Chit Chat

Should marriage be privatized?

1356

Re: Should marriage be privatized?

  • kkitkat79 said:
    @Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

    I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   
    my grandfather lived with his GF for 30 something year before his death.    They did not get married because it would mean a decrease in SS benifits for them.  The GF would also lose her deceased husband's penison if she remarried.   Also the GF's husband's will allowed her to live in the house until her death or she remarried.  

    The surviving spouse does not get the whole SS amount from their spouse.  It's a small fraction.  When my other grandfather died, his wife, my grandmother's benefits slightly increased, but it was not to the amount of their joint SS amount before grandpa died.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

    I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   
    Marrying someone solely for the benefits is FRAUD. Your two besties and you, "marrying" to get the benefits? Fraud. Two platonic old people marrying each other for the benefits? Fraud. Marrying your best friend because s/he is going to be deported otherwise? FRAUD. Your benefit for fraud? Three squares a day, a pretty striped bedroom, and an hour of rec time in a lovely orange jumpsuit.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • kkitkat79 said:
    Question for everyone. I have two best friends. We are all single. The three of us have no romantic feelings for each other, but we are very very good friends. We decided that we want to get the same recognition from the government as married people do and get the same benefits, rights, and protections that they do. We go to the marriage license office and apply for a licence. Should we be able to get it? If not, why not?

    @Teddy917, For example, you and your spouse agreed that if you break up he/she will pay you $100 every month for 12 months. It is part of your contract and you both signed it. If he/she doesn't pay you should be able to take him/her to court. 
    Honestly, I would say it's totally fine if you're just un-romantic partners and want to get married for the security and legal recognition. As long as you aren't pretending differently to your friends and family I don't think it makes a difference. I don't know how the government responds to those ideas, but hetero people have been doing it for years (usually pretending to love each other) so I don't see why you and your friends can't.


    kkitkat79 said:
    @Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

    I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   
    So you've just hit on one of the few places where I can see actual benefits given to married people. But I'm not sure how anyone would go about solving that. The fairest thing to do would probably be to remove that specific benefit for surviving spouses, which is what I think you are suggesting. But I think that action would harm more than help. There would be more poor old people out on the street. So really perhaps Social Security reform is the place to focus your issues. 

    The legitimate reason was because back in the day ladies didn't work outside the home. So they didn't earn. So they didn't pay into social security. So they didn't get any money from the government. After their husband died they would have no income. There are still people for whom that applies largely because "ladies didn't work".
    image
  • @abcdevonn, I gave an example above of an old couple of friends living together and sharing their social security benefits and how if they were married they would have additional (being able to collect social insurance of a deceased spouse). I guess they could just get married. You know, for the benefits. Would you consider that a social security fraud? What if there are three of them?

    You might be right and it is unrealistic to change the system completely. But to claim that it is not a big deal? I don't know. I think it is a big deal. The least I can do is to recognize my privilege instead of pretending that it is something that I deserve. Can you explain to me why I deserve this privilege?  
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

    I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   
    Seriously, wtf are you talking about?  



  • anjemon said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    Question for everyone. I have two best friends. We are all single. The three of us have no romantic feelings for each other, but we are very very good friends. We decided that we want to get the same recognition from the government as married people do and get the same benefits, rights, and protections that they do. We go to the marriage license office and apply for a licence. Should we be able to get it? If not, why not?

    @Teddy917, For example, you and your spouse agreed that if you break up he/she will pay you $100 every month for 12 months. It is part of your contract and you both signed it. If he/she doesn't pay you should be able to take him/her to court. 
    Honestly, I would say it's totally fine if you're just un-romantic partners and want to get married for the security and legal recognition. As long as you aren't pretending differently to your friends and family I don't think it makes a difference. I don't know how the government responds to those ideas, but hetero people have been doing it for years (usually pretending to love each other) so I don't see why you and your friends can't.


    kkitkat79 said:
    @Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

    I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   
    So you've just hit on one of the few places where I can see actual benefits given to married people. But I'm not sure how anyone would go about solving that. The fairest thing to do would probably be to remove that specific benefit for surviving spouses, which is what I think you are suggesting. But I think that action would harm more than help. There would be more poor old people out on the street. So really perhaps Social Security reform is the place to focus your issues. 

