Tax - Marriage Allowance

[Tangled Metal]

How is stating you're in a relationship as a couple in an official form any more open to abuse than any other benefit or allowance you claim for?

Personally anything that defines a relationship by official paperwork seems totally wrong to me. What you're doing by offering this bribe to married couples is saying only marriage is worth anything. There's many views on the positives and negatives of marriage. To use it as a means of selection for benefits is unfair.

In my situation I'm in a relationship that needs no paperwork or rubber stamp to have value. It's as committed as a marriage indeed arguably more so but it doesn't have the history and connotations of marriage weighing it down. I'll sign any official form to stating we are a couple to get the same tax benefits as married couples. That signature would surely carry no less weight than the signature of a married couple on their tax claim form and their marriage form.

As far as fraud goes there's no more or less risk of that happening for married or non-married couples if they were able to claim the same benefits. If hmrc suspected fraud do you think they'd have any more difficulties investigating married and non-married couples?

Assuming the claim form has a space for a signature then an applicant is signing a contract saying they meet all the necessary criteria. HMRC will check and if anything suspicious the allowance is prevented. If that's done afterwards following an investigation they'll just get it back, possibly with criminal conviction if fraudulently claimed.

I will clearly state my views now. There should be no state differentiation of the value of couples' relationship or differentiation of any kind through benefits, allowances or other state perk. Indeed I also do not believe couples should have any benefits that single people don't have. If married couples can do this then IMHO even single people should be able to join with another single person to do the same transfer if allowance.

Or just scrap all marriage based perks. My preferred option.

[rjb]

All parties when in power try to use the tax system to buy votes. Unfortunately scrapping all benefits, allowances, and starting again with a blank canvas isnt an option.

[Tangled Metal]

Scrapping marriage related benefits is possibly a very easy thing to do.

[reohn2]

Funny that if your on the dole and sharing facilities without being in a partnersip they will claim you are?in fact in anything you get classed as a couple.If they want to remove money from you. If it is your favour the government wants to impose it morality on you..

You'll have to show me how that works,as I've no idea.

[reohn2]

Scrapping marriage related benefits is possibly a very easy thing to do.

I agree it could be a very easy thing to do,I don't see why people should gain financially for having an official stamp on their relation.
Though I do think both parents should be on the birth certificate of any children so the father can be held responsible for any children's financial upbringing.

[Tangled Metal]

It's not just financial matters both parents should be in the birth certificate with equal responsibilities IMHO.

Not being married (another marriage benefit) I would not have parental rights had I not been present when or son's birth was registered. I was the father and would have been on the certificate but without being physically present I would not have any rights or responsibilities in decisions relating to him.

Let me give one example of the implications. If I hadn't been present I would not be able to make decisions over his treatment at hospital. If I took him into A&E for example the doctors would have to make all decisions until my partner turned up.

However, since I was present at his birth registration I could make those decisions for him. Now I did not know that at the time. Operator was at work but really wanted to be there. I took time off work to be there. I could have been unable to take the time off and would have had to go to court to get parental responsibility.

It's one of many unfair aspects of UK law that IMHO is based on outdated views. We are no longer a truly patriarchal society with men at work and wifey at home cooking, cleaning, looking after kids. Marriage has less importance in society but not so in law.

Wouldn't it be good to completely restart our legal system / laws! I mean blank canvas and writing laws according to current societal needs and norms. No case law neither. Just an attempt to write a perfect set of laws for modern world. Idealistic idea but it intrigues me.

[reohn2]

It's not just financial matters both parents should be in the birth certificate with equal responsibilities IMHO.

Not being married (another marriage benefit) I would not have parental rights had I not been present when or son's birth was registered. I was the father and would have been on the certificate but without being physically present I would not have any rights or responsibilities in decisions relating to him.

Let me give one example of the implications. If I hadn't been present I would not be able to make decisions over his treatment at hospital. If I took him into A&E for example the doctors would have to make all decisions until my partner turned up.

However, since I was present at his birth registration I could make those decisions for him. Now I did not know that at the time. Operator was at work but really wanted to be there. I took time off work to be there. I could have been unable to take the time off and would have had to go to court to get parental responsibility.

It's one of many unfair aspects of UK law that IMHO is based on outdated views. We are no longer a truly patriarchal society with men at work and wifey at home cooking, cleaning, looking after kids. Marriage has less importance in society but not so in law.

