making just as much and that she'd be better as an unmarried mother. (yeh she went on a long rant about it).

I have to be honest. I didnt realise there was so many married lads on here. Thought marraige was pretty much dead in this country.

Unmarried mothers are single though. I assume she would still want to live with the father?

You don't qualify for any additional benefits co-habiting, whether you are married or not, and they check it pretty thoroughly.

Peregrinus

pwurple wrote: »

Unmarried mothers are single though. I assume she would still want to live with the father?

You don't qualify for any additional benefits co-habiting, whether you are married or not, and they check it pretty thoroughly.

But if you want to claim the benefit fraudulently, by claiming to be single when in fact you are partnered, being unmarried might be a help.

seamus

AdamOHare wrote: »

I have to be honest. I didnt realise there was so many married lads on here. Thought marraige was pretty much dead in this country.

Jaysus no. Being a long-term unmarried couple in your 30s or 40s would still be pretty rare in Ireland. We tend to be in relationships for a long time before getting married, but that's a cultural thing which has been around since before our grandparents.

The only real difference is that someone in a relationship saying they have no interest in marriage wouldn't be controversial any more. Noteworthy, if only because it's not typical, but very few people would find it offensive that a couple weren't married.

Even 30 years ago an unmarried couple living as if they were married would be the black sheep of most towns/families.

In relation to the tax thing, if someone tells you that they will lose money by getting married, then they're probably pulling some kind of welfare trick/scam.

wallycharlo

seamus wrote: »

... The only real difference is that someone in a relationship saying they have no interest in marriage wouldn't be controversial any more. Noteworthy, if only because it's not typical, but very few people would find it offensive that a couple weren't married ...

That's certainly true. I still get the feeling though that couples who decide to live together, buy a house, have kids etc, but without being married, are somehow looked on with some degree of cynicism; i.e. one feels compelled to justify not getting married, rather than the more logical thing of arguing out points why it would be good thing!

The Corinthian

I think most of the OP's questions have been answered, but I think a few points have been left out.

Next of kin, guardianship and inheritance and all automatically assigned rights with marriage. However, it should be pointed out that all of these may be agreed upon outside of marriage, once you get a will done or the right forms filled out. So, you don't need marriage for them, but it does take a lot of the paperwork out of the process.

One thing that was not mentioned is that it's not just loss of your assets through divorce, but that you will have to continue paying after the divorce, including sharing your pension, for the rest of your life. Levels vary and are often dependant on the wealth and occupation of both spouses, contributions, children in the relationship and the length of the marriage; however, to give you an idea, at the lowest courts the cap on spousal maintenance is €500 p.w. (no limits ultimately at higher courts). So, it may not simply be that you lose half (or more of) 'your stuff', but that you'll continue losing thereafter.

Bare in mind, if you've been cohabitation for five years she already has a claim on both your assets and maintenance. As was said, how this compares to marital entitlements is still unclear, however I do know that many solicitors are advising the same levels.

Final point; you don't appear to have suggested at any point that you want to get married. May make it easier to adopt, but that alone is not a good enough reason and that it will simply make her happy is probably the worst reason to do so, TBH. You actually don't seem to make any case at all why you would want to get married and this is far important an issue than anything to do with inheritance, divorce or tax.

You need to want to get married to this woman, at the end of the day - not do so simply because she does.

Wompa1

The Corinthian wrote: »

IBare in mind, if you've been cohabitation for five years she already has a claim on both your assets and maintenance. As was said, how this compares to marital entitlements is still unclear, however I do know that many solicitors are advising the same levels.
QUOTE]

Really? I didn't know that. Nuts!! So really if you are worried about being taken to the cleaner you shouldn't live with a lady for 5 years either...

hfallada

Your other half gets everything tax free. If you die tomorrow and she is in your will but you didn't marry she has to pay 33% of its value to government in capital accusations tax.

Tombo2001

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not forgetting inheritance rights if anything tragic were to happen.

this was a major one for me. we had a young children when we got married.

when I realised that if I died, that all my assets would go into an escrow account that the kids couldnt touch before they were 18......that focussed my mind.

The Corinthian

Wompa1 wrote: »

Really? I didn't know that. Nuts!! So really if you are worried about being taken to the cleaner you shouldn't live with a lady for 5 years either...

