what are the legal and financial benefits to being married.

tjc28

The OH and I are together 14 years. Two kids, a mortgage and neither of us are overly pushed about marriage but she recently lost her job and I know I'm missing out on her tax credits. Now I'm wondering what other benefits we are missing out on? What are the advantages to getting the piece of paper from the state?

riclad

you get extra tax credits,
Also at some point one partner will die,
if you are not married to each other then there may be a large tax bill to pay for capital gains,inheritance etc
i read an article ,re 2 friends getting married simply for the tax benefits .
eg they are not in love, not in a relationship,
eg he wants to leave a friend his house in his will.
since marriage is open, anyone can marry anyone, regardless of sex .
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax/taxation_of_married_people.html#
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax/taxation_of_married_people.html

i presume you are getting childrens allowance

simple put you can use her tax credits if you are married

she can apply for a medical card whether she is single or married

EmmetSpiceland

XsApollo

Succession rights.
Tax bands, credits.
I think as you get older ,then being able to make decisions on your partners behalf might be of use.

If you are not in a registered partnership then I’m not sure on medical issues or having to make decisions on stuff if the other person isn’t capable, wouldn’t be up to you. ( open to correction on that one)

odyssey06

One of you gets the life insurance

* This is the After Hours answer given while watching cop show

Capt'n Midnight

You can plant their hairs at a crime scene.

ulster

tjc28 wrote: »

The OH and I are together 14 years. Two kids, a mortgage and neither of us are overly pushed about marriage but she recently lost her job and I know I'm missing out on her tax credits. Now I'm wondering what other benefits we are missing out on? What are the advantages to getting the piece of paper from the state?

Why did they need to create a Taxation forum when we've got the most tax specialists in AH.

tjc28

tjc28 wrote: »

The OH and I are together 14 years. Two kids, a mortgage and neither of us are overly pushed about marriage but she recently lost her job and I know I'm missing out on her tax credits. Now I'm wondering what other benefits we are missing out on? What are the advantages to getting the piece of paper from the state?

Possibly tax credits, although in today's world where salaries are rising and the marginal cut-off is absurdly low, that increasingly doesn't apply anymore.

I don't see any benefit to marriage. I'll go along with it like, but I quietly object to being legally tied to a person, and having to ask the government's permission to separate if we both change our minds about the relationship. I'm not into libertarianism or anything ridiculous like that, it's just a weird thing to do. If marriage wasn't a tradition, we would never invent it in 2021.

My parents never married for a different reason that's not worth mentioning, but they always said they were 'common-law' husband and wife, which I thought was a legal thing until just recently when I googled it. Apparently it's just a informal expression with no legal meaning. I'd be happy with that.

Siblings only got married if their OH really wanted to. If it's very important to her, just go for it.

Another thing, it's borderline offensive that the State doesn't recognise any family as family, unless it is based on marriage. The courts have reaffirmed this even very recently.

McGinniesta

Marriage is a glorified business contract and tax arrangement.

Little more.

riclad

Not married equals maybe extra legal costs plus extra taxs to be paid when at some point one partner pass, s away. It's alot simpler if couple is married,
I don't understand why someone with children is not married unless you really want to pay extra tax every year

riclad

riclad wrote: »

Not married equals maybe extra legal costs plus extra taxs to be paid when at some point one partner pass, s away. It's alot simpler if couple is married,
I don't understand why someone with children is not married unless you really want to pay extra tax every year

Because woman and man often earn the same salary nowadays, often above the marginal cut-off, to a point where there is no tax benefit. That applies to modest salaries, we're not talking millionaires here.

