PDA

View Full Version : Two straight Canadian blokes to marry


Gary
09-08-2005, 10:04:05
Bill Dalrymple, 56, and chum Bryan Pinn, 65 have decided to tie the knot. (http://www.theregister.com/2005/08/08/canadian_blokes_get_hitched/)

And quite right too ! Why should one be forced into ceremonies just to get tax breaks ? If equity is to mean anything to the authorities one should be able to nominate one person to fulfil the tax break role without all that nonsense. So if this sham is the first step, good on 'em.

Bruce Walker warned: "Generally speaking, marriage should be for love. People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble,"Err, only in some cultures. Others have arranged marriages and claim that they are the more stable relationships.

Funko
09-08-2005, 10:06:17
And why shouldn't they be able to?

Funko
09-08-2005, 10:07:01
Or, more sensibly, in this day and age why should married people get tax breaks over single people or unmarried couples? No good reason for it whatsoever.

Gary
09-08-2005, 10:09:51
To a large extent, true, although you do still have to avoid leaving dependants in the lurch when a "breadwinner" dies. Often their own choice of lifestyle, of course, but I think just removing everything might be a little simplistic, especially without a transition period to give time to cover those sorts of areas.

Drekkus
09-08-2005, 10:14:48
"Generally speaking, marriage should be for love. People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble,":lol: I think a lot of rich guys got married for love to women who married for money. And they were the ones in trouble in the end.

MoSe
09-08-2005, 12:01:56
Originally posted by Funko
Or, more sensibly, in this day and age why should married people get tax breaks over single people or unmarried couples? No good reason for it whatsoever.

I don't know why should couples get tax breaks over single people. Or rather, I can figure it although I disagree.

But my general position is that unmarried couples CAN have tax breaks if they want: they just have to marry!
At least in that, marriage is a bureaucratic procedure granting some benefits. Why should you be expecting the benefits linked to marriage without wanting to get married?

Funko
09-08-2005, 12:21:59
Originally posted by Gary
To a large extent, true, although you do still have to avoid leaving dependants in the lurch when a "breadwinner" dies.

I think that supports my case, as it should be the same legally and financially whether or not the couple is married or not when the "breadwinner" dies.

Gary
09-08-2005, 13:08:33
Originally posted by MoSe
Why should you be expecting the benefits linked to marriage without wanting to get married? More to the point, why should the tax breaks be associated with marriage ? That's effectively trying to force a parliment's view of morality on the populous, by giving an incentive to married couples that is not available to others.

MoSe
09-08-2005, 13:21:25
I don't see marriage as a morality issue, but as a formal bureaucratic act certifying the couple status.

If you want to be recognised as a couple, you should be able to do so with a formal act.
That formal act EXISTS, and it's called civil marriage.

As Funko said tho, why should be benefits as tax breaks be associated with couples in the first place?

Gary
09-08-2005, 13:49:24
You don't have to see it as a moral issue, but in my opinion it is clear the authorities do as otherwise why treat married couples differently to those who either chose not to marry, or find they are never in a position to do so ?

Also IMO 'couple' status should need no certification. If certification is considered useful, as in the case where you intend to treat one portion of the population differently to another, then it should be no more than that. A certificate one person signs to agree that another is appointed as the one to get any accruing benefits. Hopefully reciprocated in the other direction.

A civil marriage is not the same thing at all. It is a ceremony as marriages always are. Often the very thing not desired by those who chose not to marry.

Sure 'no tax breaks' is one solution, but whether there are tax breaks or not, folk should be treated equally regardless of life-style choices.

MoSe
09-08-2005, 15:33:55
I see your POV, and I agree that albeit "states" instituted a layman act as the civil marriage that should be divested of all the religious and moral implications, it is still burdened with the legacy of those implications.

I keep my position tho.
I know States are alas still meddling with individual ethics and morality issues, which they shouldn't be doing at all imho (and in that respect the inclusion of "christian roots" in the EU Constitution would have been a TRAGIC setback in humanity's social evolution).
But if two people live together without declaring it formally, they're free to do it. They might as well be committed for life personally, but in what their obligations and expectation wrt society are, they have to act each individually, free to combine those assets and duties together on their own initiative.

I think that civil marriage SHOULD be a mere issue of societal organization. You declare that you want to assume a "couple" role as an entity in the fabric of society. I understand that this new entity might be granted some benefits, as the synergy of two individuals might be seen as advantageous for the society (e.g. in the rearing of offspring, albeit that shouldn't be a requisite). AND as long you keep part in such entity, you also assume commitments and obligations to it in the face of society.

So, in regard of lifestyle, I agree that people should be treated equally, and I think they are.

Living together or not living together, these are lifestyle choices imho.

"Living together and formalising it" vs. "living together and not caring/bothering or being wary to formalise it", that's not "lifestyle", that's an administrative option (YOU CHOOSE to live as a private couple without accessing the advantages/duties of an official couple), or even some idiosyncracy, some psychological limit of the two individuals, not of the state/society.

I know things are not actully that way, but I believe they should be, and I'll always lobby in favor that more and more people approach it that way.


____

I didn't talk of "love" not because I don't believe ni it, but because I believe it has nothing to do with marriage. They are two totally unrelated things. They could exist together, but as totally separated issues, not one because of the other.

Japher
09-08-2005, 15:48:08
I didn't talk of "love" not because I don't believe ni it, but because I believe it has nothing to do with marriage. They are two totally unrelated things. They could exist together, but as totally separated issues, not one because of the other.


