4 ms·

> We could agree that marriage, everywhere in the Western world, is declining in popularity, and non-marital cohabitation rising. This is especially true of Eur

> We could agree that marriage, everywhere in the Western world, is declining in popularity, and non-marital cohabitation rising. This is especially true of Europe. In my experience, many young couples in western Europe don't see marriage as signifying that a relationship is stabler. It's something you just do after you've been living together for a while since it simplifies some bureaucracy (especially if moving outside the EU) and it's a good reason to have a party. In many countries being in a domestic partnership is very similar to being married from a legal perspective.

hef19898 4y ago
Don't forget tax reasons. And yes, you can get a lot of marriage like benefits by registering your partnership. Notable exceptions are adoption and shared custody of children. Especially for same sex couples.
- vasco 4y ago
  In 3 countries I've lived in Europe taxes are the same if you're married or not if you make a similar amount as your partner. Only when one of the partners makes much less, it ends up being "beneficial" as the one making more gets the average "pulled down" as the allowance is 2x but income isn't 2x. If both make the same, all the tax rates and allowances would generally be the same, married or not. Most people I know in Europe that got married did it because of kids, as the bureaucracy is much simpler in terms of legal protections for the child if anything bad happens to either one of the parents.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Yep, if the salaries are the same, no benefits. In our case we married because of taxes and inheritence. Both came with a house, being married reduced any inheritence tax loads and meant that the living partner ended up in sole ownership of the house, otherwise parts would go to the children, which would have required the involvement of courts (children under 18) or childrens approval (over 18) for selling of the house and so on. Which would truely suck, especially the first part.
    - jaclaz 4y ago
      For the record, I have seen some cases of the opposite, i.e. long established (and happily) married couples (each partner possessing a house) separating so that they can claim that each house is the residency of one and lower some of the real estate taxes, then (if one of the partner has less or no income, while the other has a good income) there could be fiscal advantages on alimony.
  - pizza234 4y ago
    Interesting research here (much longer than one would expect): https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-06/jrc125690.pdf https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021.... Conclusion: > in the majority of EU Member States, being married does not bring substantial financial gains or losses for a couple. For several countries we find important differences, mainly stemming from personal income taxation rules that either assess incomes jointly or apply marriage-related allowances or credits, and also from different benefit eligibility rules. While in seven countries married couples are substantially better off than cohabiting partners (marriage bonus), in four countries, the opposite holds true (marriage penalty).
  - harph 4y ago
    When my wife was staying home with our son until he was 3yo, I got to write that into my tax returns and I got a tax bonus. A not working wife + a child = I didn't pay any tax and even got some money back from the government. I'm not sure how it would work if we were not married. Would probably involve some more bureaucracy. An of course, as you say, it's easier to handle child bureaucracy when married.
mduerksen 4y ago
That doesn't fit my experience at all (I'm from Germany). As soon as couples start to have concrete plans for children (or children are already on their way), marriage suddenly becomes very relevant for many relationships, and is often demanded by at least one side of the partnership. This puts aside the romanticised view of marriage (which might be perceived equivalent to living together) and points to a more fundamental reason for marriage: Securing resources for your offspring. And offspring needs a lot of resources for a long time. In the end, its commitment that counts. And marriage was built for ensuring commitment as much as humanly possible, with a high barrier for abandoning.
- giantg2 4y ago
  In the US, the resources for the child can just be court ordered as child support even if you were never married. So the legal commitment to the child is there regardless.
  - mduerksen 4y ago
    A marriage establishes more bonds than just the legal/financial obligations. - In-laws - you become a member of a new family, new levels of mutual privileges and responsibilities - Public wedding - Proclamation to both social circles that the new family project now has officially started - Family name - new Identity - ...
    - giantg2 4y ago
      All of those can be done without being legally married, and many actually are. In many US families, it's not uncommon to take people you're seriously dating on family vacations, or have them over for holidays, etc. Some people who choose not to get legally married have a ceremony and/or party. Some people who get married don't change their name. People who don't get married can change their name if they want to.
    - Acinyx 4y ago
      From the neighbors in the Netherlands: it is interesting to see these local differences as at least in my circles you don't need to get married to become part of the in-laws or other social circles. Really, most couples I know really only marry when they are already very well established in each-others circles, as sort of a affirmation of their love. Maybe this is also because legally you can achieve the same protections for your children a lot simpler than getting married. But this doesn't mean the whole of the Netherlands works like that, just my social circles :)

hef19898 4y ago

Don't forget tax reasons. And yes, you can get a lot of marriage like benefits by registering your partnership. Notable exceptions are adoption and shared custody of children. Especially for same sex couples.