You're right about Capital Gains taxes, which I don't think have been mentioned, but that is solved by passing the property to the children in shares on the death of a surviving spouse, which isn't a big deal. It's already commonplace for married couples.

tjc28

thanks for all the replies so far.
the OH isn't fussy about marriage and neither am I but the CGT info is kind of frightening. am I right in saying if one of us dies and leaves the house to the surviving partner the house (or the half the deceased paid for) they are then stung for tax on it. maybe I've picked up on this point wrong but if not, what a load of crap.
We're both young enough and healthy thankfully but that'll change.

tjc28

riclad wrote: »

Not married equals maybe extra legal costs plus extra taxs to be paid when at some point one partner pass, s away. It's alot simpler if couple is married,
I don't understand why someone with children is not married unless you really want to pay extra tax every year

so what kind of extra tax are we paying every year if we collectively earn 80000

tjc28

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You can plant their hairs at a crime scene.

I've never thought about this before but I could do this now. We're not married and her hair can be found in most rooms in the house.

tjc28

tjc28 wrote: »

so what kind of extra tax are we paying every year if we collectively earn 80000

It depends upon how evenly split is that income, but there is almost definitely a benefit here. Revenue will be able to tell you this over the phone, they're great for this stuff. Sometimes they split credits for married couples without the couple even asking.

tjc28

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It depends upon how evenly split is that income, but there is almost definitely a benefit here. Revenue will be able to tell you this over the phone, they're great for this stuff. Sometimes they split credits for married couples without the couple even asking.

interesting. I'll make that call. thanks.

dxhound2005

tjc28 wrote: »

thanks for all the replies so far.
the OH isn't fussy about marriage and neither am I but the CGT info is kind of frightening. am I right in saying if one of us dies and leaves the house to the surviving partner the house (or the half the deceased paid for) they are then stung for tax on it. maybe I've picked up on this point wrong but if not, what a load of crap.
We're both young enough and healthy thankfully but that'll change.

Whatever about getting married, you should definitely make a will if you haven't done so already.

Geuze

If both spouses earn over the SRCOP of 35,300, there are no income tax benefits.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-tax-credits-reliefs-and-exemptions/tax-relief-charts/index.aspx

tobsey

tjc28 wrote: »

so what kind of extra tax are we paying every year if we collectively earn 80000

If one of you doesn’t earn enough to pay the top rate of tax, you’re losing out slightly. In a one income household the worker pays around 3k less in tax by taking the 1650 in tax credits and 1800 by paying 20% instead of 40% on the 9000 of the standard cut off you can transfer. If you both earn over 36k or so and both pay some tax at 40% then there’s no savings there.

Main advantages of marriage are next of kin rights, inheritance rights and legal guardianship of the kids. You could just enter a civil partnership and get those without it being a marriage.

Geuze

tjc28 wrote: »

thanks for all the replies so far.
the OH isn't fussy about marriage and neither am I but the CGT info is kind of frightening. am I right in saying if one of us dies and leaves the house to the surviving partner the house (or the half the deceased paid for) they are then stung for tax on it. maybe I've picked up on this point wrong but if not, what a load of crap.

You are referring to CAT.

CGT is not the same as CAT.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/index.aspx


You may have heard about the case where two men married each other to avoid CAT!!


https://www.independent.ie/style/weddings/the-final-say/wedding-talk/straight-irish-pensioner-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413401.html

tjc28

tjc28 wrote: »

interesting. I'll make that call. thanks.

If you end up proposing, make sure to tell her you're doing it on Revenue advice.

Women love that.

beertons

Hmmm, benefits.

None.

tjc28

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If you end up proposing, make sure to tell her you're doing it on Revenue advice.

Women love that.

you're a proper romantic, I can tell

dxhound2005

McGinniesta wrote: »

Marriage is a glorified business contract and tax arrangement.

Little more.

And one thing which is absent from marriage legislation is any mention of romantic love.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/35/enacted/en/html

tjc28

tjc28 wrote: »

you're a proper romantic, I can tell

I'm pretty sure the only reason my fiancee is still with me is that I do her Form-11 self-assessment tax returns.

Peregrinus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't see any benefit to marriage. I'll go along with it like, but I quietly object to being legally tied to a person, and having to ask the government's permission to separate if we both change our minds about the relationship. I'm not into libertarianism or anything ridiculous like that, it's just a weird thing to do. If marriage wasn't a tradition, we would never invent it in 2021.

