View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 16 Dec 2017 04:00 am



Reply to topic  [ 2666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107  Next
 Up the Mighty Liberals! #inmalcolmwetrust 
Author Message
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
1. If I was allowed to get married.. I would and also my family would feel better knowing that as far as our society goes.. we aren't different.. we have the same opportunities.. there would be a sense of not being on the fringe of what is considered allowed and acceptable. While I don't think our society is *quite* at that point where I can happily hold hands in public or anything like that without feeling eyes on me.. it is a optimistic and cautiously liberating feeling to think that we can step out and know that not only most people are okay with it.. but the law considers our love to be equal to everyone else.

What opportunities are you talking about? We've already established you can do anything you like without being married these days. In terms of social acceptance, sorry but if you live an a very religious area, you're still going to get those looks. You guys detest the thought of a plebiscite but it just reflects if the public acceptance is there, if 50% say no, 50% say yes, there are still 50% of people in the world that will give you those looks.


Except have an actual marriage that is recognised by law. To have a day where it is completely untarnished by the fact that there is that cloud hanging over us. Yeah sure.. we can have a ceremony and have people along.. but the knowledge that it's just not the same.. that affects it. Imagine if your parents disowned you for marrying someone they disapproved of.. your wedding day would feel somewhat different, wouldn't it? It's very much like that.

In terms of social acceptance - I am very much aware that those looks are still happening and will continue to happen for some time to come.. that doesn't mean I shouldn't hope that we can progress our society forward so this doesn't happen. You talk like we shouldn't bother. Pretty sure interracial couples still get the odd look.. should they just give up too? Hell no.

GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
2. Your insistence with regards to gay people getting PoA for having equal rights is getting ridiculous. I did follow up about all of this.. A marriage certificate effectively is done and dusted in terms of rights/equality.. yet you want my partner and I to get a PoA and commit more time and money for the exact same rights under the law? That is not the same.

Here ya go free power of attorney forms.

https://www.rpemery.com.au/articles/free-power-of-attorney.html

Cheaper than the registered marriage certificate. You'll save on the celebrant and all the costs associated with weddings.

Government has lots of free resources for planning ahead, no marriage required.

http://planningaheadtools.com.au/[/quote]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/why-samesex-couples-still-struggle-with-legal-recognition/news-story/730d8202ee2b19f6bd6cb60a331d9088

Just a taste...

Other situations where we are not equal.. certain health providers will simply not allow us to be listed together on the same private health plan is one of many. When I was in hospital was a perfect example also... my partner was not immediately permitted into see me in emergency. Do you think simply saying oh I have a PoA means admittance.. yeah no. It doesn't. Yet saying you're married does! Interesting eh?

Froggy wrote:
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
Based on my experience.. I think both are more fluid than what people accept and believe.. but don't want to explore it for fear of rejection and/or the idea of being seen negatively.. it's not like our society has been all that accepting of it over the years.. though as things are more accepted.. the rate in which men admit to and do engage in same sex sexual activity has risen too... which implies that it is not as taboo as first thought.

In short. Still waiting for Hugh Jackman and Henry Cavill to get it on.


Oh the amount of married dudes into it are off the charts or dudes going for a Grindr hook up because the gf will never suspect it.


No problem with guys experimenting/doing what they want.. I have issue if it's cheating though... that's where it's not on.


12 Oct 2017 10:01 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Quote:
Other situations where we are not equal.. certain health providers will simply not allow us to be listed together on the same private health plan is one of many. When I was in hospital was a perfect example also... my partner was not immediately permitted into see me in emergency. Do you think simply saying oh I have a PoA means admittance.. yeah no. It doesn't. Yet saying you're married does! Interesting eh?

The health fund thing, they're just backwards not recognizing same sex couples. You don't need to be married to be listed as a family in health funds, defacto hetro families have no issue. You would face the same issue with their backward system even if you're married.

In hospital, yes a power of attorney would put you in the position to be admitted. Are you registered as defacto spouses? If you're just boyfriends, then yes even hetro couples get the same treatment.