    The legitimate reason was because back in the day ladies didn't work outside the home. So they didn't earn. So they didn't pay into social security. So they didn't get any money from the government. After their husband died they would have no income. There are still people for whom that applies largely because "ladies didn't work".
    My father just died.  My mother will not get my father's social security benefits any longer because her retirement pension was greater than his.  Being married is no guarantee of financial remuneration from the government after your spouse dies.



  • @Viczaesar, I am sorry for your loss.
    Anniversary
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @abcdevonn, I gave an example above of an old couple of friends living together and sharing their social security benefits and how if they were married they would have additional (being able to collect social insurance of a deceased spouse). I guess they could just get married. You know, for the benefits. Would you consider that a social security fraud? What if there are three of them?

    You might be right and it is unrealistic to change the system completely. But to claim that it is not a big deal? I don't know. I think it is a big deal. The least I can do is to recognize my privilege instead of pretending that it is something that I deserve. Can you explain to me why I deserve this privilege?  
    To your first point, again, I don't think there is infrastructure in place to support non-married couples using their friends/partner's social security after their death. At this rate, there is not enough social security to support the next generation of people who would otherwise be able to receive it individually. I would say the person who remains alive in that situation should have either better prepared for retirement, or is just, unfortunately, out of luck and will need to decrease spending/housing/cut corners wherever they can. It's obviously not an ideal or even "okay" situation, but that is the reality of the world we live in. Now, you propose that we strip married couples of the right to use their deceased spouses' social security, but as PPs have said, that will do more harm than good, because then many more people would be in the above situation. That does not fix anything. You can scream into the void that it is unfair that married people have these privileges, but you have yet to come up with a realistic and better solution to the problems at hand. 

    To your second point, no where did I claim that is it not a big deal that these issues exist. It is a big deal, but it is not solely an issue of marriage. Do not think that social security and funding for all social services (medicare, medicaid, etc.) is not already a massive problem (again, speaking for the US). Again, you are generalizing a bigger issue that people are constantly battling. 
  • I seriously don't understand why you've spent fucking DAYS on a wedding planning message board arguing against getting married.

    What. The. Fuck.
    Meanwhile already being married!

    image

    Daisypath - Personal pictureDaisypath Anniversary tickers

  • kkitkat79 said:

    @abcdevonn, I gave an example above of an old couple of friends living together and sharing their social security benefits and how if they were married they would have additional (being able to collect social insurance of a deceased spouse). I guess they could just get married. You know, for the benefits. Would you consider that a social security fraud? What if there are three of them?


    You might be right and it is unrealistic to change the system completely. But to claim that it is not a big deal? I don't know. I think it is a big deal. The least I can do is to recognize my privilege instead of pretending that it is something that I deserve. Can you explain to me why I deserve this privilege?  
    There are disadvantages to getting married too. Not only the different tax bracket in some cases. For example, my husband used to get SSDI but when we got married the government said that since I can work, he didn't need SSDI or Medicaid anymore because I should be able to support him. So I'm having to try to make enough to cover normal expenses plus his therapy appointments and medications.
  • Viczaesar said:
    anjemon said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    Question for everyone. I have two best friends. We are all single. The three of us have no romantic feelings for each other, but we are very very good friends. We decided that we want to get the same recognition from the government as married people do and get the same benefits, rights, and protections that they do. We go to the marriage license office and apply for a licence. Should we be able to get it? If not, why not?

    @Teddy917, For example, you and your spouse agreed that if you break up he/she will pay you $100 every month for 12 months. It is part of your contract and you both signed it. If he/she doesn't pay you should be able to take him/her to court. 
    Honestly, I would say it's totally fine if you're just un-romantic partners and want to get married for the security and legal recognition. As long as you aren't pretending differently to your friends and family I don't think it makes a difference. I don't know how the government responds to those ideas, but hetero people have been doing it for years (usually pretending to love each other) so I don't see why you and your friends can't.


    kkitkat79 said:
    @Vizsaesar, what if you are single 70 year old living with another single 80 year old. You put your social security benefits together and are able to afford your life. Your friend dies. Your income goes down and you can no longer afford your life. The quality of your life goes down. Still feel there are no benefits of marriage that are missing from your life?

