DreamOn,

I will not waste my time delineating differences plus or negative between the government and private enterprise treatment of 'marrieds' as opposed to singles. It is inconceivable that any adult would not be aware of examples.

The central issue is a simple one but you and others are consistently avoiding discussion of it. Why so? Here again,

<The Problem [refer to the OP]
If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.>

Vice versa? - That singles should not be advantaged over 'marrieds' without good reason? Yes, that too.

Plainly government believes that two can live more cheaply than one where pensions are concerned.

However where the worth of marriage is, to put it mildly, highly contentious with feminists an socialists - in fact they have vowed to rid society of the institution ASAP - they themselves have put the best arguments for not treating 'marrieds' as special at all, anywhere. Oddly though, the very people who despise marriage are first in line for partner benefits. Julia Gillard is a prime (ministerial) example.

It is time that the socialists spelled out how they intend to regulate the trial/temporary/'love' relationships or whatever they favour and where to in the future? They have been driving the change after all.

Regardless of that, as a taxpayer I certainly do NOT believe that money should be taken from me to support (with additional conditions) the 'love' choices of others and single employees should NOT be forgoing anything to provide any special conditions for 'marrieds'.

Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 11:29:01 PM

" ... *DreamOn* I will not waste my time delineating differences plus or negative between the government and private enterprise treatment of 'marrieds' as opposed to singles. It is inconceivable that any adult would not be aware of examples. ... "

Well, I think you need to come to terms with what I am saying to you.

You keep referring to "positives" and "negatives" visa vi marriage, but despite requesting you to clarify what you mean by this, I can honestly tell you that I am none the wiser.

Whilst I have a few ideas of what you may be referring to, I do not assume that I know exactly what it is that you mean. Thus, I have sought clarification.

And then you jump again to end up concluding that you have to pay for the "Love Choices" of others, but here again, I am largely clueless as to what you are referring to.

So, rest assured, I will attempt to address the points you are seeking to make, but you need to clarify what it is that you mean.