Quote:
Without recognition of same-sex marriage, partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another.

Get the power of attorney! If you can go through the fuss of a marriage ceremony, certificate etc, then giving each other power of attorney is trivial.

Quote:
Heather McKinnon is an accredited family law specialist at Slater and Gordon. She said there is now no difference under the federal Family Law Act between married couples and defacto couples.


Last edited by lestat on 12 Oct 2017 11:31 am, edited 2 times in total.



12 Oct 2017 11:26 am
Profile WWW
Kyber Felted
Kyber Felted
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 2751
Cletus wrote:
I'm not sure if there is a known human male that was on your side of the fence that became hetero...it's like Jerry said, nobody ever leaves that team


GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
I think that when people are in that grey zone of the spectrum.. that is where social and I guess environmental influences can be a factor.


Oh come on, are you guys working together on this? :D

_________________
Candy Arse wrote:
Lepo the Legend gave me his pair for free.


12 Oct 2017 11:28 am
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
Quote:
Other situations where we are not equal.. certain health providers will simply not allow us to be listed together on the same private health plan is one of many. When I was in hospital was a perfect example also... my partner was not immediately permitted into see me in emergency. Do you think simply saying oh I have a PoA means admittance.. yeah no. It doesn't. Yet saying you're married does! Interesting eh?

The health fund thing, they're just backwards not recognizing same sex couples. You don't need to be married to be listed as a family in health funds, defacto hetro families have no issue. You would face the same issue with their backward system even if you're married.

In hospital, yes a power of attorney would put you in the position to be admitted. Are you registered as defacto spouses? If you're just boyfriends, then yes even hetro couples get the same treatment.

Quote:
Without recognition of same-sex marriage, partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another.

Get the power of attorney! If you can go through the fuss of a marriage ceremony, certificate etc, then giving each other power of attorney is trivial.

Quote:
Heather McKinnon is an accredited family law specialist at Slater and Gordon. She said there is now no difference under the federal Family Law Act between married couples and defacto couples.


Do you carry around your marriage certificate? Didn't think so. Being asked to provide a PoA document in such a situation is neither likely or appropriate... yet married couples can just say it and that's okay. In terms of emergency situations.. and in death.. the legal proceedings are not like married couples.

Pretty sure there is a difference.. in terms that defacto couples need to prove their relationship... Married couples do not.


12 Oct 2017 11:53 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
Do you carry around your marriage certificate? Didn't think so. Being asked to provide a PoA document in such a situation is neither likely or appropriate... yet married couples can just say it and that's okay. In terms of emergency situations.. and in death.. the legal proceedings are not like married couples.

Pretty sure there is a difference.. in terms that defacto couples need to prove their relationship... Married couples do not.

It would be on your medicare card, your whole immediate family is listed there, that is the proof you need.

I carry my medicare card with me at all times, including my drivers license.

These are the essential forms of ID you need to prove who you are and your family status.

In death, my wife and I have wills, everyone needs one to ensure your property/share is passed on to the right people and your remains end up where you want them, same goes with children and custody. Leaving this stuff up in the air and not having one is the most stupid thing you could do. Also in death you need to present your marriage certificate to prove you are the spouse. You have no idea the sort of stuff you need do to prove you are the spouse when this happens, went through it with my mother when my father passed. You just can't rock up with your wedding ring on finger and they hand it all over.

Same goes with life insurance, family debts, super etc. If you are serious about sharing your life with someone, there is a lot of things you need to do ensure things are in order when disaster strikes.

The fact you don't even know this means you're just not even close to being that serious with someone.


12 Oct 2017 12:10 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
I ask this calmly.. but who the fuck are you to gauge someone's closeness? Oh wait.. you're the one separating the emotional bond that marriage can show and should be celebrated for same sex couples.

Makes complete sense.

1. Life insurance irrelevant and has nothing to do with my closeness with my partner.
2. Family Debts - don't have any.
3. Super - we both have superfunds we are both listed as authorised parties to discuss.
4. Given my last 15 months.. I think it's a bit stupid on your part to assume that none of this has been considered, discussed and investigated.