vasco 4y ago
In 3 countries I've lived in Europe taxes are the same if you're married or not if you make a similar amount as your partner. Only when one of the partners makes much less, it ends up being "beneficial" as the one making more gets the average "pulled down" as the allowance is 2x but income isn't 2x. If both make the same, all the tax rates and allowances would generally be the same, married or not. Most people I know in Europe that got married did it because of kids, as the bureaucracy is much simpler in terms of legal protections for the child if anything bad happens to either one of the parents.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Yep, if the salaries are the same, no benefits. In our case we married because of taxes and inheritence. Both came with a house, being married reduced any inheritence tax loads and meant that the living partner ended up in sole ownership of the house, otherwise parts would go to the children, which would have required the involvement of courts (children under 18) or childrens approval (over 18) for selling of the house and so on. Which would truely suck, especially the first part.
  - jaclaz 4y ago
    For the record, I have seen some cases of the opposite, i.e. long established (and happily) married couples (each partner possessing a house) separating so that they can claim that each house is the residency of one and lower some of the real estate taxes, then (if one of the partner has less or no income, while the other has a good income) there could be fiscal advantages on alimony.
- pizza234 4y ago
  Interesting research here (much longer than one would expect): https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-06/jrc125690.pdf https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021.... Conclusion: > in the majority of EU Member States, being married does not bring substantial financial gains or losses for a couple. For several countries we find important differences, mainly stemming from personal income taxation rules that either assess incomes jointly or apply marriage-related allowances or credits, and also from different benefit eligibility rules. While in seven countries married couples are substantially better off than cohabiting partners (marriage bonus), in four countries, the opposite holds true (marriage penalty).
- harph 4y ago
  When my wife was staying home with our son until he was 3yo, I got to write that into my tax returns and I got a tax bonus. A not working wife + a child = I didn't pay any tax and even got some money back from the government. I'm not sure how it would work if we were not married. Would probably involve some more bureaucracy. An of course, as you say, it's easier to handle child bureaucracy when married.

mduerksen 4y ago

That doesn't fit my experience at all (I'm from Germany). As soon as couples start to have concrete plans for children (or children are already on their way), marriage suddenly becomes very relevant for many relationships, and is often demanded by at least one side of the partnership. This puts aside the romanticised view of marriage (which might be perceived equivalent to living together) and points to a more fundamental reason for marriage: Securing resources for your offspring. And offspring needs a lot of resources for a long time. In the end, its commitment that counts. And marriage was built for ensuring commitment as much as humanly possible, with a high barrier for abandoning.

giantg2 4y ago
In the US, the resources for the child can just be court ordered as child support even if you were never married. So the legal commitment to the child is there regardless.
- mduerksen 4y ago
  A marriage establishes more bonds than just the legal/financial obligations. - In-laws - you become a member of a new family, new levels of mutual privileges and responsibilities - Public wedding - Proclamation to both social circles that the new family project now has officially started - Family name - new Identity - ...
  - giantg2 4y ago
    All of those can be done without being legally married, and many actually are. In many US families, it's not uncommon to take people you're seriously dating on family vacations, or have them over for holidays, etc. Some people who choose not to get legally married have a ceremony and/or party. Some people who get married don't change their name. People who don't get married can change their name if they want to.
  - Acinyx 4y ago
    From the neighbors in the Netherlands: it is interesting to see these local differences as at least in my circles you don't need to get married to become part of the in-laws or other social circles. Really, most couples I know really only marry when they are already very well established in each-others circles, as sort of a affirmation of their love. Maybe this is also because legally you can achieve the same protections for your children a lot simpler than getting married. But this doesn't mean the whole of the Netherlands works like that, just my social circles :)