Wouldn't it be good to completely restart our legal system / laws! I mean blank canvas and writing laws according to current societal needs and norms. No case law neither. Just an attempt to write a perfect set of laws for modern world. Idealistic idea but it intrigues me.

We live and learn!
I'd no idea if you weren't present at the birth you had no legal rights to your child,very odd indeed.I would have assumed if you were the named father then that would been enough proof.
I do agree that there are many aspects of UK law rooted erronously in past assumptions,religious and otherwise,and a root and branch overhaul of the legal system is probably needed in many aspects UK law.

[Tangled Metal]

I never said present at birth I said present at registration of birth. There's a difference. If the mother was the only parent present and even if the father had his name put on the birth certificate it does not give the father rights.

I only found out when I had to fill in forms at A&E when my child had to go there. There was a lot of bits about parental responsibility. I asked about them and both the nurse and doctor explained the situation. Of course if they're wrong then it's worrying because they'll likely be the ones making decisions on treatment for a child in cases where the father is the only parent present. If they don't know the legal side of it then there's a gap in training somewhere.

If anyone does know the truth it would be good to be able to cite chapter and verse of it if I'm ever confronted. Although I was present and hold those rights / responsibilities.

[Mick F]

You can't have an official partnership in any line of anything, without a signed and binding officially recognised contract.

What about a couple where both names are on the rental agreement for a 1 bedroom flat? Who have a joint bank account as well? etc. etc.

Ian

Because there's no legal standing in it other than the rental agreement, and that can be given notice to quit without having to go to court.

Marriage/Civil Partnership has a legal and binding position enshrined in law. Rental agreements and joint bank accounts do not.

[reohn2]

I never said present at birth I said present at registration of birth..........

Apologies my mistake,I misread the post.

[softlips]

Is it only for married couples and those in civil partnerships? What about couples without the official paperwork? Does it matter who gets it out of the couple too? IMHO it should be available to all types of couples so long as they sign off they they're a couple. I don't agree with marriage as a criteria for added benefits. There should be a more enlightened way of doing it.

Whilst I agree,the problem is,for two people living together to officially prove they're a couple without some kind of official paperwork.

Just a shame that civil partnerships for those of us who do not like some of the connotations of marriage are not possible.

Yes, I was surprised to learn civil partnerships aren't available for heterosexual couples. Surely this is discrimination. It can potentially have a huge impact. If not married and one of them dies the survivor cannot claim Bereavement Allowance (old widows benefit). If they have a young family this could make a huge difference in their circumstances.

[broadway]

Not being married (another marriage benefit) I would not have parental rights had I not been present when or son's birth was registered. I was the father and would have been on the certificate but without being physically present I would not have any rights or responsibilities in decisions relating to him.

That's not quite right, for fairly obvious reasons an unmarried father can only be entered on a birth certificate with the father's permission. That can either be done by being present at registration or by an an official declaration. If you are not on the birth certificate, then you would have to get parental responsibility by another method.

https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-c ... er-a-birth

[reohn2]

Yes, I was surprised to learn civil partnerships aren't available for heterosexual couples. Surely this is discrimination.

amazing,without doubt discrimination.

It can potentially have a huge impact

Indeed!

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
As someone who has lived with but not married to a person for 35 years, I would like to know how not being married affects pension rights when one dies, specifically if any rights exist at all?

Not sure what this says on the subjects being discussed in the last posts just started to read now?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/famil ... rtnership/

"In some situations, a same-sex couple who have not registered a civil partnership will have the same legal rights and responsibilities as a couple who have registered a civil partnership. This will be the case, for example, when working out your entitlement to welfare benefits and tax credits."
That I don't understand........

[Psamathe]

You can't have an official partnership in any line of anything, without a signed and binding officially recognised contract.

What about a couple where both names are on the rental agreement for a 1 bedroom flat? Who have a joint bank account as well? etc. etc.

Ian

Because there's no legal standing in it other than the rental agreement, and that can be given notice to quit without having to go to court.

Marriage/Civil Partnership has a legal and binding position enshrined in law. Rental agreements and joint bank accounts do not.

Tax allowances do not require court certified documents or "legal standing". I get tax allowances and have no court documents or signed documents to verify my entitlement. I "self-authorise".

Ian