Something you might need to consider is that there are so many couples out there both straight and gay that have done none of the above mentioned stuff. That has nothing to do with closeness.. more to do with ignorance, laziness and avoidance.

We decided to keep things somewhat separate during the creation of our businesses to keep it neat and tidy. We've had loans and lease agreements and in terms of proving our relationship.. we would have no problem.. the fact that we'd have to is what is jarring when you consider that we've been together longer than I know straight couples who have met, wed, had babies and divorced... yet their union still has more weight in the eyes of the law.

Secondly, consider that there are same sex couples who have not gone ahead and done many of the things you have mentioned because there is an emotional/psychological block regarding it all. You had no legal or social barriers flat out blocking or frowning upon your marriage/relationship. Can you understand that there are same sex couples whose decisions and behaviours might be affected by this?

No.. because you have the right to get married. Your 'family status' isn't currently under scrutiny or being labeled as unnatural, evil.. child abuse.

Ultimately this won't matter though. From reports coming in.. the YES vote is going to come in on top. The next wave of negotiations will be upon us and hey... if they choose to do nothing in terms of protecting religious freedoms (as in.. they leave it as is.. which I am fine with)... I can have my marriage.. you can deal with it by being affected not at all.


12 Oct 2017 12:40 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
You dodged my question, so you haven't registered as defacto? You choose to keep your matters separate.

There is no block to be a defacto and forming a family under the current laws.

Quote:
I ask this calmly.. but who the fuck are you to gauge someone's closeness? Oh wait.. you're the one separating the emotional bond that marriage can show and should be celebrated for same sex couples.

You keep your matters separate, said so yourself. It's not about emotional bonds, its about legally combining your lives, forming a family, are you prepared to take your partners surname? etc.

It's not a right, but submission. This is what the vows and religious aspect of it conveys.

I'm sorry but you haven't submitted.


12 Oct 2017 01:04 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
You dodged my question, so you haven't registered as defacto? You choose to keep your matters separate.

There is no block to be a defacto and forming a family under the current laws.

Quote:
I ask this calmly.. but who the fuck are you to gauge someone's closeness? Oh wait.. you're the one separating the emotional bond that marriage can show and should be celebrated for same sex couples.

You keep your matters separate, said so yourself. It's not about emotional bonds, its about legally combining your lives, forming a family, are you prepared to take your partners surname? etc.

It's not a right, but submission. This is what the vows and religious aspect of it conveys.

I'm sorry but you haven't submitted.


We keep our matters separate currently for business/tax reasons presently. And I say presently... we were given financial advice for it hence why certain things are combined and others are not.

1. We have lived together for over 7 years.
2. We are in the process of investigating fostering/adoption/surrogacy. For us - As you can appreciate it.. it's not as simple as straight couples.
3. I would happily take my partner's name.. vice versa.. I actually think we would double barrell it.

I didn't actually dodge your question.. We do identify as de facto in our legal settings. However.. we have kept things separate financially. Currently we are feverishly saving for a house and have prioritized various points.
We're happy to legally combine our lives.. but like I said in my previous posts.. some of us have opted or have chosen to wait and go through the processes when we can follow it all the way to marriage.
A bit like how some people choose to have children when they are married. Or are you going to tell me that children who are born out of wedlock have parents that have a differing, lesser bond to those who are married?


12 Oct 2017 01:19 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
We're happy to combine our lives, but our financial planner said no.

ok man. clearly the current laws aren't the impediment here, but your own financial gain is.


12 Oct 2017 02:13 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
All our financial and legal affairs are in order and set up in a way that is best for our circumstances. We are effectively sitting pretty so that when the time comes that we can marry.. we will then adjust our set up and that's basically what we are waiting for. Just because we aren't doing it the way you think we should.. doesn't mean it's wrong.. and like I'd take your opinion over professional help.