To be fair, if you both change your minds about the relationship and are in agreement about the terms of your separation then you don't have to ask anyone's permission to separate. It's when the couple are not in agreement that these things end up in the courts. And, if it's acrimonious, not being formally married won't prevent you from ending up in the courts.

The main restraint that being married places on you is that, so long as you're you're married to A, you can't marry B. But if being married isn't something that attracts you to begin with, not being free to marry B presumably won't bother you greatly.

woodchuck

We've had to postpone our wedding twice due to the pandemic and I'm starting to get nervy for the following reasons:

1. Inheritance tax. We recently jointly bought a house together. If one of us dies before we're married, the morgage is paid off by the morgage protection policy and the surviving partner inherits the other half of the house, but has to pay inheritance tax. The amount of inheritance tax depends on the cost of the house, it would be ~100k in tax in our case. But if we're married and one of us dies, the morgage is paid off by the morgage protection policy and the other person inherits the house without being stung for a 100k bill. Source: We got legal advice from a solicitor.

2. Tax credits. This is particularly relevant if one person is out of work or takes unpaid maternity leave. Definitely worth taking advantage of, particularly at a time when money is tight. If/when we have a baby, I want to make sure we have that financial protection in place.

For those reasons, I have no intention of postponing our wedding again. We're getting married come hell or high water this year, even if it's just signing a piece of paper with 2 witnesses. I'd obviously love a proper wedding celebration, but also I have my head screwed on about the importance of the legal/financial side of marriage.

Peregrinus

FWIW, you could solve problem 1 with life insurance - just as you insure for the cost of paying off the mortgage should one of you die, so each of you can insure the other's life for an amount equal to the CAT exposure you would face if the other died. Particularly if this is something you only need temporarily, until you can marry, this won't be expensive insurance to effect.

But problem 2 is not so easily solved. So your solution - basic registry office job now, and a big shindig when pandemic control measures permit, is probably the better course.

woodchuck

Peregrinus wrote: »

FWIW, you could solve problem 1 with life insurance - just as you insure for the cost of paying off the mortgage should one of you die, so each of you can insure the other's life for an amount equal to the CAT exposure you would face if the other died. Particularly if this is something you only need temporarily, until you can marry, this won't be expensive insurance to effect.

Thanks, we considered that, but there are also other issues like next of kin and inheritance around that (re savings etc), so we'd also need a will and that also doesn't avoid the inheritance tax issue. The most straight forward thing really is to just get married. It's more of a "cover all" compared to getting separate life insurance policies, wills etc, which still don't actually fully solve the issue of inheritance tax.

woodchuck

Peregrinus wrote: »

But problem 2 is not so easily solved. So your solution - basic registry office job now, and a big shindig when pandemic control measures permit, is probably the better course.

We've a date booked for September, so we're going ahead with that regardless. We never wanted a big shindig anyway. We'd be happy with 25-50 guests. Safety is a bigger priority for us, but we expect all/most of our guests to be vaccinated by then.

A basic registry office job is more difficult these days - I've heard that they're completely booked out for months on end because so many people are going down that route and even those who are booked in are having serious issues still due to the cyber attack.

If anything happens to either of you, where a decision has to be made about medical care, ie. switching off the machines, or waiting until you come out of a coma (worst case scenario, sorry!), next of kin will be your parents, afaik.

Also, if I was a man with kids, I'd be marrying asap - lock in your guardian rights now and make your life easier if anything happens, ie. partner dies, becomes incapacitated, or you split up.

I know both those reasons are in the event of something bad happening and possibly will never happen, but consider a marriage license as a much simpler version of a will, where your rights and assets are shared.
You don't need to have a big day - 2 witnesses and a bit of paperwork and it can be done in 20 minutes (after the wait time - 3 months, I think).

2lazytogetup

McGinniesta wrote: »

Marriage is a glorified business contract and tax arrangement.

Little more.

an expensive cliched day out too

KaneToad

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And one thing which is absent from marriage legislation is any mention of romantic love.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/35/enacted/en/html

It's absent from many marriages too.