A little bit more complicated than that.

To begin with, the five year deadline becomes two once there's a baby present.

Secondly there is the option of a cohabitants’ agreement - a bit like a prenup - that can be drawn up and signed by both parties (consult a solicitor for further details). However, this is by no means ironclad as:

"The court may vary or set aside a cohabitants’ agreement in exceptional circumstances, where its enforceability would cause serious injustice."

And what 'serious injustice' constitutes would mean is up to the mercy of our famously consistent judges - one possible scenario would be an agreement signed before children were present and a judge may consider the inclusion of children to the mix to change everything, including the validity of any agreement.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

when I realised that if I died, that all my assets would go into an escrow account that the kids couldnt touch before they were 18......that focussed my mind.

Why didn't you write a will?

Tombo2001

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why didn't you write a will?

If I wrote a will, and wasnt married, then my partner would have paid 33% inheritance tax.

I left her the house, she would have owed cash 33% of the value of the house to the revenue commisioners.

The Corinthian

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If I wrote a will, and wasnt married, then my partner would have paid 33% inheritance tax.

Fair enough (although there are ways around this).

Nonetheless, my question was based on your concern that all your assets would go into an escrow account that your kids couldnt touch before they were 18 - you mentioned nothing about your partner - and married or not they would be treated the same in terms of inheritance tax.

wallycharlo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough (although there are ways around this).

Not trying to drag things off-topic. but can you expand a little on that? Guess it's still relevant to the OP anyway ...

The Corinthian

wallycharlo wrote: »

Not trying to drag things off-topic. but can you expand a little on that? Guess it's still relevant to the OP anyway ...

I can't really expand all that much on it, because I've never had cause to need it, however I doubt if anyone would be surprised if they were told that there are various means of avoiding inheritance tax and I have been told by solicitors/accountants that if need be, there are options in this regard.

If I had the same concerns as Tombo, then I'd probably investigate this area first, before looking at marriage. Honestly, when people use such reasons to explain why they got married, I get the impression that they're just excuses and ultimately they wanted to get married - which, don't get me wrong, is fine.

Pawwed Rig

I can't think of any as common law partner is not covered under the inheritance legislation. There is a fairly low exemption amount at the moment of €16,750 so anything above that will be taxed at 33%. Unless you are talking about becoming non resident but that would not work either.
If I think of anything I will get back on it.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough (although there are ways around this).

Nonetheless, my question was based on your concern that all your assets would go into an escrow account that your kids couldnt touch before they were 18 - you mentioned nothing about your partner - and married or not they would be treated the same in terms of inheritance tax.

I don't follow this either. Married or not makes a big difference for inheritance law. One is taxed at a huge rate, the other not at all.

How do you get around it? I know you say it's an excuse, but really, a lot of people are completely unaware of the problems that not being married can cause with inheritance until it is in their face... I know a family with 5 children where the parents just didn't get around to getting married. When the man was killed in an accident, apart from the grief, they ended up in a financial mess. The house mortgage was in her name, so no life assurance for him. His income was now gone, but the expenses remained. he ran his own small business so no employer life cover either. And their savings were all in an account in his name only, so she would have to hand 33% of that over if she wanted to access it. She didn't even qualify for widows pension. They had drifted along not thinking about it, until it was far too late.

When you are young, you are invincible and none of that stuff seems important.

The Corinthian

Personally I find that people tend to procrastinate on dealing with issues, or when they do deal with them they tend not to think them through, their implications or possible consequences - look at all the people who can't afford their mortgages any more, often because they could only barely afford them during a boom economy and never considered how, just maybe, the boom might end.

I've never had to look into the whole spousal inheritance issue and only commented on what I've been told. Thing is I'd tend to believe that there are ways around it, because in other areas (which I will not discuss) I've found and availed of numerous loopholes.

Given this, in the example you gave, I'm sure even you can see a few things that the couple in question could have done to decrease the potential downside of one of them dying. No life cover? All their savings in his name? Com'on!

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I can't think of any as common law partner is not covered under the inheritance legislation. There is a fairly low exemption amount at the moment of €16,750 so anything above that will be taxed at 33%. Unless you are talking about becoming non resident but that would not work either.
If I think of anything I will get back on it.

