Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I'm a committed co-habitor with 10 years service in. And I'm not sure why failing to put on a pouffy dress and shake down family and friends for insanely expensive and unnecessary gifts makes me less worthy than married people. It seems that the Conservative government thinks I am. Anyone else agree with them? What evil am I doing to society that I must be punished in this way? Happily the fine prints reveals that if I was in the UK I'd only be about 150 quid worse off each year. But why should I be? What's so great about married people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flathead Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 But why should I be? What's so great about married people? As you are in Australia try asking Tony Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freckleface Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 What sort of tax breaks are you talking about? I've been married for a long time and am yet to receive any tax breaks because of it. Don't worry just realised you are talking about the UK - note to self actively read posts instead of skimming them :embarrassed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicF Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I'm with you 100%. I really don't see how being married is somehow better than being not married in a long term comitted relationship (I've been married for 10 years). It's not just the tax breaks that the government are looking to implement that is unfair either - unmarried couples have a lot less rights and protections than married couples. When my eldest was born if you weren't married then the father had no parental responsibility, which basically meant no rights over the child (no being able to give consent if they need an injection etc). We had to go to court to get him parental responsibility. I believe they have changed this now, but there are all sorts of other things that only apply if you have signed that piece of paper. ETA - sorry, this applies in the UK. No idea what it's like in Australia. Being married now I haven't had to worry about if you have less protection as an unmarried couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 We don't have any in Australia. Flatfoot just can't keep australia out of any discussion. (that was in response to freckles. forgot to quote you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flathead Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Flatfoot just can't keep australia out of any discussion. I thought that is where you live????..? ......surely Australian attitudes are more important to you now?...or doesn't it matter what the attitude of the Australian right is when you can have a dig at the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 I thought that is where you live????..? ......surely Australian attitudes are more important to you now?...or doesn't it matter what the attitude of the Australian right is when you can have a dig at the UK? I could really learn a thing or two about hypersensitivity from you. I'd kind of hoped for a light-hearted discussion about this. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flathead Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I could really learn a thing or two about hypersensitivity from you. I learned it from the waussies on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Well you made me laugh with the "10 years service in" comment :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 What's so great about married people? That's why you are in Australia where the Prime Minister thinks the same. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I agree with it, especially for the sake of any children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 As you are in Australia try asking Tony Abbott He'd be enough to put anyone off marriage. What did he say..."something for the housewives of Australia to think about while they iron their husband's shirts" ...or something equally patronising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flathead Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 He'd be enough to put anyone off marriage. What did he say..."something for the housewives of Australia to think about while they iron their husband's shirts" ...or something equally patronising? That will probably get him elected over here:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 I agree with it, especially for the sake of any children. What's the divorce rate again? 1 in 3? Very helpful for the little 'uns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 No idea what it's like in Australia. Being married now I haven't had to worry about if you have less protection as an unmarried couple. Things like this can be complex in Australia because different states have different laws and federal and state laws can overlap. Here in Tasmania I don't think there is much difference now. Centrelink entitlements and tax rebates are the same for defacto and married couples. For legal situations (estates, property settlement etc) I think a defacto relationship which has lasted at least 2 years is treated exactly the same as marriage.. And I think things are very similar in other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 I'm with you 100%. I really don't see how being married is somehow better than being not married in a long term comitted relationship (I've been married for 10 years). It's not just the tax breaks that the government are looking to implement that is unfair either - unmarried couples have a lot less rights and protections than married couples. When my eldest was born if you weren't married then the father had no parental responsibility, which basically meant no rights over the child (no being able to give consent if they need an injection etc). We had to go to court to get him parental responsibility. I believe they have changed this now, but there are all sorts of other things that only apply if you have signed that piece of paper. ETA - sorry, this applies in the UK. No idea what it's like in Australia. Being married now I haven't had to worry about if you have less protection as an unmarried couple. That's interesting. My daughter was born in the UK and it never occured to me that my partner wouldn't have a say in medical stuff. If his name is on the birth certificate you'd imagine that he's have equal rights. Very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 What's the divorce rate again? 1 in 3? Very helpful for the little 'uns. Far less than unmarried couples that split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flathead Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 If his name is on the birth certificate you'd imagine that he's have equal rights. Very odd. I thought you were a fella':embarrassed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Far less than unmarried couples that split. Can you point us to the stats comparing separation rates for married and unmarried couples with children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 Things like this can be complex in Australia because different states have different laws and federal and state laws can overlap. Here in Tasmania I don't think there is much difference now. Centrelink entitlements and tax rebates are the same for defacto and married couples. For legal situations (estates, property settlement etc) I think a defacto relationship which has lasted at least 2 years is treated exactly the same as marriage.. And I think things are very similar in other states. I've never really been clued up on the differences in either country. I just caught a headline this morning that made me bristle a bit. I've never really understood marriage. I'm all for commitment and a stable home for children, I just don't equate that with marriage, particularly in light of divorce statistics. It seems a bit intrusive for the government to start trying to dictate the form that adult relationships take. I'd feel that way about either country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellers and Whitehead Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 That's interesting. My daughter was born in the UK and it never occured to me that my partner wouldn't have a say in medical stuff. If his name is on the birth certificate you'd imagine that he's have equal rights. Very odd. The child’s father has parental responsibility: if he is married to the mother at the time of the birth; under English law also if he marries the mother later on; if he is on the birth certificate for births registered in England or Wales after 1 December 2003; if he and the mother have signed a parental responsibility agreement, which is a prescribed form, and lodged it with the court; or if the court has made a parental responsibility order in the father’s favour. Of course a father can only get parental responsibility in any of these ways if he is the legal father, but not if he is only a the biological father through being a sperm donor or simply the mother’s boyfriend. There is a presumption that the mother’s husband at the time of birth is the father, but this can be rebutted through evidence, except in cases of artificial insemination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf N Turf Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 The child’s father has parental responsibility: if he is married to the mother at the time of the birth; under English law also if he marries the mother later on; if he is on the birth certificate for births registered in England or Wales after 1 December 2003; if he and the mother have signed a parental responsibility agreement, which is a prescribed form, and lodged it with the court; or if the court has made a parental responsibility order in the father’s favour. Of course a father can only get parental responsibility in any of these ways if he is the legal father, but not if he is only a the biological father through being a sperm donor or simply the mother’s boyfriend. There is a presumption that the mother’s husband at the time of birth is the father, but this can be rebutted through evidence, except in cases of artificial insemination. Thanks for clarifying that. It would have been pretty antiquated to have still been in effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Can you point us to the stats comparing separation rates for married and unmarried couples with children? No problem...just google it. Unmarried parents are six times more likely to split by their child's fifth birthday than those who are married, say researchers. Cohabiting partners face a 'disproportionate' risk of breaking up in the early years of their son or daughter's life. The study from the think-tank the Jubilee Centre will reignite concerns that Britain is fast becoming a nation of broken homes.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004878/Unmarried-parents-6-times-likely-split-time-child-5.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjg Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Can you point us to the stats comparing separation rates for married and unmarried couples with children? Come on Skani, PB only ever types what is reality in Perthbum world. He can never back any of his outlandish claims up with any evidence. Bloody hell, evidence! I stand corrected. Has his account been hacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 What's so great about married people? They contribute more to the government coffers by (a) having to pay for the marriage registration (b) having to pay for the divorce. Therefore cheapskates like you (and me!) deserve to be punished by a Conservative government. :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.