2lazytogetup

2lazytogetup wrote: »

an expensive cliched day out too

....only if you make it that way.
Plenty of people do the registry office version - you don't need to have any more that two witnesses. You don't even need to have a drink or dinner after.

Hodors Appletart

Marriage is VERY important for men with children in this country

Married fathers are treated like garbage at the best of times by the courts, it's a hundred, thousand times worse for unmarried fathers.

2lazytogetup

ffs do the honourable thing and get down on one knee.

eviltwin

We only got married for financial reasons. If the cohabiting couples had the same protection as the married we wouldn’t have bothered. For us the main reason was next of kin - I do not want my family having any say in my life - and inheritance tax on our home. I’ve seen a person I know fleeced with tax just because she didn’t have that legal protection. It’s important to protect yourself

eviltwin

2lazytogetup wrote: »

an expensive cliched day out too

My entire wedding cost less that 1000 euros. It doesn’t cost that much to do the legal bit.

as a truple rather than a couple we can not get married really - at least not entirely.

We did worry for awhile what we might miss out on there other than tax credits which arent that relevant to us anyway.

Mostly next of kin rights for things like medical proxy was our main concern. And then parentship of the kids should one of us die. Since I have children with both of them - if two of us were to die then we were concerned about how the remaining mother would be treated differently between her biological children and her nonbiological children.

Inheritance rights too.

Most things we have worked out legal substitutes for with our lawyers over various documents and wills and statements and the like. Whether everything is legally sound of might be dubious if challenged is I guess something we hope never to find out. But we have done what we can.

Peregrinus

The whole point of marriage is to seek societal, legal, administrative, etc recognition for a committed, mutually interdependent conjugal relationship which would otherwise be nothing but the private business of the two people concerned. By marrying, they make it everyone's business and other people are affected by it - e.g. other taxpayers are affected by the tax breaks you get, other family members are affected by your inheritance rights which displace theirs, landlords and other potential renters are affected by your right to suceed to your spouse's tenancy, etc, etc. The theory is that you can choose to seek this recognition or not to seek it and keep your relationship purely private. The downside to not seeking it, of course, is that you don't get it.

That's the theory. In practice this theory has been somewhat eroded by modern legislative developments which tend to assimilate the treatment of non-marital couples to the treatment of married couples. This isn't completely the case, but it's much more the case than it used to be. So for example if a non-marital couple breaks up, the courts may have the same power to make orders reallocating their home, assets, income etc as they would if the couple were married. They are treated in this context as married, even though they may have very deliberately chosen not to marry precisely because they - or one of them - didn't want this treatment.

Traditionally, there was a general societal expectation that a couple in a committed conjugal relationship would marry. Religious considerations aside, this was seen as the proper and responsible thing to do, because it would attract treatment that was seen as appropriate to their situation. Not marrying was transgressive - you were rejecting the supports and protections that society was offering you, and you were running real risks of hardship if, e.g., one member of the couple died and the other had no inheritance rights. This mattered a great deal when economic resources and opportunities were even more skewed by gender than they currently are. In general, if a couple cohabited without marrying the man was seen as exploitative and selfish and the woman as foolish and lacking self-esteem.

Cohabitation is much more socially acceptable nowadays. I think this is partly due to the decline in the strength of religious norms, but also to the increased economic equality of the sexes. Quite simply, women have much greater economic resources (as in, ability to earn a reasonably adequate living for themselves) than used to be case. But - as this thread shows - there are still risks to not being married in terms of tax liabilities, inheritance rights, next-of-kin status when it comes to care decisions, etc, etc. Some of these have been ameliorated by the trend already referred to of treating unmarried couples as if they were married; some remain.

You could argue that all differences should be abolished, and that cohabiting couples should in every respect be treated in the same way as as married couples. And maybe they should. But what that would do, in substance, is remove from people the right to remain unmarried. You'd effectively be saying that legally, administratively, etc, you marry simply by the fact of cohabiting, rather than by choosing to marry; you'd no longer have any right to cohabit and not be married. It wouldn't be a status you chose, but a status imposed on you by society because society thinks that people who cohabit should be treated that way.