I believe if they were residents of the home they are exempt from the tax.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/cat/leaflets/cat10.html

Pawwed Rig

clairefontaine wrote: »

I believe if they were residents of the home they are exempt from the tax.

Well spotted . I thought that exemption only applied to relatives but I just looked it up and you are correct. Having said that there are a few conditions on it that everyone might not satisfy so I wouldn't be leaving it to chance. For example if there was no will then this would not apply or if the person who dies was still married to a third party this could also be contested.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Having said that there are a few conditions on it that everyone might not satisfy so I wouldn't be leaving it to chance.

Then you don't leave it to chance - at least do your homework, employ a professional to make sure and not simply accept what you read on the Interweb. More and more this all reads like marriage is the choice of those too lazy to seek alternative solutions or simply looking for excuses to marry.

For example if there was no will then this would not apply or if the person who dies was still married to a third party this could also be contested.

Then draw up a will and if the person who dies was still married to a third party, isn't marriage to the new partner a bit moot? Get a divorce.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given this, in the example you gave, I'm sure even you can see a few things that the couple in question could have done to decrease the potential downside of one of them dying. No life cover? All their savings in his name? Com'on!

Oh absolutely, it was total head in the sand stuff. Zero financial cop on. People drift into these situations over time with no thought applied. Same applies with long-term relationships. I did it myself for ten years, fairly obliviously.

Plenty of people live as married couples, but never actually get around to it. All the disadvantages to co-habitation (potential loss of stuff with breakups), but none of the advantages of marriage (tax, inheritance, next of kin, automatic guardianship etc).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you are the type of person who doesn't think about this kind of stuff to begin with, you are fairly unlikely to go about guardianship or wills and the rest of that rigmarole.

The Corinthian

Basically you're saying that if you're dumb, ignorant and/or lazy marriage is the way to go.

Almost as bad a reason to get married as "it'll make her happy".

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

Basically you're saying that if you're dumb, ignorant and/or lazy marriage is the way to go.

Almost as bad a reason to get married as "it'll make her happy".

Am I missing the point here, or why would you seek out a way to get the same result without marriage if marriage is the easiest way to go about it?

eviltwin

Inheritance tax was a main factor in us getting married when we did. We also had a young child. I think we would have married at some point anyway but the tax issue made us think sooner rather than later was the way to go. Of course we loved each other and wanted to spend our lives together but you don't know what tomorrow might bring and it seemed to us to be very foolhardy not to safeguard each other and our child when we were in it for the long haul anyway. No regrets.

The Corinthian

Malari wrote: »

Am I missing the point here, or why would you seek out a way to get the same result without marriage if marriage is the easiest way to go about it?

You're presuming that marriage is a desirable institution to be in, especially if you're a man, in the first place.

More correctly, if you want to get married, get married. If the only or biggest reason you're going to is to bypass bureaucracy, then you're probably making a big mistake.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

Inheritance tax was a main factor in us getting married when we did. We also had a young child. I think we would have married at some point anyway but the tax issue made us think sooner rather than later was the way to go.

So really it wasn't so much why you got married, but at most affected when you got married.

That's fair enough - what's been confusing me is that some of the responses here have seemingly argued that this was the reason why.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're presuming that marriage is a desirable institution to be in, especially if you're a man, in the first place.

More correctly, if you want to get married, get married. If the only or biggest reason you're going to is to bypass bureaucracy, then you're probably making a big mistake.

No, I'm not presuming anything, I'm just asking. I just don't understand why you think bypassing bureaucracy is a bad thing. In other words, what is a good reason to get married, in your view, already assuming two people love each other and are planning on spending their lives together.

The Corinthian

Malari wrote: »

No, I'm not presuming anything, I'm just asking. I just don't understand why you think bypassing bureaucracy is a bad thing. In other words, what is a good reason to get married, in your view, already assuming two people love each other and are planning on spending their lives together.

But then they've already decided to get married and bypassing the bureaucracy isn't the reason why. I already covered this in my last post.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

But then they've already decided to get married and bypassing the bureaucracy isn't the reason why. I already covered this in my last post.

No you didn't, I'm saying just a couple living together, who haven't decided to get married. From what I gather you are saying they would be better taking a bit more effort to explore other, trickier routes instead of getting married?