Government Consultation on law relating to Cohabitation

[jmn]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&amp...

The Government has launched a consultation on reforming the law for relationships other than marriage. It runs until the 10th of August.

[s1962a]

Government Article said:

art of that is making the law clearer and more transparent, so it is more accessible to those who use it. Reform should also give couples greater autonomy in planning their future financial arrangements. That is why this consultation proposes introducing qualifying nuptial agreements, enabling couples to decide in advance how finances should be arranged in the event of divorce while ensuring important safeguards to ensure needs are met and to protect against coercion.

This sounds like a decent option to have available.

[PurplePenguin]

s1962a said:

Government Article said:

art of that is making the law clearer and more transparent, so it is more accessible to those who use it. Reform should also give couples greater autonomy in planning their future financial arrangements. That is why this consultation proposes introducing qualifying nuptial agreements, enabling couples to decide in advance how finances should be arranged in the event of divorce while ensuring important safeguards to ensure needs are met and to protect against coercion.

This sounds like a decent option to have available.

Is this where cohabitation for x years results in de facto marriage and all that entails when splitting?

[Sheets Tabuer]

PurplePenguin said:

Is this where cohabitation for x years results in de facto marriage and all that entails when splitting?

Yup, another area they don't need to interfere in.

[JagLover]

s1962a said:

This sounds like a decent option to have available.

It isn't an option. An option would be to be able to choose to enter into some sort of civil partnership.

This is being imposed and will treat co-habiting as de-facto marriage.

[JagLover]

Marriage represents a choice. A choice that is often financially disastrous for one of the parties involved, typically the man, but a choice nonetheless.

If any children arise from a relationship there is already provision for them via child maintenance. If there is joint payment toward a mortgage then provision to split a home.

What need is this addressing other than to seize a share of assets not contributed to?. In the future there will also be a choice of whether to start co-habiting, this however will not have the obvious implications of marriage and also is being applied retrospectively.

[98elise]

JagLover said:

s1962a said:

This sounds like a decent option to have available.

It isn't an option. An option would be to be able to choose to enter into some sort of civil partnership.

This is being imposed and will treat co-habiting as de-facto marriage.

Agreed. This is not optional, it would be the government deciding you're in a particular kind of relationship even if you don't want to be.

Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 10th June 14:54

[Murph7355]

JagLover said:

Marriage represents a choice. A choice that is often financially disastrous for one of the parties involved, typically the man, but a choice nonetheless.

If any children arise from a relationship there is already provision for them via child maintenance. If there is joint payment toward a mortgage then provision to split a home.

What need is this addressing other than to seize a share of assets not contributed to?. In the future there will also be a choice of whether to start co-habiting, this however will not have the obvious implications of marriage and also is being applied retrospectively.

I think a primary use case is when someone dies having not yet done the marriage thing with their partner.

I see no real issue with it. Current provisions evidently have gaps.

Not everyone wants to go through the ceremonial part of marriage and the different options for living together/partnerships have anomalies in the outcomes of a split that make no sense. In this day and age, they just need straightening out.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Government Article said:

That is why this consultation proposes introducing qualifying nuptial agreements, enabling couples to decide in advance how finances should be arranged in the event of divorce while ensuring important safeguards to ensure needs are met and to protect against coercion.

There is no way that will add up to a 'normal' prenuptial agreement because if they allow that then women who are out of a relationship will end up on benefits and the state picks up the tab.

Weasel words that will mean "Men ultimately will still be made to pay for women because if not the tax payer will have to". Equality my arse.

Ditto also the cohabiting changes.

No wonder we've stopped breeding.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Murph7355 said:

the different options for living together/partnerships have anomalies in the outcomes of a split that make no sense. In this day and age, they just need straightening out.

What precisely do you mean? If a couple want to take financial responsibility for each other following a split they can, marriage or not. If they don't they can choose not to be married and not to voluntarily pay the other one following the split.