Do you have any idea of how much it costs to do deal with cancer, lestat? As in.. first hand experience where it's not only financial cost.. but emotional cost? Until you have and I genuinely hope you never have to - I suggest you fuck off.


12 Oct 2017 03:30 pm
Profile
Regular Member
Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2006 05:19 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: shimma
PSN ID: shimma1138
Steam ID: stanard
lestat wrote:
You dodged my question, so you haven't registered as defacto? You choose to keep your matters separate.

There is no block to be a defacto and forming a family under the current laws.

Quote:
I ask this calmly.. but who the fuck are you to gauge someone's closeness? Oh wait.. you're the one separating the emotional bond that marriage can show and should be celebrated for same sex couples.

You keep your matters separate, said so yourself. It's not about emotional bonds, its about legally combining your lives, forming a family, are you prepared to take your partners surname? etc.

It's not a right, but submission. This is what the vows and religious aspect of it conveys.

I'm sorry but you haven't submitted.

If it's not emotional, and is only a legal thing, then what's your opposition towards it? It's already been shown that the religious aspect is not required. And changing surnames is not a requirement when married. Many women don't nowadays - do you think this a blight on marriage?

But yet in your next sentence you say it's about submission (umm what?). This sounds emotional, not legal. So which one is it?


12 Oct 2017 03:55 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Heh don't act like you're the only one who has had loved ones die from cancer, I recently lost my father in law, we spent the last 6 months watching him waste away from pancreatic cancer. My mother had stage 4 melanoma, spent 5 years thinking she was going to die after they removed it. My father died in my own arms from an accident 6 years ago.

You're not the only person that suffers loss, but thanks to a strong family unit we push through. It's not about money, it's about family.

I find it hypocritical you're complaining about not being able to legally be there for your family, yet you don't formally do all in your power now to make that family legally exist! You're the one who'll be told "fuck off" when it really matters, not me.


12 Oct 2017 04:02 pm
Profile WWW
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
stanard wrote:
If it's not emotional, and is only a legal thing, then what's your opposition towards it? It's already been shown that the religious aspect is not required. And changing surnames is not a requirement when married. Many women don't nowadays - do you think this a blight on marriage?

But yet in your next sentence you say it's about submission (umm what?). This sounds emotional, not legal. So which one is it?

To enter these contracts, you are giving up certain rights and wealth. Why would someone give someone else power over them and their assets? Part of the submission involves trust/faith.

My opposition is we already have 2 separate constructs, one with religious ties, one without. I don't think modifying the religious one is a good idea when the religious side doesn't agree with it. We should improve/modify defacto which is a construct totally detached from the church, far better suited for such a purpose.


12 Oct 2017 04:35 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
It's very different when it's happening to you... so again.. don't make out you know what it's like.

And secondly, I've done everything that I need to right at this point.. when SSM is legalised.. we will go through the process of adjusting our situation accordingly.. we're organised and our rights and wealth are shared but not in a typical way.. So can you simply fuck off with assuming you know the optimum level of legal care and structure that my relationship requires.


12 Oct 2017 04:41 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
I don't see what's different, I was hit by a car 4 years ago, lucky to be here. There is no guarantee you or I will be here tomorrow, that's why we need to act in the now to ensure proper things are in place.

I don't give a shit what you do, just stop whining in this thread you don't have the legal ability now to put proper things in place, it's a load of shit honestly.


12 Oct 2017 04:53 pm
Profile WWW
Regular Member
Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2006 05:19 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: shimma
PSN ID: shimma1138
Steam ID: stanard
lestat wrote:
stanard wrote:
If it's not emotional, and is only a legal thing, then what's your opposition towards it? It's already been shown that the religious aspect is not required. And changing surnames is not a requirement when married. Many women don't nowadays - do you think this a blight on marriage?

But yet in your next sentence you say it's about submission (umm what?). This sounds emotional, not legal. So which one is it?

To enter these contracts, you are giving up certain rights and wealth. Why would someone give someone else power over them and their assets? Part of the submission involves trust/faith.

My opposition is we already have 2 separate constructs, one with religious ties, one without. I don't think modifying the religious one is a good idea when the religious side doesn't agree with it. We should improve/modify defacto which is a construct totally detached from the church, far better suited for such a purpose.

But it's been stated ad nauseam that marriage is no longer a religious only construct. You do get that right? The religious aspect is not a valid argument.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3310.0Main%20Features112015?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3310.0&issue=2015&num=&view=
Quote:
In 2015, 74.9% of all marriages were performed by civil celebrants. Civil marriages have outnumbered religious ceremonies since 1999.


12 Oct 2017 05:21 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
lestat wrote:
I don't see what's different, I was hit by a car 4 years ago, lucky to be here. There is no guarantee you or I will be here tomorrow, that's why we need to act in the now to ensure proper things are in place.

I don't give a shit what you do, just stop whining in this thread you don't have the legal ability now to put proper things in place, it's a load of shit honestly.


It's different because you don't have the complete uncertainty that something completely out of your control is going to try and kill you from within. That's a very different anxiety and stress... HA Look at me acknowledging all the counselling the Cancer Council provides.

The fact that I've basically had to explain my relationship status and effectively provide you with reasons why my relationship is case and point regarding this issue. I have the burden of having to provide proof of my relationship. You don't have to.. interestingly.. I asked 3 clients tonight about their relationship/legal/financial set up. 2 said clients are expecting bubs in the new year.. and yet my relationship had more in place in terms of the securities you decided to measure the validity of my relationship with, than what they did. And yet if they wanted to.. they could go and get married tomorrow.

I think you'll find that you're the one who is being ridiculously dense about this and you've perpetrated one of the main things that has been such an issue for LGBTIQ people - you've effectively decided that we shouldn't the same rights, conveniences or opportunities. Like stanard said.. the majority of marriages aren't even done in the church. The religious aspect is no longer applicable UNLESS a same sex couple wanted to be married by the church IN a church. If we're discussing loads of shit this point you keep avoiding is the biggest load of it of all.

You don't believe we are the same - NOTED.


12 Oct 2017 08:54 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
Just wanna chip in. I don't think any of us are the same. We're a funny species like that. Everyone should have the same rights though. Even rocco.


12 Oct 2017 09:29 pm
Profile WWW
googlebomber
googlebomber
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 8660
Location: Just behind GameHED
Gamertag: unfunk
Mii: 3DS: 3797-6243-7145
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
lestat wrote:
To enter these contracts, you are giving up certain rights and wealth. Why would someone give someone else power over them and their assets? Part of the submission involves trust/faith.


Soooo... what's your take on prenuptial agreements then? Many heterosexual couples (married or not) don't combine incomes. From a taxation perspective, there's no such thing as ye olde "joint returns" anyway. The tax office cares not for your partner's income when it come to judging your taxation liability except for when it comes to the Medicare Levy Surcharge.

_________________
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars


12 Oct 2017 09:36 pm
Profile
BLD4LBE
BLD4LBE
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 4073
If you are getting a prenup then you already don't have any trust so basically reckon you're doomed. If you aren't prepared to share it all then you may as well not bother. I think there's some tax benefits to being legal de factos\married when it comes to private health rebates, health expenses thresholds etc (I hit this one a couple of years ago as a bonus of being married for tax). It also works the other way though where if one earns a lot one year or more than the other can end up pull you down into owing at end of year from private health rebates\medicare surcharge. All in all tax is fucked.

In fact if I were Mr Cyberfunk, I'd buy a house with my man, except get one of you to own in outright in their name and then officially rent it to the other one for maybe a few years before I get married. If that is even legal. Otherwise get married and hire him into your business as your like accounts person or something and spread the income to reduce tax etc.

_________________
Vzzzbx, you lose again!


12 Oct 2017 11:34 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
The tax benefits aren't there in our case in terms of de facto status with the government when our income and employment situation is taken into consideration.

Froggy - you aren't actually that far off in terms of your approach... at least in the house buying part at least. We just want to buy or build a house.. and kids are now on the agenda.. we would like to be in a position to raise them how we want.. as in.. us being married and financially and health wise - stable. In terms of hiring? I've asked him to quit and work in my business as he is excellent with people and fit.. the issue is.. he makes more money owning 2 specsaver stores and due to there being some tax gymnastics with that set up (specsavers make it weird) and also my business set up.. it's simply been easier to keep our finances separate because it's working well and I'm not about to pay a few thousands bucks on a gesture that our relationship simply doesn't require.


12 Oct 2017 11:45 pm
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
unfnknblvbl wrote:
lestat wrote:
To enter these contracts, you are giving up certain rights and wealth. Why would someone give someone else power over them and their assets? Part of the submission involves trust/faith.


Soooo... what's your take on prenuptial agreements then? Many heterosexual couples (married or not) don't combine incomes. From a taxation perspective, there's no such thing as ye olde "joint returns" anyway. The tax office cares not for your partner's income when it come to judging your taxation liability except for when it comes to the Medicare Levy Surcharge.

Prenups aren't legal in Australia, so I don't have an opinion, you basically still need to submit all your assets/wealth to the relationship. The only way to avoid that is by putting your assets into a trust.

Yes most taxation law taxes the individual, there is no income sharing, the only time family income is used is for certain family(childcare/medicare) rebates etc. Then you basically have shared assets and liability.

There is no advantage to being in a family really under most tax law now, you basically will hit thresholds quicker because of combined incomes and you risk losing assets in the event the relationship ends or your partner does something stupid to blow through your wealth. In most cases it's men that get financially destroyed in this event, since family courts tend to give the woman a greater split of the assets. This will be interesting to see how family courts handle SSM.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Want to be recognized by the state as a couple, you need to give up a lot of individual rights and be prepared to lose wealth if you're the partner bringing most of it in.

I've supported my wife as a stay home mum for 8 years, we bought houses and investments, built a new home 5 years ago, became debt free 2 years ago, run a SMSF. I've brought the overwhelming majority of the wealth into the relationship. If we were to get divorced, I would be walking away with not a lot and still be on the hook for a lifetime of payments. You basically have to submit.

Froggy wrote:
In fact if I were Mr Cyberfunk, I'd buy a house with my man, except get one of you to own in outright in their name and then officially rent it to the other one for maybe a few years before I get married. If that is even legal. Otherwise get married and hire him into your business as your like accounts person or something and spread the income to reduce tax etc.

The only problem with that approach is limited borrowing capacity(banks like 2 incomes) and who's making the repayments/deposit? If you're not married/defacto, well the person that legally owns it can walk away with it. You give up your right to half of the asset in order to dodge a little bit of tax.


Last edited by lestat on 13 Oct 2017 09:40 am, edited 1 time in total.



13 Oct 2017 08:38 am
Profile WWW
Kyber Felted
Kyber Felted
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 2751
lestat wrote:
This will be interesting to see how family courts handle SSM.


The Family Court has a work flow diagram consisting of one box with no lines flowing into or out of it. Inside the box it says "give all the money to the female".

Bearing this in mind;

Cheryl and Sharon are on duty when two married guys walk in.

Sharon: "arh shit Cheryl, two blokes I can't give either of them anything"

Cheryl: "You think that's bad, I've got two women over here how can I possibly give both of them everything?"

Solution - take everything from all male couples, keep it in reserve until such time that a female couple needs to have both parties on the receiving end of everything.

Fighting for equal rights seems hilarious in light of the Family Court's blatant discrimination.

_________________
Candy Arse wrote:
Lepo the Legend gave me his pair for free.


13 Oct 2017 09:37 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Yep lepo, the irony is under our current family court system, SSM will probably experience more equality when it comes to asset splitting than heterosexual couples do currently, which is clearly biased to women.


13 Oct 2017 09:47 am
Profile WWW
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18168
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
Fuck me I just got a text message from "Nick" who is a volunteer for the Yes campaign. He's asking me what I'm voting.

At least I could reply to this one.


13 Oct 2017 03:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.