ChatterBank17 mins ago
Why Not Just Get Married?
https:/
When they knew that he was ill, surely they would have known the consequences of not being married so why not just pop down to the registry office and get married? How long would have taken, twenty minutes, half an hour? What is it about these people who refuse point blank to get married no matter what, what are they trying to prove? I do not understand the mentality, so against marriage but yet will be together for years and have children. Can someone please explain?
When they knew that he was ill, surely they would have known the consequences of not being married so why not just pop down to the registry office and get married? How long would have taken, twenty minutes, half an hour? What is it about these people who refuse point blank to get married no matter what, what are they trying to prove? I do not understand the mentality, so against marriage but yet will be together for years and have children. Can someone please explain?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If they *were* entitled to a pension then you get the pension instead, which is usually a lot more than a one-off lump sum of £2000. Also, of course, what if your partner dies before they were able to make sufficient NI contributions? Be a bit mean to say "sorry but he died too young so nerts to you."
Perhaps stop assuming that everyone who receives state benefits is a lazy entitled sloth for once?
Perhaps stop assuming that everyone who receives state benefits is a lazy entitled sloth for once?
2001, vulcan -- before that, such benefits were only available to widowed women. I am not sure if the benefit can be retroactively applied for but if you are interested then you could investigate the page below:
https:/
https:/
In terms of the original question, it is worth noting that many Bereavement benefits, including entitlement to state pensions, are often not longer claimable if the widowed spouse has married somebody else since the death -- or, more to the point, if you "live with another person as if you’re married or in a civil partnership".
It would seem to me that if relationships that aren't formalised by marriage are enough to make you no longer entitled to such benefits, then they should be enough to allow you to justify claiming them.
It would seem to me that if relationships that aren't formalised by marriage are enough to make you no longer entitled to such benefits, then they should be enough to allow you to justify claiming them.
jim 09:41 The sentence in question refers to people over state pension age. "If they *were* entitled to a pension then you get the pension instead" - but they are not entitled in this scenario but their spouse does get BA according to that sentence, if they have made enough to get a state pension then they do not get BA.
"Perhaps stop assuming that everyone who receives state benefits is a lazy entitled sloth for once? " - I'm just pointing out, that, as usual, the state rewards those who do not work hard enough to provide for themselves in old age.
"Perhaps stop assuming that everyone who receives state benefits is a lazy entitled sloth for once? " - I'm just pointing out, that, as usual, the state rewards those who do not work hard enough to provide for themselves in old age.
I've written more elegant sentences in my life, to be sure.
1. If you are living with someone as if you are married or in a CP, then you are no longer entitled to widowed-spouse benefits.
2. Therefore, the state recognises the existence of such relationships.
3. Therefore, why not also recognise them when wishing to claim such benefits?
1. If you are living with someone as if you are married or in a CP, then you are no longer entitled to widowed-spouse benefits.
2. Therefore, the state recognises the existence of such relationships.
3. Therefore, why not also recognise them when wishing to claim such benefits?
I can see that there's a difference between the two cases, to be sure.
All the same, I am sure that you could simply require, say, evidence of a joint tenancy, or a joint house ownership, or joint account, some such, going back, say, five years or so. I'm sure it would be possible, then, to extend coverage to those who are in genuine, albeit non-married, relationships, while still protecting the system from the sort of lies you are referring to.
All the same, I am sure that you could simply require, say, evidence of a joint tenancy, or a joint house ownership, or joint account, some such, going back, say, five years or so. I'm sure it would be possible, then, to extend coverage to those who are in genuine, albeit non-married, relationships, while still protecting the system from the sort of lies you are referring to.
-- answer removed --
4-1 in favour of the appeal, judgement here:
https:/
I'll summarise later, as still reading it.
https:/
I'll summarise later, as still reading it.
"Good news they have won their case."
It's not good news at all. It is another nail in the coffin of marriage - an institution that has shown - and still shows - to be the most stable model for raising a family. Slowly but surely the privileges that go along with marriage are being extended to those who don't marry. Remaining unwed is their choice. But marriage brings with it responsibilities as well as rights. It seems to me that those remaining unwed are increasingly able to take advantage of the latter whilst remaining conveniently immune from the former.
It's not good news at all. It is another nail in the coffin of marriage - an institution that has shown - and still shows - to be the most stable model for raising a family. Slowly but surely the privileges that go along with marriage are being extended to those who don't marry. Remaining unwed is their choice. But marriage brings with it responsibilities as well as rights. It seems to me that those remaining unwed are increasingly able to take advantage of the latter whilst remaining conveniently immune from the former.
It is worth pointing out that there are two different classes of widows' benefits in question: the first is the Bereavement Payment linked to by Minty, and that, even after this judgement, remains only available to those who were married to, or in a civil partnership with, their partner.
The one that was directly challenged in this appeal, however, is the "Widowed Parent's Allowance" -- emphasis on the word "parent". That is to say, that really this was a benefit intended to help support the children who have lost a parent. I leave it to Lord Mance (para 52) to make the point for me:
// A policy in favour of marriage or civil partnership may constitute justification for differential treatment, when children are not involved. But it *cannot* do so in relation to a benefit targeted at the needs and well-being of children. //
[Emphasis added]
There is a clear difference between the two. NJ is entitled to bemoan the decline of marriage as an institution, but if there are children involved too, casting moral or societal judgements on the choices of the parents becomes far less justified. Indeed, amongst European nations, the UK is exceptional in that it pays such benefits to the remaining parent, rather than directly to the children (para 30, para 41).
The one that was directly challenged in this appeal, however, is the "Widowed Parent's Allowance" -- emphasis on the word "parent". That is to say, that really this was a benefit intended to help support the children who have lost a parent. I leave it to Lord Mance (para 52) to make the point for me:
// A policy in favour of marriage or civil partnership may constitute justification for differential treatment, when children are not involved. But it *cannot* do so in relation to a benefit targeted at the needs and well-being of children. //
[Emphasis added]
There is a clear difference between the two. NJ is entitled to bemoan the decline of marriage as an institution, but if there are children involved too, casting moral or societal judgements on the choices of the parents becomes far less justified. Indeed, amongst European nations, the UK is exceptional in that it pays such benefits to the remaining parent, rather than directly to the children (para 30, para 41).
