Marital status- whose business is it?

[VanIsle]

You're a smart kid there Karrie. One thing I could never figure out is why a "subordinate" member of a household has to prove he/she is having sex to qualify for medical coverage etc.

Because "family" members get things a tad cheaper. Two friends who move in for the sake of convenience, are not related in the way government defines the relationship. That can be good or bad. Income tax wise, there might be great savings. If people were on something like welfare, a "couple" gets less money than a "single". The word partnership nearly ruined us a few years ago. Do you define it as a 50/50 partnership (I'm sure Karrie's friend's would feel that way) or is it something like 70/30? Our being married had nothing to do with the word partnership but - the bank penciled it in by our names. Gov't took that to mean 50/50. We had never declared any kind of partnership. Because I had made a transfer from the closing of a bank account from one business to another, that was considered as my contribution (and my husband had contributed considerably more then I did - more like 100% at the time) we were allowed to decare it a 90/10. Always be careful declaring partnerships.

A dependent is a dependent. Good point. There are benefits income-tax-wise for dependents.

I'm not so sure that a dependent is always considered a dependent. I believe kids are cut off at the age of 19 in BC and maybe 21 in other provinces. I say so because to the best of my knowledge, my grandson will be cut loose by gov't in another 6 years and then I wonder what will happen to him. His Dad would have to do something like let us adopt him, in order for him to have a medical plan. Because he is disabled, he would be allowed to be on our medical plan always as long as we did something like adopt him. His Dad doesn't work anywhere with a plan. His Momdoes but she's not into sharing it.

 

[talloola]

I have to disagree a little bit here Talloola. If you are married and you are working, the spouse automatically gets benefits. If I'm not married, but working and cohabit with my dysfunctional brother, I can't really see any reason he can't get the same benefits a spouse receives.

the only point I was making 'is', some people get up every morning and figure out how to get money
from the government for nothing, the world is full of those types, so, if there is no particular name
for a couple living together, then 'any' couple living together will apply for 'free' money, there has
to be a legitimate reason for an application, so as not to invite all the freeloaders.

tom and harry will move in together and apply, mary and larry will do same, 'just' to
apply for free money and no other reason.

 

[karrie]

the only point I was making 'is', some people get up every morning and figure out how to get money
from the government for nothing, the world is full of those types, so, if there is no particular name
for a couple living together, then 'any' couple living together will apply for 'free' money, there has
to be a legitimate reason for an application, so as not to invite all the freeloaders.

tom and harry will move in together and apply, mary and larry will do same, 'just' to
apply for free money and no other reason.

I'm confused as to what free money, and in what amounts.

The only real benefit I'm aware of is tax breaks, which just means keeping your own money. And if you've got two welfare cases, from what I understand, they're better off NOT being a unit as far as dipping into government money is concerned.

 

[AnnaG]

I'm not so sure that a dependent is always considered a dependent. I believe kids are cut off at the age of 19 in BC and maybe 21 in other provinces. I say so because to the best of my knowledge, my grandson will be cut loose by gov't in another 6 years and then I wonder what will happen to him. His Dad would have to do something like let us adopt him, in order for him to have a medical plan. Because he is disabled, he would be allowed to be on our medical plan always as long as we did something like adopt him. His Dad doesn't work anywhere with a plan. His Momdoes but she's not into sharing it.

I didn't say all dependents are eligible for tax relief. CRS has rules about dependents (among other things lol).

from what I understand, they're better off NOT being a unit as far as dipping into government money is concerned.

Same in BC, i think. Best to have two separate people than one single family of two.

 

[karrie]

Hmm - maybe. I bet if they have a medical form or income tax or the like they refer to themselves as "common law" because it does not ask if you have a partner. It asks if your spouse is "common law" and if so - for how long.

But it doesn't make them state 'this is my wife/husband'. It says 'commonlaw', which was my point.

 

[talloola]

I'm confused as to what free money, and in what amounts.

The only real benefit I'm aware of is tax breaks, which just means keeping your own money. And if you've got two welfare cases, from what I understand, they're better off NOT being a unit as far as dipping into government money is concerned.

OK then, i was just assuming that 'any' two people who decide to live in together, and do not have to declare
how they are connected to each other, and (for no other reason) than
to get same benefits as couples who are 'personally' connected, lovers/spouses etc. etc.would be cheating
the system, but if there is no advantage for them to do that, then so be it. my idea is mute, I am not
knowledgable on these statistics.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Perhaps because so many commonlaw couples don't identify themselves as husband and wife? I know at least two couples who never 'married' and don't call eachother husband and wife but rather partner. It would be disrespectful of their choice to refer to them as husband and wife, like implying that they've merely been too lazy to make it official.

I have found that "partner" is now a euphemism for "living in sin." The media still seems to think there is something naughty about living together unmarried, although it is an increasingly popular choice these days.

 

[karrie]

OK then, i was just assuming that 'any' two people who decide to live in together, and do not have to declare
how they are connected to each other, and (for no other reason) than
to get same benefits as couples who are 'personally' connected, lovers/spouses etc. etc.would be cheating
the system, but if there is no advantage for them to do that, then so be it. my idea is mute, I am not
knowledgable on these statistics.

no... I said earlier, there are reasons relating to holding onto their own money. But what you seem to be discussing isn't tax breaks but welfare

I have found that "partner" is now a euphemism for "living in sin." The media still seems to think there is something naughty about living together unmarried, although it is an increasingly popular choice these days.

**** the media and keep pushing it. *shrugs*

 

[VanIsle]

But it doesn't make them state 'this is my wife/husband'. It says 'commonlaw', which was my point.

I'm very aware of your point. The last form I filled out (medical forms) had a line for spouse. Below that it questioned if the spouse was common law and if so, for how long.

 

[JLM]

I have found that "partner" is now a euphemism for "living in sin." The media still seems to think there is something naughty about living together unmarried, although it is an increasingly popular choice these days.

And it's not hard to figure out why. How many people getting married these days take their vows seriously or otherwise rewrite the traditional vows to suit themselves? There is also a huge social obligation to getting married like spending $20,000 on the wedding (when maybe they should be spending the $20,000 on the marriage).

 

[TenPenny]

I'm very aware of your point. The last form I filled out (medical forms) had a line for spouse. Below that it questioned if the spouse was common law and if so, for how long.

I suppose the reason for that is that a legal spouse is recorded somewhere, and there is proof. A common law spouse is typically not registered anywhere, so it would make it harder to document the relationship if claiming benefits etc.

It can become a sticky point with illness, death, making decisions on health care, estates, etc, because unless you have documented proof of the relationship, what's to say that the person claiming to be your common law spouse isn't simply your boss, or your neighbor, trying to get control of your assets?

 

[VanIsle]

Thank you TenPenny. I think you have clarified my point very well.

 

[relic]

WOW paranoia runs rampant here doesn't it? I've been married and had a number of "common law" partners , I've been arrested,hospitalized,and nobody seems to care as long as they get their money,Ain't no big thing, but then I'm just mosikkle ridin' trailer trash.