I agree.

As for the union thing, I also agree.

IMO, if there is some mama's boy living with his mom as he works, supporst her, etc. he should get a break just as much as someone who has a wife at home. Cohabitation.

Gary
09-08-2005, 16:46:26
You declare that you want to assume a "couple" role as an entity in the fabric of society

Actually not quite that. Assuming for the sake of the discussion that some form of benefit is to exist. Then personally I don't care if they are living as a couple or mere friends (as I assume the Canadians will be). If they agree that each is going to designate the other as, for want of a better term, 'primary beneficiary' for any breaks going that are presently reserved for married couples, then so be it.

In fact I wouldn't even insist that each nominates the other. The law could, if desired, allow one way agreements, or triangular agreements between 3 people, or open ended chains between umpteen folk. (And they need not all live in the same house.) It doesn't get overly complicated as the 'tax-man' would just treat each person as an individual, and pass on whatever is being offer to whoever the individual had nominated.

And I am unconvinced that marriage is of benefit to society. Seen too many unhappy ones break up, and at the same time seen many unmarried folk stay together, to be convinced of any significant benefit. But that's my personal experience. I don't see any significant difference, despite the thrill some get of formalising their commitment, on the day.

Or you could just scrap the tax break interference :)

notyoueither
10-08-2005, 05:06:42
I'm looking forward to the screaming during the property settlement stage of this 'marriage'.

notyoueither
10-08-2005, 05:16:24
Originally posted by Gary
You don't have to see it as a moral issue, but in my opinion it is clear the authorities do as otherwise why treat married couples differently to those who either chose not to marry, or find they are never in a position to do so ?

Children and family.

That is the assumption behind our recent laws. Even people who did not want to get married are viewed as legally a couple after two years of cohabitation.

The posted article seems to be a couple of people wanting to take advantage of recent court rulings to lessen tax burden. That might sound like a good plan, but consider...

For there to be an advantage, I doubt they earn the same.

The one who earns more is most likely lining himself up to be raped, in a legal sense, when the one earning less gets ready to leave and says 'oh, thanks, I'll take half the communal property with me.'

notyoueither
10-08-2005, 05:23:41
... or either one is in an accident and becomes mentally incapacitated for a period of time. He may very well wake up one day to find all of his property gone and there being no sign of 'hubby'.

If people want to be jackasses over recent events, so be it.

I will reserve some mirth for the event when I read their sob storeys about how they fucked themselves over.

Gary
10-08-2005, 09:16:16
You have a point, but even if 'co-habs' get totally equal billing with 'marrieds' after a while (and I'm no expert but I'm unsure that is the case) it then brings up a further point. It means that singletons, and couples that want their own space so purchase a home each, are subsidising the married folks regardless as to whether they have children or not.

(And even if they do have children, that's a personal choice and should bring with it personal responsibilities. I don't approve of the government subsidising folk's children in an overpopulated country. Communal stuff, such as education, poverty relief, etc. aside, that is.)

Alexander's Horse
10-08-2005, 09:27:13
thats it, I'm marrying a Canadian bloke who likes fishing.

Funko
10-08-2005, 09:50:17
Originally posted by Gary
You have a point, but even if 'co-habs' get totally equal billing with 'marrieds' after a while (and I'm no expert but I'm unsure that is the case)

It's definitely not the case in the UK, no idea what the law is in Canada.

The Norks
10-08-2005, 12:01:25
Originally posted by MoSe
I don't know why should couples get tax breaks over single people. Or rather, I can figure it although I disagree.

But my general position is that unmarried couples CAN have tax breaks if they want: they just have to marry!
At least in that, marriage is a bureaucratic procedure granting some benefits. Why should you be expecting the benefits linked to marriage without wanting to get married?

because you might take your union as a couple seriously, but may not believe in the institution (and expense) of marriage. In a nutshell.

Funko
10-08-2005, 12:14:48
Help, I don't believe in the institution of marriage and I'm trapped inside a giant nut!!!

MoSe
10-08-2005, 13:21:18
Originally posted by The Norks
because you might take your union as a couple seriously, but may not believe in the institution (and expense) of marriage. In a nutshell.

OK. Fine with me, I'm with you.
But.
The benefits from the society come in bundle with the institution (and I mean civil not religious).

You can take seriously your union as a couple towards each other. But if you don't officialise it, you're not taking it seriously towards the society. At least that's what the society thinks. So the society won't give you squat, because you didn't tell it you're a couple.

Funko
10-08-2005, 13:26:40
That is a fair point.

The cost is irrelevant a civil wedding can cost next to nothing, (only a couple of hundred for a registry office service).

As all we are talking about is getting the legal/tax benefits and for that you don't have to have a reception or anything else, that's a personal choice.

Gary
10-08-2005, 15:08:41
Taking it seriously towards society ? Not sure I understand that phrase, and not sure I like it. I'm not there to run around satisfying some official's desires. Society is there for the benefit of the people, the people are not there to satisfy officials.

And in any case it isn't society that thinks you're not being serious (or at least not all of it, as there are bound to be some awkard sods) but it's the folk who make the rules, and who are supposed to understand that they are public servants.

The only need to tell 'society' should be a simple declaration on the tax form who you wish to nominate for any tax savings that are going. After that the officials can keep their nose out of other's business. This idea that the officials are only going to accept a declared relationship if you marry, is a darned cheek.

It's not the case of society giving squat, it's not about hand-outs. It's about not taking more for the kitty from one than another without a reasonable justification.