Page 2 of 7

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 8:59am
by Ben@Forest
Tangled Metal wrote:If you think filling a form out isn't serious enough for you then how serious do you take tax assessment forms? I hope you tax any tax declaration serious even though it's just a form.

I'm married and l fill out tax forms. I have no doubt the former is more serious. I (or my accountant) could make an honest mistake on my tax forms, that's not as big a mistake as marrying the wrong person. And generally the latter probably costs more too.

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 10:58am
by Tangled Metal
But does an event give you any more guarantees of not making the same mistake? If so how? The evidence in divorces probably suggests it doesn't stop mistakes happening.

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 12:07pm
by Psamathe
I think the concept of "Wedding Presents" is outdated. I'm not a great fan of the idea of marriage (more in favour of open relationships - but that's irrelevant but might put my wedding presents thoughts in context).

I thought the original reason for wedding presents was that it was the time when two people were leaving living at home and setting up their own home and thus there are a lot of things needed (no longer using parents' crockery, bedlinen, towels, etc.) and to buy the lot as a one off is normally impossible - hence friends and family chipping in.

Also it was historically a more balanced affair as most couples would end-up getting married so most people would be receiving as well as giving - it all being a means to spread the load over time.

But these days many will have been living together before getting married (and thus have already set-up home), some will get married several times whilst others will not get married ... to me it has all become very unbalanced, particularly when it becomes the means to give people a holiday (possibly whilst cutting back on ones' own travel plans).

So I'd certainly be thinking many times before accepting an invitation to any wedding with a high entry fee (wedding present "suggestion").


Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 12:32pm
by Tangled Metal
It's a feature of many cultures.

I remember a documentary where a ex soldier stayed with remote tribal cities, living with a family and going through their rituals for acceptance. One in SE Asia had a form of union between a couple. The woman went into their new shelter with some of her mother's brass cooking pots.

Apparently they were heirlooms and highly valued. They made life easier so got passed down with a new union to set up the new house. They were the most valued possession because they made everything else they needed out of the jungle but these couldn't be made had to be traded for at great personal expense.

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 12:43pm
by merseymouth
Hello again, One keeps hearing moans about families hit hard when one of the parties dies suddenly. Inheritance rights crop up frequently which usually means money. Folk gripe about affairs costing them money & red tape. They apparently want the small number of tangible benefits of the "Marriage Club", but without paying the membership fee!
The Tax man rubs the hands in delight when the non-members succumb to the ravages of time or sickness, withnall of the estate liable for tax.
A fair number of celebrity cohabiting couples go weak on their principles and get spliced, merely to reduce their tax bill. Sir Ken Dodd being a notable example of late, Lady Anne was able to avoid millions in tax by merely getting hitched.
A friend of mine recently lost his wife, but even then he was faced with administrative hurdles to overcome. To get the Bereavement Grant he had to jump through the hoops, but alas he had lost their Marriage Lines, so had to lay out serious money for speedy service from the GRO, pretty horrible at that time.
The whole system has be distorted in the last 60 years, remember the days when one could only claim for child allowance through the Tax office on presentation of the said marriage line. These days the mortar that used to hold society together has gone. Try imagining doing family history hence forth, with little reliable paperwork. BD&M's without certificates is horrible even now, but in our future failing system it will create real issues.
After 44+ years in wedlock I can really feel genuine benefits from the process, SWMBO gives me a purpose in life, which has real health prolonging plusses, provable by statistics!
As the old joke used to go -"7s & 6p, A dog licence and a marriage licence, was she worth it?" You bet! :D MM

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 12:56pm
by Tangled Metal
It's not about the money but about the practicalities of the surviving partner getting on with life during a difficult time.

For example, the role of bill paying within a household might be with one person. The house could be in one name. The bank accounts might not be joint. Even with a will there's delay in sorting estates out. Married couples get more of an easy route through this than unmarried couples. A married couple has rights such that a surviving member of that couple can continue with access to money, to take over paying off bills, to take over the contracts on their deceased partners name. Personally I believe that's not just unfair but has the potential to be cruel to unmarried couples.

What is the solution? Marriage is the easiest but nobody should be forced into something like that just because the system is unfair. Change the system? Well that's only possible with the politicians getting involved. How many parties claim the family unit is so important to society? How many politicians would push the separation of rights of a couple from marriage? No politician still do that.

The thing is it's not just about money though. It's also about rights. About recognition of a couple without the marriage aspect (with all it's social, religious and cultural baggage that many cannot stomach).