    I am sure that does not happen a lot and I am sure there are other remedies. But it is so much easier if the government recognizes you as married. Why should it be? There might be legitimate reasons. No one cares to share them with me.   
    So you've just hit on one of the few places where I can see actual benefits given to married people. But I'm not sure how anyone would go about solving that. The fairest thing to do would probably be to remove that specific benefit for surviving spouses, which is what I think you are suggesting. But I think that action would harm more than help. There would be more poor old people out on the street. So really perhaps Social Security reform is the place to focus your issues. 

    The legitimate reason was because back in the day ladies didn't work outside the home. So they didn't earn. So they didn't pay into social security. So they didn't get any money from the government. After their husband died they would have no income. There are still people for whom that applies largely because "ladies didn't work".
    My father just died.  My mother will not get my father's social security benefits any longer because her retirement pension was greater than his.  Being married is no guarantee of financial remuneration from the government after your spouse dies.
    Yep.

    If 2 or more people live together, married or not, and one of them dies there will more than likely be a change in finances.  Sometimes leading to a lifestyle change.   

    DH makes 4 times what I do, if he died today, my lifestyle would change.   It just will.  It has nothing to do with being married or not.   If we were already collecting SS it would still change because I would not be getting his full benefits anymore.  Now we have insurance to help, but it will still change.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • Can we move on to more important shit? Like why clockwise is clockwise and how counter-clockwise is discriminated agaisnt by not having any clocks going that direction?
    Seriously! 11-7 just do not get enough respect. They always are the second half, never the first! And don't get my started on 12, that little assclown gets to be first and last on every rotation, while 6 is always pleasantly in the middle.
  • @chemfanatic25 A few others have covered it but no, if you are married and you file separately you are still taxed at 28% (from my example) or the higher rate. Because you must file as married- separate, not as "single" and the brackets are different for each of those.

                                                                     

    image

  • You can file taxes separately, but they still take you and your spouse's income into consideration when filing. You have a line where you have to enter your spouse's income and it is added to yours and vice versa. Normally, you have to inform your taxation office of change of marital status right away.

    Does this apply for common law as well (in Canada)?
    image
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @abcdevonn, I gave an example above of an old couple of friends living together and sharing their social security benefits and how if they were married they would have additional (being able to collect social insurance of a deceased spouse). I guess they could just get married. You know, for the benefits. Would you consider that a social security fraud? What if there are three of them?

    You might be right and it is unrealistic to change the system completely. But to claim that it is not a big deal? I don't know. I think it is a big deal. The least I can do is to recognize my privilege instead of pretending that it is something that I deserve. Can you explain to me why I deserve this privilege?  


    FUCKING QUOTE BOXES GODDAMMIT

    This is not you "recognizing your privilege". That's a big fat load of horse shit. Recognizing your privilege is recognizing that you and I are well off enough that you have time to debate endlessly in circles about the privatization of marriage on a fluffy wedding forum while Joe Blow down the street doesn't have time to even eat dinner with his wife between his three jobs. But - Joe Blow has the RIGHT to have a wife, even if he can only see her a few minutes a day sometimes. Nan Blow has the RIGHT to be married to Joe. They love each other, and - thank God, even if it was Joe and Bob, or Josie and Nan - they can be married for $100. They maybe saved up pennies for WEEKS for that right, but it is still their RIGHT and not a privilege only afforded to certain people (although yes, poly relationships are currently excluded - there are a multitude of reasons for that, and I hope that in my lifetime I see those issues resolved, but I don't foresee it happening ANYTIME soon). 

    Privatization of marriage will make that RIGHT unaffordable. An easy peasy Will costs $150 in my office. A prenup as thorough as the laws around divorce? $500-$800. And with a prenup, you each have to have your own attorney - so it's really $1000-1600. Joe and Nan above, who scraped up pennies for weeks for their $100 private ceremony with the Judge of Probate, are now looking at potentially an entire month's salary just to establish the ground rules that the government already established before a bunch of anarchist whackjobs decided to privatize marriage. At that point, marriage becomes a privilege. And the stability of the nuclear family at the level that needs it most (the poorest class) is completely lost.