Which case is missing from that? Let me guess, the case where one partner wants funding from the other partner following a split against the will of the other partner? Is that what you have in mind?

[JagLover]

I return to the issue of informed choice.

Now many may be unaware of all the financial implications of divorce. In particular the concept that fault has been virtually removed and the other party could be at "fault" in any reasonable interpretation of the word (unfaithful etc) but you could still lose most of your assets. However it is such a life changing decision that you should be aware and have informed yourself accordingly.

Co-habiting represents none of this and creating serious financial consequences for a "choice" that may be little more than letting her keep a toothbrush at your place is a whole other matter entirely.

The sexes are already increasingly living apart and this will hasten the process.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 10th June 15:30

[55palfers]

Looks like our Government has really just run out of steam.

[98elise]

Murph7355 said:

JagLover said:

Marriage represents a choice. A choice that is often financially disastrous for one of the parties involved, typically the man, but a choice nonetheless.

If any children arise from a relationship there is already provision for them via child maintenance. If there is joint payment toward a mortgage then provision to split a home.

What need is this addressing other than to seize a share of assets not contributed to?. In the future there will also be a choice of whether to start co-habiting, this however will not have the obvious implications of marriage and also is being applied retrospectively.

I think a primary use case is when someone dies having not yet done the marriage thing with their partner.

I see no real issue with it. Current provisions evidently have gaps.

Not everyone wants to go through the ceremonial part of marriage and the different options for living together/partnerships have anomalies in the outcomes of a split that make no sense. In this day and age, they just need straightening out.

You don't have to do the ceremonial part. You can just enter into a simple civil partnership, with a couple of witnesses.

I'm happy for the government to set some protections if one partner dies, but not when they decide to split. There is already plenty of options if thats what you want.

[Camoradi]

Interesting. If the government is going to treat two people cohabiting for an extended period as a de-facto marriage, does this mean they will not be seeking inheritance tax if one parrtner dies and the other inherits their assets?

[s1962a]

PurplePenguin said:

s1962a said:

Government Article said:

art of that is making the law clearer and more transparent, so it is more accessible to those who use it. Reform should also give couples greater autonomy in planning their future financial arrangements. That is why this consultation proposes introducing qualifying nuptial agreements, enabling couples to decide in advance how finances should be arranged in the event of divorce while ensuring important safeguards to ensure needs are met and to protect against coercion.

This sounds like a decent option to have available.

Is this where cohabitation for x years results in de facto marriage and all that entails when splitting?

That part of the article seems to be talking about "prenups" for marriage - hence their reference to divorce. Are they suggesting it applies to co-habiting couples from the get-go?

[Wills2]

55palfers said:

Looks like our Government has really just run out of steam.

If only they had, they seem to have a never ending stream of meddling policy ideas to throw up the flag pole....they really ought to concern themselves with the fact we appear to going down by the stern rather than these largely misanthropic ideas.

[98elise]

Wills2 said:

55palfers said:

Looks like our Government has really just run out of steam.

If only they had, they seem to have a never ending stream of meddling policy ideas to throw up the flag pole....they really ought to concern themselves with the fact we appear to going down by the stern rather than these largely misanthropic ideas.

They do seem keen on ever more control over the population.

[Sheepshanks]

Camoradi said:

Interesting. If the government is going to treat two people cohabiting for an extended period as a de-facto marriage, does this mean they will not be seeking inheritance tax if one parrtner dies and the other inherits their assets?

There's quite a bit in there about dealing with inheritance, mainly to do with partners being left in dire straights.

"It does not address matters that sit with other Government departments, such as inheritance tax or pension entitlements."

[Stick Legs]

I'm afraid I see it as one more step along the socialist playbook, remove the special status of marriage / civil partnership etc etc.

Now it doesn't matter what YOU decide, it doesn't matter how your relationship is special to you or not, co-habiting taxable organic units are all the same.

[CoolHands]

Another Labour interference in our lives.