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 1:12pm
by merseymouth
Hello again, Now that HMG has been told that non-same sex couple can have Civil Partnerships it provides an easier solution.
I see the marriage process as joining a club with benefits, maybe something like joining the AA? Well, they won't help you out in times of trouble unless you are member with paid up subscription! So why insist on marriage extras when one hasn't signed up.
One doesn't have to go the "Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" route, will excesses of spending.
My own family is in the processes of our own daughter's wedding, so I know what's involved.
A further point of pain can be suffered when doing a family tree. The missing marriage can cause real family upset!
We don't wish to live other people's lives for them, nor to impose unreasonable conditions, but to my way of thinking marriage isn't an unreasonable condition. Why must we have to accept the situation of "Living Over The Brush" as a good thing? MM

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 1:21pm
by francovendee
My partner and I lived together for 6 years before getting married. It was done to simplify things if one of us died. We'd both been married before and knew ' making a statement' meant for nothing when a marriage hit the rocks. I feel no different about my partner after the marriage than before. When I hear of the sums people spend on their wedding I'm shocked. Apart from having a big party I wonder why they do it.
A friends daughter got married here as they'd spent many holidays in the region. At the reception the bride met an old boyfriend. Six months later the happy couple were apart. What a waste of money!

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 1:47pm
by Tangled Metal
But the benefits shouldn't be reliant on membership of an institution that has the baggage that marriage has. Civil partnerships are not equivalent. Too many important missing pieces to be a solution.

Look this isn't as simple as not wanting to pay n subscription fees. This is strongly held convictions. Imagine if you couldn't get married if you're a devout, practising member of a religion. It's kind of that level of injustice.

This is something that I doubt many understand. A lot of the issues with marriage would get written off as politically correct nonsense or being too sensitive or whatever. It's not mainstream view which is that marriage is positive and to be aimed at as an ideal.

My partner feels this a lot more than me having studied topics related to one negative aspect of marriage. It's a patriarchal system. Take Christian marriages or even civil marriages someone gives away the bride. Symbolism now because owning another person is illegal. But it's part of what the baggage is with marriage.

There's many other issues but that's the easiest to explain and probably the easiest for most to dismiss too. And that's another problem. We're still a society that's in need of evolving. Issues strongly felt and experienced very dismissed too easily. The drip feed of sexism and sexist behaviour dismissed as banter or boys will be boys.

Anyway let's dismiss it as about money grabbing or trying to n have your cake and eat it or trying v to n get the benefits without paying for it. Let's ignore what it means. What it meant. Ignore the negatives.

And above all ignore that the benefits do not have anything to do with marriage. Personal finance and taxation are about personal circumstances. If you're living as a couple and partnership then that's what is important in your financial circumstances not church or registry ceremony.

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 2:02pm
by merseymouth
Hi Tangled Metal, Well I'm not giving my daughter away? No I'm thinking of putting her up for sale on Fleabay :lol: :lol: :lol: . MM

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 2:09pm
by Tangled Metal
You should be sending her off with a dowry. Isn't that the old way? Pay someone to take on the expense of your daughter?

No offence meant but that's the reason for dowrys. Girls were an expense and not as productive or worth as much as boys. So they had to go with a money or goods settlement.

Sounds ridulous now doesn't it. Although women in general don't earn a well as men doing the same work so perhaps we're not much further on.

BTW I hope your daughter gets a good send off (I mean marriage). All the best for the day. BTW will she also honour and obey her partner after the marriage ceremony? I doubt many do personally. It's often the hubbie that makes the most adaptions shall we say. :wink: :D

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 4:42pm
by merseymouth
Hello all, Another reason to be grateful that AP Herbert became an M.P.?
He campaigned and won a battle for Divorce Reform. One didn't have to caught de flegrante to achieve a split after his Divorce Bill.
He also was a great believer in women not having everything taken from them upon marriage, why should hubby get all of her worth and chattels!
Anyone who believes expense stops when a daughter is offloaded is quite delusional :evil: IGICB MM

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 9 May 2019, 10:55pm
by drossall
Tangled Metal wrote:I bet family and friends who know you well had worked out the situation before you're engagement announcement and wedding.

Well they weren't surprised. We'd been "going out" for approaching six years. But they wouldn't have known for sure till we did get engaged. I'd recently completed my studies in one city, my intended was still doing hers in another, and I was living in a third town at the other end of the country.

Regardless, the wedding was very much the start of something new, and they were very much part of it.

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 10 May 2019, 12:19am
by Tangled Metal
It's good that marriage works for you but it's a shame that lack of marriage costs families a lot or has that potential. That's why I believe rights of marriage should be separated from marriage and some other form of neutral declaration confers those rights.

Re: Wedding presents

Posted: 10 May 2019, 8:05am
by drossall
Isn't that what marriage is? A declaration, and necessarily a public one, or at least one that is a matter of public record? Although I'm not sure that even very practical matters, such as who receives my inheritance or even my benefits, or who authorises treatment if I am incapable, are in reality often "neutral".

Even getting married over the broom (read the bit on its history) is a public declaration.

Sorry for pushing in a very personal area. I'm interested though in what it is that you object to.