    Marriage benefits are not a privilege afforded to some. They are a right afforded to all who are legally able to marry. Polygamous couples have some major obstacles to overcome, yes, and it will be the next big fight, but for Christ's sake, your argument is so ridiculous. 
    image
    Amor vincet omnia.... par liones.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker

    image
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @abcdevonn, I gave an example above of an old couple of friends living together and sharing their social security benefits and how if they were married they would have additional (being able to collect social insurance of a deceased spouse). I guess they could just get married. You know, for the benefits. Would you consider that a social security fraud? What if there are three of them?

    You might be right and it is unrealistic to change the system completely. But to claim that it is not a big deal? I don't know. I think it is a big deal. The least I can do is to recognize my privilege instead of pretending that it is something that I deserve. Can you explain to me why I deserve this privilege?  


    FUCKING QUOTE BOXES GODDAMMIT

    This is not you "recognizing your privilege". That's a big fat load of horse shit. Recognizing your privilege is recognizing that you and I are well off enough that you have time to debate endlessly in circles about the privatization of marriage on a fluffy wedding forum while Joe Blow down the street doesn't have time to even eat dinner with his wife between his three jobs. But - Joe Blow has the RIGHT to have a wife, even if he can only see her a few minutes a day sometimes. Nan Blow has the RIGHT to be married to Joe. They love each other, and - thank God, even if it was Joe and Bob, or Josie and Nan - they can be married for $100. They maybe saved up pennies for WEEKS for that right, but it is still their RIGHT and not a privilege only afforded to certain people (although yes, poly relationships are currently excluded - there are a multitude of reasons for that, and I hope that in my lifetime I see those issues resolved, but I don't foresee it happening ANYTIME soon). 

    Privatization of marriage will make that RIGHT unaffordable. An easy peasy Will costs $150 in my office. A prenup as thorough as the laws around divorce? $500-$800. And with a prenup, you each have to have your own attorney - so it's really $1000-1600. Joe and Nan above, who scraped up pennies for weeks for their $100 private ceremony with the Judge of Probate, are now looking at potentially an entire month's salary just to establish the ground rules that the government already established before a bunch of anarchist whackjobs decided to privatize marriage. At that point, marriage becomes a privilege. And the stability of the nuclear family at the level that needs it most (the poorest class) is completely lost.

    Marriage benefits are not a privilege afforded to some. They are a right afforded to all who are legally able to marry. Polygamous couples have some major obstacles to overcome, yes, and it will be the next big fight, but for Christ's sake, your argument is so ridiculous. 
    image
  • edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:
    @abcdevonn, I gave an example above of an old couple of friends living together and sharing their social security benefits and how if they were married they would have additional (being able to collect social insurance of a deceased spouse). I guess they could just get married. You know, for the benefits. Would you consider that a social security fraud? What if there are three of them?

    You might be right and it is unrealistic to change the system completely. But to claim that it is not a big deal? I don't know. I think it is a big deal. The least I can do is to recognize my privilege instead of pretending that it is something that I deserve. Can you explain to me why I deserve this privilege?  


    FUCKING QUOTE BOXES GODDAMMIT

    This is not you "recognizing your privilege". That's a big fat load of horse shit. Recognizing your privilege is recognizing that you and I are well off enough that you have time to debate endlessly in circles about the privatization of marriage on a fluffy wedding forum while Joe Blow down the street doesn't have time to even eat dinner with his wife between his three jobs. But - Joe Blow has the RIGHT to have a wife, even if he can only see her a few minutes a day sometimes. Nan Blow has the RIGHT to be married to Joe. They love each other, and - thank God, even if it was Joe and Bob, or Josie and Nan - they can be married for $100. They maybe saved up pennies for WEEKS for that right, but it is still their RIGHT and not a privilege only afforded to certain people (although yes, poly relationships are currently excluded - there are a multitude of reasons for that, and I hope that in my lifetime I see those issues resolved, but I don't foresee it happening ANYTIME soon). 

    Privatization of marriage will make that RIGHT unaffordable. An easy peasy Will costs $150 in my office. A prenup as thorough as the laws around divorce? $500-$800. And with a prenup, you each have to have your own attorney - so it's really $1000-1600. Joe and Nan above, who scraped up pennies for weeks for their $100 private ceremony with the Judge of Probate, are now looking at potentially an entire month's salary just to establish the ground rules that the government already established before a bunch of anarchist whackjobs decided to privatize marriage. At that point, marriage becomes a privilege. And the stability of the nuclear family at the level that needs it most (the poorest class) is completely lost.