And so, ironically, we'd have come full circle. Society's views, and not the couple's wishes or choice, would determine their legal status.

1874

The advantages are

Some limited taxation benefit in terms of allocation of tax credits, but that is only of benefit if one person does not work or earns significantly less than the other.
Inheritance rights

and
right of guardianship I believe, I would not want anyone else having a say over my childs life. Although, I am not sure, but I think I could maintain that and state I am a childs father and not have my rights lessened by not being married??

(edit and hypothetical interjection) If I was not married but was on my childs birth cert as the father, would my rights (or any fathers rights) be lessened if the mother of the child then married someone else? does that person now gain guardianship??
I'm not in that situation because I am married, at times I don't know if I'm better off or worse off being married.



The disadvantages are

in a cohabiting relationship where you are married, well, there are many
but they are applicable if you are simply cohabitating anyway with none of the benefits.


Always thought rights of cohabitating couples should be equal for inheritance and tax to married couples, but I didnt really view it as taking rights away from a person wanting to remain unmarried.
IMO, a cohabitating couple should be able make a statement they are cohabitating (civil partnership?) for tax and inheritence purposes that isn't equal to marriage but that doesnt put them at a disadvantage for certain tax purposes, because the obligations still exist for cohabitating couples anyway, after 2 and 5 years, so why shouldn't the rights?
I think that it would be better to define different types of cohabitation, someone could be living with their girlfriend/boyfriend where one person owns the property, I dont agree that the other person should automatically gains rights to the proeprty just because they reside together in a longterm relationship. If they have children it should be very advantageous for them to make a statement of their cohabitation for tax/inheritance purposes to protect their partner/child essentially from a cash grab by the state tax collectors. So maybe there should be varying degrees of benefit, but not all or nothing.




IMO the application of certain advantages and certain disadvantages (ie tax/inheritance,essentially tax and anything else) to being married vs any other scenario is simply to persuade people to get married as the state incurs less responsibility and obligations.

dxhound2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's the theory. In practice this theory has been somewhat eroded by modern legislative developments which tend to assimilate the treatment of non-marital couples to the treatment of married couples. This isn't completely the case, but it's much more the case than it used to be. So for example if a non-marital couple breaks up, the courts may have the same power to make orders reallocating their home, assets, income etc as they would if the couple were married. They are treated in this context as married, even though they may have very deliberately chosen not to marry precisely because they - or one of them - didn't want this treatment.

There is particular legislation, not some sort of slide into making everyone equal. It does require a certain commitment by couples, five years or two years if there are children to earn certain "rights". An important thing which is mentioned in this link is wills. Even after a long term, someone could exclude the other party from their will, and it would have to go to law. Makes life a lot more complicated.

https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/Media/Press-Releases/how-the-law-societys-legal-guides-can-help-you/

riclad

It's a lot simpler to get married to reduce inheritance taxs when one person pass, s away. Yes I understand there's not much social pressure for people to get married
anymore

Hodors Appletart

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

Marriage is VERY important for men with children in this country

Married fathers are treated like garbage at the best of times by the courts, it's a hundred, thousand times worse for unmarried fathers.

I'm unmarried, I'm a father. I have never wanted to marry, but am doing it because of the views of my fiancee.

You're right in a way, that unmarried men have no automatic rights to guardianship. That must be addressed. In practice, it's not a problem.

I hate this term 'deadbeat dad', but it probably captures how bad things would need to get before a father would be excluded from child-rearing.

riclad wrote: »

It's a lot simpler to get married to reduce inheritance taxs when one person pass, s away.

My parents never married, they were 'common-law spouses', which has no meaning according to the tax code. There was no issue with capital gains because they did the same thing that every married couple does -- passed property in shares to the children.

Admittedly. this is not an option if there are only 1 or 2 children.