    Marriage benefits are not a privilege afforded to some. They are a right afforded to all who are legally able to marry. Polygamous couples have some major obstacles to overcome, yes, and it will be the next big fight, but for Christ's sake, your argument is so ridiculous. 
    $10 says OP comes back with, "Your face isn't recognizing your privilege". 

    ETA: Or random definitions of words.
    Image result for someecard betting someone half your shit youll love them forever
  • TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    edited August 2015
    You can file taxes separately, but they still take you and your spouse's income into consideration when filing. You have a line where you have to enter your spouse's income and it is added to yours and vice versa. Normally, you have to inform your taxation office of change of marital status right away.

    Does this apply for common law as well (in Canada)?
    Yep, as soon as we were considered common-law our income got put together. It totally sucked because it threw us in the next income bracket. If I didn't have the foresight to get extra taxes taken off and apply for every tax benefit there is, we would have been screwed. 

    ETA: We file separately because we receive different tax credits this way. We still have to declare each other's income and we can income split depending on the higher paid person. 
  • Can we move on to more important shit? Like why clockwise is clockwise and how counter-clockwise is discriminated agaisnt by not having any clocks going that direction?


    Actually, I had a backwards clock I won in a fundraising thing in junior high.  3 and 9 were reversed and the clock ran backwards/counter clockwise (clockwise in this case??).  It looked like this, except with more neon cos it was the early 90's:

    image


    ETA - I'm an equal-clockortounity time teller.  ;)
    But how can we make this more universal? How can everyone get access to these clocks? What about the availability of neon clocks? People could benefit from those. You're privileged to have received such a clock and I think everyone deserves the countless benefits of having a backwards neon clock.
    Image result for someecard betting someone half your shit youll love them forever
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    @hellowsweetie1015, As soon as you allow polyamorous marriages you effectively extend marriage benefits to everyone. Nothing will preclude people from walking into a marriage license office, pretend to be in love, get legally married and get the benefits. I personally have no issues with it. It will effectively solve the discrimination problem so yay, everyone wins!
    Anniversary
  • You can file taxes separately, but they still take you and your spouse's income into consideration when filing. You have a line where you have to enter your spouse's income and it is added to yours and vice versa. Normally, you have to inform your taxation office of change of marital status right away.

    Does this apply for common law as well (in Canada)?
    Yep, as soon as we were considered common-law our income got put together. It totally sucked because it threw us in the next income bracket. If I didn't have the foresight to get extra taxes taken off and apply for every tax benefit there is, we would have been screwed. 

    ETA: We file separately because we receive different tax credits this way. We still have to declare each other's income and we can income split depending on the higher paid person. 

    Ah damn. We will be considered common law for next year. I haven't done much research on it yet, but was hoping to still file separately. Thx for the info!
    image
  • kkitkat79 said:
    @hellowsweetie1015, As soon as you allow polyamorous marriages you effectively extend marriage benefits to everyone. Nothing will preclude people from walking into a marriage license office, pretend to be in love, get legally married and get the benefits. I personally have no issues with it. It will effectively solve the discrimination problem so yay, everyone wins!
    HOLD UP. So is this the answer you were looking for? Everybody gets to marry any human person they deem fit (or two or three or whatever) and it's all good, no more privitization needed? Because we could (and basically did) say that ages ago.
    image
  • anjemon said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @hellowsweetie1015, As soon as you allow polyamorous marriages you effectively extend marriage benefits to everyone. Nothing will preclude people from walking into a marriage license office, pretend to be in love, get legally married and get the benefits. I personally have no issues with it. It will effectively solve the discrimination problem so yay, everyone wins!
    HOLD UP. So is this the answer you were looking for? Everybody gets to marry any human person they deem fit (or two or three or whatever) and it's all good, no more privitization needed? Because we could (and basically did) say that ages ago.
    I'm even wondering if OP knows many Poly units. I know several of the ones that I know don't rate marriage very high.
  • I'm beginning to think that OP is the catfish that loveislouder won't openly acknowledge!
    Sadly, she is probably just a garden variety troll, looking for a bridge.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards