Post by: gerardc on January 03, 2019, 06:19:34 PM
The problem is I could quit work and FIRE by myself, but I would need to keep working a few years if I wanted to cover her share of expenses (and maybe better provide for kids). Is it fair and realistic to FIRE myself and cover my share of expenses while she works (probably for a long while)?
I noticed that most couples here who reach FIRE do so together, after many years of joint planning and execution. It feels that my situation, getting into a relationship after reaching FI, is a different scenario, and I'm not sure how to approach this.
I'm obviously wary of being taken advantage of, so I'd try to protect myself financially, but I'm also trying to make the relationship work somehow. Is it doomed to fail?
Post by: bacchi on January 03, 2019, 06:37:48 PM
The most important thing is to have a conversation about it when the time comes.
Post by: deborah on January 03, 2019, 06:43:27 PM
I don't think it's fair to expect her to work for long enough to cover her FIRE, and I think you should both aim to be FIRE by the time you have kids. As bacchi says, unless you plan to be a SAHP, and housecleaner, it wouldn't work well for long.
And what do you want to do in FIRE? Travel without her or the kids? Have great experiences? Or sleep in a hammock in your backyard?
Post by: JLee on January 03, 2019, 06:55:59 PM
Post by: gerardc on January 03, 2019, 07:28:16 PM
I only see resentment if you FIRE and your SO continues working unless you're doing all the cleaning, cooking, and kid work. Do you plan to handle all of the household chores or will you be sleeping in, hiking, and binge watching netflix?
I like living in smallish apartments for frugality and efficiency reasons, which makes maintenance minimal. I've been living with roommates and cleaning literally takes 10 minutes once every few days, so I can't imagine this being a source of resentment. In any case, I was planning on doing my share (half) of the house chores, approximately. I would also cover half the expenses. The way I see it, how I accomplish this is really my own decision. I would work on passion projects, or maybe remunerated part-time so I would keep myself busy.
How much do you like to work? Is adding a year or two of work a deal breaker for you? If she had 1/8 of your housing/fixed expenses, would she be saving the same percentage of her salary as you are (ie. is she just as frugal as you are)?
I don't think it's fair to expect her to work for long enough to cover her FIRE, and I think you should both aim to be FIRE by the time you have kids. As bacchi says, unless you plan to be a SAHP, and housecleaner, it wouldn't work well for long.
And what do you want to do in FIRE? Travel without her or the kids? Have great experiences? Or sleep in a hammock in your backyard?
I could easily work a year or two more, in fact I probably will, interceded with a short leave. I guess the issue is I'm trying to maintain separate finances and obligations, so that she doesn't get a free ticket, and keeps working for her own goals (we haven't been together for that long, she's younger than me, and I don't know how she will react).
Currently she is about as frugal as I am, maybe slightly less but I am pretty extreme. I don't know if she would stay frugal with my income, or if her lifestyle would inflate, since there is no precedent, but I have no reason to doubt her on that.
Why don't you think her working to cover her shares of expenses would be fair? I'm a few years older than her, and I have spent those years mostly working -- wouldn't it be fair that she does the same, while I enjoy a well-deserved break?
About what I want to do in FIRE, that's another problem. Ideally I would travel a fair bit, at least at first while I want to. In fact I scheduled some time to do so by myself before we move in together. But if I FIRE while she has a stable job, I'll feel "stuck" at home (or in the same city) waiting for her and I'd probably resent that. I'd most likely end up working in some capacity in that case.
If I made 10x what my SO did I would have a really hard time quitting while they kept working forever. It seems far more efficient to work one year for every ten they'd have to and then FIRE together.
In all likelihood I'll help her financially and end up working more than strictly necessary. The latter is true regardless of whether I'm with her or not. But I'd feel bad making her feel the FIRE, screwing up her career, knowing that this is not really her money and that if we don't last, she'll end up with nothing. I'm wondering if there can be a middle ground, where I do help more than my 50% share, but she keeps working and I also have the freedom to relax a bit with work and go on trips by myself. I'm not that thrilled with the idea of being fused together forever in every way for now.
Post by: Fire2025 on January 03, 2019, 07:29:02 PM
My SO fired without me and I'm still working to get to my own FIRE.
I don't expect all the household work done. He gets to stay home because he started earlier than me and finished his race first. I'm inspired by his accomplishment, not resentful, envious like crazy, but not resentful. It really helps me stay the course, when I see how happy he is.
Have this conversation with your SO, don't assume she's some stereotype, ask her who she is, and see what she has to say for herself.
Just my 2cents.
Post by: use2betrix on January 03, 2019, 07:55:17 PM
I’m 30 and my wife is 25. We’ve been together about 7 years. If she worked now, I would still make about 10x what she would be capable of. Because of this, I don’t really see value in her working.
In turn, she is a machine while I’m at work. All the cooking, grocery shopping, errands, etc. in turn, 100% of my time not working is doing things we enjoy together. Gym, hiking, movies etc. She gets everything done while I’m at work. We both love our situation.
You are asking some questions which I could even really fathom considering. If she is doing things that make you feel wary of being taken advantage of, that’s pretty alarming. You should absolutely not feel that way.
It sounds like you guys aren’t ready to take the relationship to the next step or move in together.
In my opinion, if you were in a perfectly happy position and convinced you wanted to spend you life together, here is how I would work it. I would move in together and offer for her to stop working. Compared to your income, here is barely worthwhile unless she feels she “needs” to work. Ideally, I would have her take care of all the things around the house while you continue to work. It’d make your working life a million times easier. You working 3 more years would be comparable to her working 24 years. That’s just my opinion for sure.
I just couldn’t imagine FIRE without my spouse. She’s my best friend and everything I want to do in FIRE is with her, and I couldn’t imagine doing all those things alone while she continued to work, just because I made more. It’d be like us both working and I retire at 35 and she retires at 55. That’s ridiculous lol.
Post by: TL8 on January 03, 2019, 08:14:28 PM
Without knowing anything else about your personal circumstances, I would strongly believe that post-marriage financial expectations are something you should resolve before getting engaged. And if you and your girlfriend can't agree on and commit to something that you both think is basically fair, it's probably better not to get married in the first place. In general, these sorts of disagreements become harder, not easier, to resolve after marriage and can put a lot of stress on the relationship.
Post by: gerardc on January 03, 2019, 08:27:50 PM
My SO fired without me and I'm still working to get to my own FIRE.
I don't expect all the household work done. He gets to stay home because he started earlier than me and finished his race first. I'm inspired by his accomplishment, not resentful, envious like crazy, but not resentful. It really helps me stay the course, when I see how happy he is.
Thanks for sharing. I'm glad to see it can be done.
You are asking some questions which I could even really fathom considering. If she is doing things that make you feel wary of being taken advantage of, that’s pretty alarming. You should absolutely not feel that way.
It sounds like you guys aren’t ready to take the relationship to the next step or move in together.
She's not doing things that make me feel wary of being taken advantage of. Actually she doesn't care about getting married, she's fine splitting expenses and she's frugal like me -- if she was a gold digger she'd pick someone else. I'm only wary of being taken advantage of because of the horror stories I've read online of people divorcing and getting screwed financially.
Another reason I'm careful about joining finances and life, is that I'd rather help her achieve her own FI, than her being dependent on mine. I'd be incredibly indebted to her if I provided for her for a few years, she put her career on hold, then we realize we're not made for each other. What does she do then?
In my opinion, if you were in a perfectly happy position and convinced you wanted to spend you life together, here is how I would work it. I would move in together and offer for her to stop working. Compared to your income, here is barely worthwhile unless she feels she “needs” to work. Ideally, I would have her take care of all the things around the house while you continue to work. It’d make your working life a million times easier. You working 3 more years would be comparable to her working 24 years. That’s just my opinion for sure.
Your rationale definitely makes sense. But the thing is, she likes working and didn't even think of FIRE before, although I suspect that she was just like anyone else who couldn't fathom FIREing ever, and consequently made peace with working until 65, but that if presented with the opportunity would realize that FIRE is a hell of a lot more fun than 9-5.
Still, to me it feels a bit like rich parents spoiling their kids instead of having them work for their own success -- that's not necessarily for the best. She has a master's degree, maybe she wants more than cleaning my house and cooking my meals? Fulfill her own career goals? But then again, I also have a graduate degree and I'm fine screwing around on the beach, so...
Post by: ElleFiji on January 03, 2019, 08:29:19 PM
Some money strategies
100% combined (I've done this - it was right then, but I wouldn't now)
Yours, mine and ours - so many ways to hash this out
Fully separate
I think with the age, income and net worth issues, and it still being early, you may want to figure out a yours mine and ours system. One that seems succesful with income disparities is to use percentages to contribute to a shared account, and then each use the rest of your money for private saving and spending. If you did this and were planning to FIRE, you could discuss with her that with your income dropping in FIRE, you'll be contributing 8x her amount pre FIRE (giving her an opportunity to do some serious spending) and then whatever it works out to... Maybe 2-3x hers post FIRE. And if you get married or have kids, renegotiate.... I'd hope that after a longer time together you'd both want to support each other, but that's me projecting my values on to you.
But the important things are to communicate and research.
Post by: MrThatsDifferent on January 03, 2019, 08:33:14 PM
As for FIRE, you need to do your own plan regardless of others. If you want to FIRE, then FIRE. Just be comfortable with her still working and the expectation that you’ll keep things going at home. As for kids, you need to factor them into your FIRE budget. Once you do that, you’ll know how much more you need saved, then work towards that. Keep in mind if the marriage breaks up, she might get custody and child support, separate from marital assets.
Post by: LumberJesse on January 03, 2019, 08:52:31 PM
[/quote]
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like you’ve got a weird complex going on with someone you’re wanting to marry as an equal. It’s not like a rich kid spoiling their kids, because, you know, she’s not your kid. She’d be your partner- an equal. If she wants to fulfill career goals, she can choose to fulfill them. From my perspective, if someone had career goals and then was offered FIRE, you’d really be testing the metal of whether those goals were genuine. If she really cares about that path, she’ll keep down that path regardless of financial incentive, and probably with more fervor because she’d lack the burden of expense. If her career goals were really just functions of reaching retirement, then why would you expect her to enjoy continuing to pursue them while building a life with someone that could easily offer her that?
Anyways, If she doesn’t continue to pursue a career, you can pursue something else together. If she’s as frugal, or nearly as frugal as you, and is committed to not using wealth to live extravagantly, I don’t see why offering her FIRE would be negative in any way. I can’t imagine reaching FIRE, meeting someone, and not being thrilled about the thought of sharing it with them- your hard work not only will have provided you a lifestyle most dream of, but you’ll get to share that abundance with someone you love?? What better gift could you give than that freedom- That’d be awesome!
Lastly- to debunk one thing: if she’s intelligent and has a masters like you say, she won’t be up shit creek if things don’t work out between the two of you. She’s made it this far, I’m sure she wouldn’t be ruined.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: gerardc on January 03, 2019, 09:23:22 PM
About levels of combining finances: I would keep ours fully separate. The only thing I'd do is being generous for extras that she can't afford, for example if she can afford $1000/month for an apartment with a longer commute, but there is one at $3000/month in a better location, I might put in the difference at my discretion. Similarly for impromptu trips or other expenses.
We have talked about this (only in passing, not in full detail), multiple times, and she seems fully on board with it. The only contentious point, really, is the degree at which I'll be generous, but this is really for me to decide, so there's not much to talk about. I could tell her that we can stop working temporarily and tour the world for a year, but she wouldn't really "invite herself" and initiate the conversation with, "hey, about this big pile of cash you have sitting around, I thought we could"...
I think the finance aspect is pretty well sorted, so far. If we end up having kids, we might need to revise the rules a bit, but since I'm planning to share kids duties I'm hoping we can follow the same guidelines.
For now I'm mostly worried about the logistics of being FIREd while the other works. A stable job requires a fixed location and I have to admit this burden annoys me a bit.
From my perspective, if someone had career goals and then was offered FIRE, you’d really be testing the metal of whether those goals were genuine. If she really cares about that path, she’ll keep down that path regardless of financial incentive, and probably with more fervor because she’d lack the burden of expense.
I believe there are obstacles/challenges in life that are worth having; that if asked you wouldn't want to tackle but if pressed you'll eventually conquer them and get a sense of accomplishment.
Post by: use2betrix on January 03, 2019, 09:29:26 PM
My SO fired without me and I'm still working to get to my own FIRE.
I don't expect all the household work done. He gets to stay home because he started earlier than me and finished his race first. I'm inspired by his accomplishment, not resentful, envious like crazy, but not resentful. It really helps me stay the course, when I see how happy he is.
Thanks for sharing. I'm glad to see it can be done.You are asking some questions which I could even really fathom considering. If she is doing things that make you feel wary of being taken advantage of, that’s pretty alarming. You should absolutely not feel that way.
It sounds like you guys aren’t ready to take the relationship to the next step or move in together.
She's not doing things that make me feel wary of being taken advantage of. Actually she doesn't care about getting married, she's fine splitting expenses and she's frugal like me -- if she was a gold digger she'd pick someone else. I'm only wary of being taken advantage of because of the horror stories I've read online of people divorcing and getting screwed financially.
Another reason I'm careful about joining finances and life, is that I'd rather help her achieve her own FI, than her being dependent on mine. I'd be incredibly indebted to her if I provided for her for a few years, she put her career on hold, then we realize we're not made for each other. What does she do then?In my opinion, if you were in a perfectly happy position and convinced you wanted to spend you life together, here is how I would work it. I would move in together and offer for her to stop working. Compared to your income, here is barely worthwhile unless she feels she “needs” to work. Ideally, I would have her take care of all the things around the house while you continue to work. It’d make your working life a million times easier. You working 3 more years would be comparable to her working 24 years. That’s just my opinion for sure.
Your rationale definitely makes sense. But the thing is, she likes working and didn't even think of FIRE before, although I suspect that she was just like anyone else who couldn't fathom FIREing ever, and consequently made peace with working until 65, but that if presented with the opportunity would realize that FIRE is a hell of a lot more fun than 9-5.
Still, to me it feels a bit like rich parents spoiling their kids instead of having them work for their own success -- that's not necessarily for the best. She has a master's degree, maybe she wants more than cleaning my house and cooking my meals? Fulfill her own career goals? But then again, I also have a graduate degree and I'm fine screwing around on the beach, so...
If that’s the case then she won’t care that you FIRE and she continues working for quite a while, which would alleviate any concern of this thread.
Also - prenup’s are always a consideration as well.
Post by: SavinMaven on January 04, 2019, 05:37:10 AM
She's working full-time and frugal as well, but her low income prevented her so far from saving more than few thousand $.
This part gave me pause, and maybe it gives you pause as well.
A big tenet of mustachianism is that regardless of the circumstances, you are in control of your destiny. Life is life and sh*t does happen though. Do you literally mean she has saved only "a few thousand dollars?" As in, $4k or so lifetime savings? After FT work and being frugal? There's much we don't know - such as, how old is she? Exactly how low is her income?
Ultimately what makes me uncomfortable about the above statement is it's shifting the responsibility for (not) saving off her, and onto her circumstances. I think I'd feel differently if the situation were "she made some bad investment choices, but has continued trying" or somesuch. But what matters here isn't my comfort, but yours - and you don't sound that comfortable either.
My best advice at this point is to post this as a case study. Put the info out there, and get deeper advice, because missing out on true love is a devastating mistake, but hitching your horse to someone with different financial priorities could be a close second.
Post by: herbgeek on January 04, 2019, 05:52:32 AM
If anyone is being taken advantage of under this proposed scenario, its NOT the OP.
Post by: Irregular Joe on January 04, 2019, 06:37:53 AM
This attitude has helped our marriage and relationship thrive -- we are in this together and are working together towards the same financial goals.
I don't suggest doing this before you get married and/or have kids. You need that stronger commitment in order to protect yourselves. A system of totally separate finances could work, but both sides need to feel like it's the right structure for them, and I think it's fraught with risk and increases the likelihood of relationship strife when someone gets resentful.
Post by: 4lo on January 04, 2019, 06:40:13 AM
I would be incredibly resentful if someone who made 10x what I did, asked me to move in and share half the expenses, rather than an amount proportional to my income. I'd further be resentful if he sat around all day, while I schlepped off to work, and still expected me to come home and do half the household chores. Or took off for extended trips alone without me.
If anyone is being taken advantage of under this proposed scenario, its NOT the OP.
I agree, it does not come across as a partnership with the same vision of success to me. OP it comes across as this person is infringing on your life and a potential inconvenience to your plans if they don't adhere to your financial framework and planned lifestyle. Let alone the potential resentment for each other based on the comments in this thread as herbgeek noted.
I'd suggest an open dialogue with your SO to ensure alignment on long term goals, objectives and timing. If it goes well it clears the air and helps layout a plan for the future, if things don't align then at least you know now and come move in a different direction. Remember you are a team in the end and your SO is your equal.
Post by: mbl on January 04, 2019, 06:46:56 AM
Probably would be best to remain unmarried and have more of a sexual roommate arrangement.
Also, maybe having children is something you should reconsider.
Decide what is really important to you and prioritize:
-FIRE
-having a live in friend with benefits sharing all common costs down the middle
-having a live in friend with benefits and sharing costs based on income
-having a wife and sharing all that you have for the rest of your life
-having a financially equally partner and sharing all costs equally
You have to know yourself and what arrangement you can live with.
If you're not comfortable being in a relationship where there might be many times where you're taking on
the majority of the fiscal responsibility, and this is very apt to happen if you are to have children together, then you might take pause and give
it a good long think. JMHO
Post by: Noodle on January 04, 2019, 06:49:30 AM
I think a bit of the cognitive disconnect in the advice you are getting is that there is a difference between a "relationship" (which might involve sharing a home or some finances) and a "partnership" in which the people choose to create one unit with (hopefully) a set of goals for that unit--which of course in a healthy partnership would usually include support for members' individual goals. I think both those kinds of connections are great and can add lots of happiness to your life, as long as everyone agrees on what they're doing! I have a work friend who was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with her SO. They owned different units in the same duplex, shared pets and holidays but had separate finances. They were very happy together for several decades.
Before you make any decisions about finances, I think you and GF need to be really clear about which you are in, because the financial strategies are different. In a relationship, each person has their own finances and goals and your ideas about separate FIRE work perfectly well. Of course, you would need to be prepared that your GF's financial goals might supersede your interests (ie, what if she gets a job offer that would be great for her financial future in a city you hate?) In a partnership, it would usually be weird to have one person FIRE'd and the other not (barring reasons like one person really liking their job, or wanting a more expensive lifestyle and working to pay for it) because you are supposed to be working together toward a set of goals, and there's not really "my money and your money"--there's just "the family's money."
The one caveat is that I don't think it's fair to bring kids into anything other than a partnership. Clearly many families have parents who aren't partners and handle it gracefully, but if you have two sets of goals, where do the kids' interests fall? Just another degree of difficulty that something as complicated as raising children doesn't need.
Post by: mathlete on January 04, 2019, 07:04:07 AM
If you want to keep things casual, by all means. But if it's going to be serious, and especially if she's gonna be the mother of your kids, I'd be prepared to offer up more. As others have pointed out, you could work for 3 years post FI and that would save up enough to cover he annual earnings forever.
Post by: aceyou on January 04, 2019, 07:18:57 AM
I could tell her that we can stop working temporarily and tour the world for a year, but she wouldn't really "invite herself" and initiate the conversation with, "hey, about this big pile of cash you have sitting around, I thought we could"...
I don't see this ending well. When one person having more money translates into "I have more power than you", that often causes problems in a relationship. Do you really want to start a relationship where one person is more in control of setting the agenda? Seems like trouble.
Quote
Why don't you think her working to cover her shares of expenses would be fair? I'm a few years older than her, and I have spent those years mostly working -- wouldn't it be fair that she does the same, while I enjoy a well-deserved break?
Ok, if your goal is to maximize for "fair". But that might not make you both as happy as you can be, which might be a better thing to optimize for. Problem I see is that you are going to be in a situation where what's "correct" for you will be "wrong" for her, simply because of your stage of financial life.
Suppose you want to take a 4 month-long slow travel trip. That might be a perfectly correct financial decision for you, but for her it's a non-starter. Even if you pay for it, simply going on the trip could be financial disaster for her because of career advancement issues. It might be completely fair for you to go on the trip and leave her at home working, but again, that might not make either of you as happy as possible.
Every situation is different, so honestly this might work out perfectly well for both of you. It wouldn't be good for me though. I believe my wife and I would grow apart if there were vastly different power dynamics or differences in how each of us can spend our time while together.
Good luck and congrats on becoming FI and finding a frugal partner, you are in a great spot!!!!!!!
Post by: yodella on January 04, 2019, 07:55:00 AM
I'm not in California anymore, so no community property, thank god. Where I'm from and where she's from (different places), marriage is not as big of a deal as it is in the US, so we might skip it. In either case, there are ways to keep property acquired before marriage as separate, as in my case.
About levels of combining finances: I would keep ours fully separate. The only thing I'd do is being generous for extras that she can't afford, for example if she can afford $1000/month for an apartment with a longer commute, but there is one at $3000/month in a better location, I might put in the difference at my discretion. Similarly for impromptu trips or other expenses.
We have talked about this (only in passing, not in full detail), multiple times, and she seems fully on board with it. The only contentious point, really, is the degree at which I'll be generous, but this is really for me to decide, so there's not much to talk about. I could tell her that we can stop working temporarily and tour the world for a year, but she wouldn't really "invite herself" and initiate the conversation with, "hey, about this big pile of cash you have sitting around, I thought we could"...
I think the finance aspect is pretty well sorted, so far. If we end up having kids, we might need to revise the rules a bit, but since I'm planning to share kids duties I'm hoping we can follow the same guidelines.
For now I'm mostly worried about the logistics of being FIREd while the other works. A stable job requires a fixed location and I have to admit this burden annoys me a bit.
The sticky part about this type of arrangement in a relationship is the gross imbalance of power. You are the ONLY one who could say yes to a better located apartment, nice vacations, maybe music or sports lessons for the kids, dining out, and pretty much every luxury the two of you might share during your time together. She wouldn't get to make any of those decisions.
Maybe that can be ok for the first months or years, but as time goes on and your partnership solidifies, and you have been living together for years and created a family, it will likely start to wear on her (and thus your relationship).
Imagine how you would feel if the situation were reversed, and there were excellent reasons to spend on something, and plenty of money, but you had absolutely no say about it. It's a tough position to be in.
I'm not saying there isn't merit to the ideas of separate finances, pre-nups, or skipping on-paper marriage altogether. But this bit about one person having nearly ALL the power is crucial, and often gets lost in the discussions about legality/community property/how to set up separate accounts, etc.
Post by: scantee on January 04, 2019, 08:34:58 AM
Everything you’ve written here suggests that a woman with a more established career, someone with assets of her own (or the ability to accumulate hem fairly quickly) may be a better match for you. I don’t see how you balance your desire for separate finances, independence and travel with the fact that you are with someone who is simply not at the place in her life where that is possible.
As yodella says, the situation you are envisioning, where you grant niceties or rescind them on a whim, is a recipe for heartache and disaster. I suggest that you take a step back and think about what you really want out of a partner. What are your priorities? What do you want a relationship to look like in 5, 10, 15 years? And do you think your current girlfriend is a person that you can see as a full partner in that journey? If not, maybe take a step back from making any big decisions right now and just enjoy your time with this person without additional expectations.
Post by: ElleFiji on January 04, 2019, 08:40:11 AM
Post by: rantk81 on January 04, 2019, 08:52:05 AM
My reference point:
I earn a fabulously high income. If I were single, I would have already FIRE'd for sure. I have a spouse who isn't able to work for the foreseeable future -- and even when able to work eventually, my spouse won't have anywhere near the earning power that I have. For the time being, I continue to work. My spouse absolutely insists on doing all the chores/cooking/errands, and still feels guilty for not working. The thought of me FIRE'ing before we are both massively financially independent TOGETHER would never even cross my mind.
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 04, 2019, 08:55:56 AM
On the other hand, if you cede (joint) control of your money to her, you're giving her an easy life that she didn't work for, and possibly stunting her growth as a person, much like a trust fund baby. You're also extending your work-life purely for her benefit. Talk about resentment; I see it growing there very quickly.
Post by: BTDretire on January 04, 2019, 08:58:55 AM
I have a friend that married for a second time, taking a good amount into the second marriage.
She had a decent savings also.
The lawyer said do not commingle money. I seem to recall he said I'll take car of the housing,
you take care of the food. Other than that they buy there own needs.
You do not want to give away half your assets if things go sour.
Edit to second what Nick said, my friends had closer to equal nesteggs so that made it much easier,
vs. you having control of most of the money. Tough situation for an MMMer.
Post by: BPA on January 04, 2019, 09:40:22 AM
So, I own the house, but he contributes his share of the utilities, property tax, and insurance, and his "rent" beyond that is the work he does around the house. My investment account is mine alone. His investment account and pension are his. He owns a car and I do not. We are in the process of coming up with a cohabitation agreement.
I do most of the housework because I have a higher standard of how it should be done and I have more time. I doubt he would resent me if I did less. We cook about equal amounts of the time.
We do not and will not have children in common.
I love him. I am glad that my being FI helps him out. Our lives are pretty near perfect. He is able to take sabbaticals or save extra money because of our low expenses and lack of a mortgage payment.
You can work things out so that you protect yourself but be careful about making your SO feel like a liability or a mooch in any way.
Post by: Righty on January 04, 2019, 10:03:33 AM
Post by: totoro on January 04, 2019, 10:43:03 AM
I think you have some valid points and your feelings should not be minimized, but your approach might not be the type of partnership that most would hope for. Not because someone wants to take advantage, but because of the enforced economic inequality which, as mentioned, can create a significant power and lifestyle imbalance.
I retired before my spouse who is still working. I support his choice to continue working and don't go off travelling by myself because our time together is a priority for me, so I just don't want to do that. Family comes first for both of us. I think if I felt differently it would negatively impact our quality of life together. When you share core values things are pretty easy.
If your core values include autonomy and security based on separate financial means, as sense of fairness that does not include sharing to a level that evens out the financial inequality, and you are feeling constrained by someone continuing to work while you are retired, there could easily be a mismatch in circumstances or values. I would avoid that.
Maybe you would feel differently about sharing to create a similar lifestyle for your family if you had a prenup? That way you could work longer, work as a team, and know if things go sideways you will be able to maintain some of your earned autonomy?
Post by: Duchess of Stratosphear on January 04, 2019, 10:46:42 AM
Remember that having a child and breastfeeding is pretty much 24/7 work for up to two years. If you multiply that per two or three kids, that's a lot of years of difficult and unique work that our society doesn't really reward as it should. It can also put a dent in a woman's chances for career advancement because of discrimination and having to take time off. Childbearing also carries some risk--while it's less common now, women do still die in childbirth sometimes. It seems that if you are planning to have children someday, her time and sacrifice to that end is worth quite a bit of consideration when you think about your partnership and how to think about work and money.
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 04, 2019, 11:24:07 AM
Post by: Werthless on January 04, 2019, 11:25:02 AM
I would be incredibly resentful if someone who made 10x what I did, asked me to move in and share half the expenses, rather than an amount proportional to my income. I'd further be resentful if he sat around all day, while I schlepped off to work, and still expected me to come home and do half the household chores. Or took off for extended trips alone without me.Yes, a successful marriage is based on mutual respect, open communication, and compromise. I can't say from a couple message-board posts where the compromise is going to end up being, but the post suggests an underlying imbalance that needs to be addressed. It won't be one conversation, but a series of conversations about what their life will look like together.
If anyone is being taken advantage of under this proposed scenario, its NOT the OP.
Separately, a prenup seems like it will help address some of the OP's insecurities and concerns.
Post by: partgypsy on January 04, 2019, 11:30:30 AM
Interesting question.
I think a bit of the cognitive disconnect in the advice you are getting is that there is a difference between a "relationship" (which might involve sharing a home or some finances) and a "partnership" in which the people choose to create one unit with (hopefully) a set of goals for that unit--which of course in a healthy partnership would usually include support for members' individual goals. I think both those kinds of connections are great and can add lots of happiness to your life, as long as everyone agrees on what they're doing! I have a work friend who was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with her SO. They owned different units in the same duplex, shared pets and holidays but had separate finances. They were very happy together for several decades.
Before you make any decisions about finances, I think you and GF need to be really clear about which you are in, because the financial strategies are different. In a relationship, each person has their own finances and goals and your ideas about separate FIRE work perfectly well. Of course, you would need to be prepared that your GF's financial goals might supersede your interests (ie, what if she gets a job offer that would be great for her financial future in a city you hate?) In a partnership, it would usually be weird to have one person FIRE'd and the other not (barring reasons like one person really liking their job, or wanting a more expensive lifestyle and working to pay for it) because you are supposed to be working together toward a set of goals, and there's not really "my money and your money"--there's just "the family's money."
The one caveat is that I don't think it's fair to bring kids into anything other than a partnership. Clearly many families have parents who aren't partners and handle it gracefully, but if you have two sets of goals, where do the kids' interests fall? Just another degree of difficulty that something as complicated as raising children doesn't need.
I ditto this. What you want to do is fine, if you have a non-live-in, or even live-in relationship. But if you going to have kids with someone, strongly suggest being in mindset of partnership. Because yes life is never completely equal. What if your gf is pregnant with your child and she has to take time off due to some medical issue? Are you going to haruange her for 1/2 the rent? Having a kids is a huge commitment and you guys need to be a team, not 2 separate individuals sharing an apartment. If you don't think you can handle that, want to keep a my things are mine, and your things are yours mentality, just, don't have kids. Pet(s) are OK.
Post by: kenmoremmm on January 04, 2019, 11:34:58 AM
source: married 10 years.
Post by: cats on January 04, 2019, 11:45:12 AM
What you want to do is fine, if you have a non-live-in, or even live-in relationship. But if you going to have kids with someone, strongly suggest being in mindset of partnership. Because yes life is never completely equal. What if your gf is pregnant with your child and she has to take time off due to some medical issue? Are you going to haruange her for 1/2 the rent? Having a kids is a huge commitment and you guys need to be a team, not 2 separate individuals sharing an apartment. If you don't think you can handle that, want to keep a my things are mine, and your things are yours mentality, just, don't have kids. Pet(s) are OK.
I agree, if kids are on the table, you need to be planning to pool resources (money, time, skills) and work as a team. There is no denying that for most women, having a kid *IS* a negative impact on their career, so if you want to have children, you are probably asking her to give up earnings and professional opportunities that could speed her along on the way to FIRE.
My husband finished school two years earlier than me and now also earns quite a bit more so "his" net worth is a fair bit higher than mine. While I would not be opposed to him pulling the plug while I continued to work if it made sense for our family, I would be quite annoyed and resentful if he said "well, I've put in my time and earned my share, but you have to keep going for a few more years, and no, I am not going to pick up any housekeeping or childcare beyond what I usually do, I'll just be working on my passion projects, thanks!"
Post by: birdman2003 on January 04, 2019, 01:19:01 PM
I'm wondering what you would do in my situation. In short, I am soon reaching FI with roughly $1M net worth (this allows me to cover my own expenses). I am still working and earning 8-10X what my GF does. We've been together almost 1 year. She's working full-time and frugal as well, but her low income prevented her so far from saving more than few thousand $. We're at the stage where we're thinking of moving in together, and maybe eventually have kids.
The problem is I could quit work and FIRE by myself, but I would need to keep working a few years if I wanted to cover her share of expenses (and maybe better provide for kids). Is it fair and realistic to FIRE myself and cover my share of expenses while she works (probably for a long while)?
I noticed that most couples here who reach FIRE do so together, after many years of joint planning and execution. It feels that my situation, getting into a relationship after reaching FI, is a different scenario, and I'm not sure how to approach this.
I'm obviously wary of being taken advantage of, so I'd try to protect myself financially, but I'm also trying to make the relationship work somehow. Is it doomed to fail?
With you making 8x to 10x her income:
If she makes $30k that would put you at $240k - $300k
If she makes $50k that would put you at $400k - $500k
With that level of income, why wouldn't you both just keep working a few more years to get a nice 'stache and FIRE together?
Talking about covering "her share of expenses" and covering "your share of expenses" should be irrelevant.
A good relationship is not a la carte. You can't say "I want the sex and somebody to pay half my rent and do half my chores but not be bothered if I go and sleep at the beach while they work because the money I worked hard for is just for me." "Sorry daughter, we won't be able to take a family trip this year because your mother has not paid her share of the rent for the last three months."
I don't think this girlfriend is as frugal as you believe her to be if she has only saved a few thousand dollars while working full time.
Post by: Sorinth on January 04, 2019, 01:29:15 PM
If you FIRE now and she keeps working it could work fine but it could cause tension. It's highly dependent on whether she wants to work or to follow you and FIRE. You also have to figure out what to do if major unexpected expenses arise, for example a parent with failing health needs $$$ and you are sitting on a giant pile of money, you want/need the money to maintain FI, she wants to help her family, if you aren't on the same page on what your stache can be used for it can cause major issues. Nobody here can give you advice on this, it's something you have to discuss with her.
If you keep your finances separate and work long enough so that you can pay for you both to FIRE she is screwed if things end. You might be protected financially but since she'll be trapped in the relationship it won't be a clean break, the relationship would sour and get worse and worse until the breaking point is reached. It's doubtful protecting the stache would be worth the emotional trouble, so this to me seems like the worst option.
At the other end of the spectrum, you completely merge finances and work long enough so that you can remain FI even in the event of a split where you lose 50% of everything. Keep in mind your FI number has to include future kid related expenses.
In the same situation as you I would probably go with this:
Make whatever arrangements to protect my FI money so that I remain FI in the event of a split
Continue to work some number of years to help us get to FI and if I lose all/most of that joint money so be it.
So in your case if your FI number is 1m, and your joint FI number is 1.5, I would keep my 1m secure and continue to work until we hit 1.5m. If we end up splitting up I'd still have my 1m, but that 0.5m I would essentially consider lost.
Post by: wageslave23 on January 04, 2019, 01:33:54 PM
Post by: Kronsey on January 04, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
The OP's posts suggest to me that he should remain single or marry up or completely change his point of view on the subject (impossible?). I don't see this ever ending well for the variety of reasons already listed.
source: married 10 years.
Agreed
Source: married 12 years.
I would also add that OP seems to think of this as a business transaction. It is more complicated than that whether you want it to be or not.
She is never going to be happy long term with what you are suggesting.
If you honestly don't want to budge on any of your points, I would suggest you stay dating for much longer. Do not move in together, and don't even think about marriage...
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 04, 2019, 02:33:22 PM
Post by: Just Joe on January 04, 2019, 02:38:17 PM
My guess is that your situation will need to become a more cooperative effort or it will break apart at some point in the future.
Post by: Kronsey on January 04, 2019, 03:07:41 PM
... In this case they have only been together for 1 year. What makes her entitled to his hard earned money?
Absolutely nothing makes her entitled to his money.
That doesn't mean it is good advice IF the desired outcome is spending the rest of their lives together.
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 04, 2019, 03:35:59 PM
... In this case they have only been together for 1 year. What makes her entitled to his hard earned money?
Abosultely nothing makes her entitled to his money.
That doesn't mean it is good advice IF the desired outcome is spending the rest of their lives together.
In the long term, sure. But it has only been 1 year.
Post by: cats on January 04, 2019, 04:35:00 PM
... In this case they have only been together for 1 year. What makes her entitled to his hard earned money?
Abosultely nothing makes her entitled to his money.
That doesn't mean it is good advice IF the desired outcome is spending the rest of their lives together.
In the long term, sure. But it has only been 1 year.
But he also says they are talking about moving in together and having kids. The question posed was not really "what do I do in the next 6-18 months?", it was "what do I do in the long term?". What's appropriate for one time frame and question is not appropriate for the other.
Post by: Kronsey on January 04, 2019, 04:51:05 PM
... In this case they have only been together for 1 year. What makes her entitled to his hard earned money?
Absolutely nothing makes her entitled to his money.
That doesn't mean it is good advice IF the desired outcome is spending the rest of their lives together.
In the long term, sure. But it has only been 1 year.
But he also says they are talking about moving in together and having kids. The question posed was not really "what do I do in the next 6-18 months?", it was "what do I do in the long term?". What's appropriate for one time frame and question is not appropriate for the other.
Exactly right. I suggested they stay dating, don't move in together, and don't co-mingle finances as it has only been a year. OP mentioned kids, marriage, long term, not us who are providing the advice.
You can't have it both ways...
Post by: Fish Sweet on January 04, 2019, 05:24:31 PM
A good relationship is not a la carte. You can't say "I want the sex and somebody to pay half my rent and do half my chores but not be bothered if I go and sleep at the beach while they work because the money I worked hard for is just for me." "Sorry daughter, we won't be able to take a family trip this year because your mother has not paid her share of the rent for the last three months."
Exactly this. If this relationship takes the direction that OP is anticipating-- moving in, sharing a life, possibly marriage and having children that are going to be dependent on them for another two decades or so, then an attitude toward life as a pick-and-choose menu based on how much they can each (separately) afford is going to set him up for a failed relationship and years of resentment.
Thinking about sharing your money with her as some kind of trust-fund-infantilization discounts all the joy (I HOPE?) that she brings into your life, and the joy that you feel in being with her. I'm not saying that you should go whole hog in, joint assets!, fund her retirement!!, but you can't look at this from a purely numbers-oriented attitude. This should be a slow joint exploration of what you both want out of life, and whether this relationship really does turn into a shared partnership for the both of you. Money should be a tool to make your life happier, OP, and if you choose to share a life with this woman it should be a tool to allow you both to live your best lives, not a measuring stick by which you determine your gf's contribution to your relationship.
Post by: Bucksandreds on January 04, 2019, 05:50:08 PM
Post by: The_Dude on January 04, 2019, 05:50:51 PM
Shared expenses are split 50/50 and will be as long as we are both healthy and able to handle our finances. If one of us becomes disabled then we go to plan B and finances would become much more of a shared resource.
We also have a young kid and we agreed she would stay home for the first few years. While she is staying at home, I split my income with her 50% but still maintain separate finances.
Post by: big_slacker on January 05, 2019, 08:50:51 AM
A good relationship is not a la carte. You can't say "I want the sex and somebody to pay half my rent and do half my chores but not be bothered if I go and sleep at the beach while they work because the money I worked hard for is just for me." "Sorry daughter, we won't be able to take a family trip this year because your mother has not paid her share of the rent for the last three months."
Exactly this. If this relationship takes the direction that OP is anticipating-- moving in, sharing a life, possibly marriage and having children that are going to be dependent on them for another two decades or so, then an attitude toward life as a pick-and-choose menu based on how much they can each (separately) afford is going to set him up for a failed relationship and years of resentment.
Thinking about sharing your money with her as some kind of trust-fund-infantilization discounts all the joy (I HOPE?) that she brings into your life, and the joy that you feel in being with her. I'm not saying that you should go whole hog in, joint assets!, fund her retirement!!, but you can't look at this from a purely numbers-oriented attitude. This should be a slow joint exploration of what you both want out of life, and whether this relationship really does turn into a shared partnership for the both of you. Money should be a tool to make your life happier, OP, and if you choose to share a life with this woman it should be a tool to allow you both to live your best lives, not a measuring stick by which you determine your gf's contribution to your relationship.
Was gonna type up something similar, but you already did. Well put.
Early on in my relationship with my wife we had a talk about finances and both agreed that money was not a goal for it's own sake but merely one tool in the box for living the life we wanted. FWIW she made more than I did at the time. She also encouraged and supported me greatly in working towards meeting my potential. I may have run with that a bit and for long while she didn't work at all, then SAHM and now back in the workforce. She's contributing to the finances well beyond what I thought she would and I'm super proud of her success in her new career. She'll also almost certainly be working fulltime as I transition into part time work after the kids are launched.
The point is, finances will ebb and flow. They won't be evenly distributed and there should be no expectations of that. The goal should be happiness and contentment. There should be open and honest communication, ESPECIALLY about the hard topics like money, kids, retirement, death, divorce, relatives and so on.
Post by: elaine amj on January 05, 2019, 09:10:18 AM
My wife and I have been together for 18 years and keep separate finances. It helps that we pursued the same careers and have had similar earning potential. I'm much more interested in FIRE than her and she has taken several breaks in employment. The separate finances have really helped avoid financial based arguments. At the times she wasn't working for extended periods I didn't resent her for it. And she hasn't shown any concern or resentment with my plan to stop working before her.I think the big difference here us that you both have similar income. OP outearns his gf by a huge margin so unless they live on her income level, his extra wealth puts them at a huge power imbalance where he gets all the say in any little luxuries they have.
Shared expenses are split 50/50 and will be as long as we are both healthy and able to handle our finances. If one of us becomes disabled then we go to plan B and finances would become much more of a shared resource.
We also have a young kid and we agreed she would stay home for the first few years. While she is staying at home, I split my income with her 50% but still maintain separate finances.
Sent from my LG-K373 using Tapatalk
Post by: PhilB on January 05, 2019, 11:14:57 AM
Post by: Mtngrl on January 05, 2019, 12:42:37 PM
I'm not that thrilled with the idea of being fused together forever in every way for now.
Then I would not get married.
Post by: gerardc on January 05, 2019, 12:59:35 PM
A compromise would be me keeping working for 1-3 years (which could make us both FI) while she keeps working for 5-10 years. She's way too young to have this handed to her that easily. That way, she would fulfill some career goals, she would feel like she earned her FIRE too, she would keep a foot in the door at work in case things don't work out between us, and she wouldn't be incentivized by an alimony payout since she'd have been outearning me for some of those years, while at the same time she won't resent me for letting her work until 65 while she has health problems and I'm laughing from the sidelines with my pile of cash. I'm aware that if we are still together in old age, it won't matter much that finances are separate and at that point (or before) they can be simplified and merged. But 10, 20, 30 years is a long time. I'm trying to plan what will be happening in the next few years.
We also have a young kid and we agreed she would stay home for the first few years. While she is staying at home, I split my income with her 50% but still maintain separate finances.
If we have kids in the next few years (as she seems to want), I agree this changes the game and puts us more in an equal partnership. If one of us stays at home to care for the kids, they should be compensated. The same can apply for giving birth, but it depends -- she might get 6 months paid leave from work (while I get 3) with the possibility to extend to a year at 50% salary, which softens the blow somewhat. I like The_Dude approach in the case of SAHP. She wouldn't get half of my $400k salary just for a changing a few diapers, she'd only get the market rate for a nanny (i.e. minimum wage) especially in a country with heavily subsidized child care (are you offended yet?). Kidding aside, it would only be fair to compensate each other for time off work and negative impact on one's career. However, I don't really want her to do that. By then I should be mostly free to take care of the kids half the time or slightly more, and I'd rather she keeps working for 5-10 years for her independence (reasons I mentioned above).
Also... I'm not getting married, unless we have to in order to immigrate into a third country we both want to live in. Or maybe some miracle happens in the future, but we're not at that stage at all yet.
Post by: FIRE Artist on January 05, 2019, 01:12:16 PM
By then I should be mostly free to take care of the kids half the time or slightly more, and I'd rather she keeps working for 5-10 years for her independence (reasons I mentioned above).
Also... I'm not getting married, unless we have to in order to immigrate into a third country we both want to live in. Or maybe some miracle happens in the future, but we're not at that stage at all yet.
Know who only take care of their kids 50% of the time? Divorced people with joint custody. Sounds like you are on the fast track to that!
Post by: gerardc on January 05, 2019, 01:17:24 PM
To those worried about a "huge power imbalance", I'd like to know why it matters and is such a big deal. Yes, I have more money, but I live frugally, I am modest and I don't spend in order to get a social advantage. I am simply using my savings to take a break from a career that I perceive as stressful. I still live a lower middle-class lifestyle, and I don't intend to change that. Think of it more like me frontloading my working time early in my life, instead of spreading it evenly from 18 to 65 like most people do.
Besides, we often talk about these matters (money and life plans), so she knows where I'm coming from and where I'm going. She has known for a long time what I want to do with my time in the future, and I know that she wants to keep working because she has to. That's the frame our relationship evolved from the beginning, and I don't see why that would change. It was always a "here's my life, you are welcome to join" kind of deal. Of course there will be adaptations, but that's the gist of it.
Post by: scantee on January 05, 2019, 01:30:06 PM
Do you love this woman?
Is having children very important to you?
Do you enjoy being in long-term relationships?
I ask because you seem only mildly interested (and sometimes hostile) to the the serious life changes you are considering. Playing armchair psychologist for a moment, my impression from what you’ve written is that you’re frightened of the vulnerability that comes with serious romantic life commitments and instead of addressing that you’re constructing an artifice of rules to make sure you’re never taken advantage of.
I think you need press pause on these immediate questions and find a therapist who can help you think through what it is you want out of life and relationships.
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 05, 2019, 06:22:03 PM
She wouldn't get half of my $400k salary just for a changing a few diapers, she'd only get the market rate for a nanny (i.e. minimum wage) especially in a country with heavily subsidized child care (are you offended yet?). Kidding aside,
Gross.
Pretty much every time you've posted about her she is framed as a taker, as someone who doesn't "deserve" A or B or C. Writing it that she would only "get" X amount of your money, versus "I would support or give her X to raise our child" is very telling.
I agree with the previous poster that you might benefit from a therapist to sort yourself out.
You are not long-term-relationship material right now.
Post by: DomesticK on January 05, 2019, 07:00:24 PM
She wouldn't get half of my $400k salary just for a changing a few diapers, she'd only get the market rate for a nanny (i.e. minimum wage) especially in a country with heavily subsidized child care (are you offended yet?). Kidding aside,
Gross.
Pretty much every time you've posted about her she is framed as a taker, as someone who doesn't "deserve" A or B or C. Writing it that she would only "get" X amount of your money, versus "I would support or give her X to raise our child" is very telling.
I agree with the previous poster that you might benefit from a therapist to sort yourself out.
You are not long-term-relationship material right now.
+1
There are some seriously unhealthy ego and maturity issues going on here. Let her go now for her sake and work on your issues before pursuing a long-term relationship.
Post by: Kronsey on January 05, 2019, 07:12:16 PM
I'm newer to the forums, but this response unfortunately seems pretty typical.
"I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!"
Post by: partgypsy on January 05, 2019, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: Joel on January 05, 2019, 08:18:34 PM
Post by: AccidentalMiser on January 05, 2019, 08:30:54 PM
You should show her this thread so she can dump you and move on with her life.
Amen.
Post by: gerardc on January 05, 2019, 09:11:01 PM
I think some of you have read things rubbing them the wrong way and should reexamine their feelings of frustration -- this doesn't seem healthy to me.
I have been talking with my GF openly about finances and life plans since the beginning and we're pretty well aligned. Some of it is a cultural issue. Some of you have different views about relationships, and prefer partnership to independence. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
And stay on topic. No personal attacks, comments about mental health, or personal judgements on love relationships. This thread is about the financial aspect of sharing life with someone after you are FI.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 05, 2019, 11:28:41 PM
You just don't seem all that in to her.
If being with her isn't rocking your world to the max, break up amicably and move on.
And if being with her actually *IS* rocking your world to the max and you've just made a total fail in communicating that, I don't understand why you wouldn't be moving heaven and earth to find a way for both of you to spend the most time together for the rest of your life.
Post by: Metalcat on January 06, 2019, 06:25:44 AM
Post by: Herbert Derp on January 06, 2019, 06:32:05 AM
Naturally, in this situation I would absolutely not be ok with my partner quitting her job and becoming dependent on me. I would expect her to continue working, pay her share of the expenses, and do her share of the chores. Which ideally would be 50%.
Now there are various things to consider. For instance, if you want to split expenses 50-50, you have to have compatible lifestyles. In other words, you can't expect your partner to pay for stuff she doesn't have a say in or cannot afford. This includes vacations. I would definitely work out a clear, agreed upon budget where both parties have equal say, which includes discretionary spending. Otherwise, what you have is two separate people living two separate lives, which doesn't seem like much of a relationship.
Since you have more money than her, you could theoretically spend more of your own money to do stuff that is not included in the agreed upon joint budget. However, I see a huge danger in doing this as I do think it would destabilize the relationship and lead to resentment and/or entitlement as others in this thread have already pointed out. If you start exercising your privilege like this, she's probably going to either resent you for lording it over her and refusing to share, or become entitled to you sharing it with her. Therefore, I believe that all spending needs to be accounted for in the joint budget.
If you are not ok with living within the confines of an agreed upon joint budget where expenses are split 50-50, then you should probably reconsider your philosophy and/or relationship. Furthermore, if the two of you cannot agree on how to allocate a budget, it sounds like you aren't that compatible and probably shouldn't be sharing a life together. I think this is a fair system. Under this system, your money remains your money and her money remains her money, but when it comes time to spend money, you both spend it together.
I do see some downsides to the 50-50 joint budget approach, like what do you do with "extra" money that you can't spend because it is not included in the budget? Give it to your partner? Donate it to charity? Just hoard it until you die? This seems irrational and could also become a source of resentment and/or discontentment from both you and your partner's perspective.
Perhaps one compromise would be to abandon the 50-50 joint budget rule and instead construct a budget based on what both parties are able to contribute. So if your FIRE budget is $60K/year but based on your partner's income she can only reasonably spend $30K/year, then you'll end up with a joint budget of $90K/year where you pay for 2/3 of everything. Note that the key term here is joint budget: your partner would be entitled to have joint authority over how the 2/3 that you contribute is being spent. This is how you would avoid resentment and maintain fairness.
It seems like a good compromise. Your partner will remain self-sufficient and pay her fair share of the expenses. You will be protected from being taken advantage of because the only part of your money that gets spent is the money which you have already allocated to be spent as part of your FIRE budget, and if things go south, there's no way she can lay a claim to a single penny of your nest egg. Unless you decide to have those kids--but hey, there's no way getting around child support. That's a calculated risk you'll have to take.
As far as kids are concerned, if you expect your partner to stay independent then I feel it is your duty to either become a stay at home dad or agree with her to hire a nanny or something, which you pay for 100%. I say 100% because in this situation you have the opportunity to raise the children without the help of a nanny, but could choose not to. I think you would have to own that decision.
Finally, I really do think it's important that you have compatible lifestyles. If you have the desire to travel all the time but your partner can't because of her job, that's probably not going to work out in the long term. Also, I don't think it's fair for her to be working hard while you're just leisuring around--again, this is a source of resentment. Ideally you would find something to work hard on during FIRE so that you still have a "job." If both of you are working and contributing to the joint expenses, what does it matter if only one of you is getting paid? Seems fair to me. All that being said, this would be a great opportunity for you to encourage your partner to pursue part time or remote work, since you have so much flexibility in your own lifestyle. Why not find a way for her to have more flexibility without sacrificing her career and becoming dependent on you?
Post by: fuzzy math on January 06, 2019, 06:42:14 PM
A compromise would be me keeping working for 1-3 years (which could make us both FI) while she keeps working for 5-10 years. She's way too young to have this handed to her that easily.
You're 35 with a 400k salary. You've had many things handed to you or you've been very lucky. Reflect on that for a while. The hard work and stress you experience at your job isn't 8-10x that of someone who earns a fraction of what you do.
For all you know about finances, you're on this board asking for very basic advice about how to treat someone properly because it doesn't come naturally to you. Even though she is young, she isn't the only one with some growing to do.
Post by: Herbert Derp on January 07, 2019, 12:22:27 AM
Anyways, If she doesn’t continue to pursue a career, you can pursue something else together. If she’s as frugal, or nearly as frugal as you, and is committed to not using wealth to live extravagantly, I don’t see why offering her FIRE would be negative in any way. I can’t imagine reaching FIRE, meeting someone, and not being thrilled about the thought of sharing it with them- your hard work not only will have provided you a lifestyle most dream of, but you’ll get to share that abundance with someone you love?? What better gift could you give than that freedom- That’d be awesome!
Lastly- to debunk one thing: if she’s intelligent and has a masters like you say, she won’t be up shit creek if things don’t work out between the two of you. She’s made it this far, I’m sure she wouldn’t be ruined.
I disagree with this line of thought. My own distaste towards dependence aside, I think a scenario where one partner sacrifices their career to become dependent on the other is a recipe for a power imbalanced, unfair relationship. If one partner is financially dependent on the other, they may become trapped in the relationship for financial reasons. It bothers me just to imagine myself stuck in that kind of a relationship. The dependent partner is effectively coerced into remaining in the relationship because they stand to lose everything if they leave.
I personally witnessed this happen to my own mother, who sacrificed her career to raise children when she married my father. After they got divorced, my mother lost everything and is only able to get near minimum wage jobs--and I assure you, my mother is a hard-working, highly intelligent person.
That said, I flat out refuse to just hand over part of my nest egg to someone who didn't earn it. I worked hard for my money and it belongs to me and me alone. I dont think it is that hard to insist that my partner remain financially self-sufficient, which is in everyone's best interest.
Now, if I was rich enough, I might be open to "buying out" my partner so they could pursue FIRE with me. But this would have to be truly extra, replaceable money. I am not nearly rich enough to afford this, and it doesn't really seem like gerardc is either. In my eyes, such a buyout would be to the tune of $1MM, and gerardc would have to work for several years to save that much. In my mind, it's just way too much to ask, especially since such a buyout comes with no promises or guarantees that the partner won't just take the money and leave.
Even then, while possible, I don't think that kind of situation makes for an ideal relationship. I want a partner who radiates strength and independence. If I had to buy them out, it runs contrary to my core values. It would be like having a relationship with a trust fund baby or someone who won the lottery.
Post by: LilyFleur on January 07, 2019, 03:07:12 AM
Gerardc, you need to decide if you want to be in love and have children, or not. With every year that passes, you will become more accustomed to being very independent, both with your time and with your money. And having children involves a great deal of sacrifice. Think about it, you will be 60 and perhaps 70 when your children are going to college. Who knows how expensive college will be then? I am thinking you need more than $1 million to retire with if you plan to have children. Also, a smallish apartment really is not an optimal place to raise a family. It would be nice for your children to have a yard to play in and a big enough home to have birthday parties and sleepovers in. Have you thought of what your life would look like if you have children and their mother is working full time? You will be doing more housecleaning and laundry and nannying than you could possibly imagine. Is that what you really want? Who would be watching the children while you are on a trip and their mother is at work?
I do understand the pressure that the disparity in financial resources can put on a relationship. You are at the far end of the bell-shaped curve in terms of financial success. And that suggests to me that most women that you will find to date will have fewer resources than you, especially if you are dating women quite a bit younger than you. So, even if it does not work out with this girlfriend, it is something for you to consider.
The aspect of having children is huge in your situation. The possible downside is, even if you do not marry their mother, you will be responsible for child support if the relationship breaks up. And, if you live with her for years and years, the court will view her as your common-law wife, anyway, should the relationship break up.
I hope and wish that you find love for a lifetime. You are getting older, but it is not too late. At the end of your life, I think you would regret missing out on love more than you would regret sharing your resources with those you love. Be careful that you don't push away your chance at happiness by distancing yourself from her as you label her a possible ungrateful child. It is difficult to move from independence to be closer to another person, and more so in your 30s than in your 20s. You may decide after all that you do enjoy being single and doing what you like without having to consider the demands of a relationship. It seems to me that you are kind of on the fence. I don't think your post is just about the finances, and I think that is why so many of the others have responded the way they have in this thread.
Post by: Herbert Derp on January 07, 2019, 03:42:59 AM
And, if you live with her for years and years, the court will view her as your common-law wife, anyway, should the relationship break up.
Not necessarily true:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter2-4.html
Post by: PhilB on January 07, 2019, 05:24:30 AM
Post by: mbl on January 07, 2019, 06:17:18 AM
I hope the gf exits the relationship before she commits to anything long term. I'm done with the thread. This guy was never interested in outside opinions in the first place.
I'm newer to the forums, but this response unfortunately seems pretty typical.
"I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!"
Yup
Post by: dignam on January 07, 2019, 07:17:23 AM
IMO, huge financial disparities in a relationship are basically always going to be contentious. Period. Someone will either be resentful, or someone will feel like they are providing charity.
I'm not going to make suggestions about your relationship as it seems plenty here feel they are Dr. Phil. But I will say it would be prudent to be abundantly clear to your GF what your expectations are with regards to FIRE and stuff. Keep in mind, she may not like it and may leave you. Or she may be fine with it.
Post by: Metalcat on January 07, 2019, 08:05:13 AM
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 07, 2019, 08:11:24 AM
Wow there are a lot of diverging views here. To the people suggesting therapy, etc.: SERIOUSLY?! How can you possibly know the OP well enough to suggest that? It blows my mind what people think they know about others on this forum. Get off your high horse.
IMO, huge financial disparities in a relationship are basically always going to be contentious. Period. Someone will either be resentful, or someone will feel like they are providing charity.
I'm not going to make suggestions about your relationship as it seems plenty here feel they are Dr. Phil. But I will say it would be prudent to be abundantly clear to your GF what your expectations are with regards to FIRE and stuff. Keep in mind, she may not like it and may leave you. Or she may be fine with it.
I co-sign this. I think it's inappropriate for forum-goers to tell each other to go seek counseling. To me, that's akin to a personal attack. We are better than that here. We can respectfully disagree without going there.
Post by: partgypsy on January 07, 2019, 08:47:38 AM
It can be productive bounce off your thoughts and feelings (hopes and fears) on an independent, non-vested professional. There are many different kinds of counseling so it does require a bit of self-education to figure out what kind of counseling is best for what you are looking for.
Why did I suggest it? Because the OP is obviously a successful ambitious acheiving kind of person. But from his posts he is posting this as a purely financial problem to be solved (how to maximize earning ability in both people in relationship, and make sure other person is not financially dependent on him at all). When in fact it is a primarily interpersonal and relationship problem. It's not going to be solved by getting financial advice from other mustachians. It's going to be "solved" or progress by communcation and understanding the other person, and vice versa.
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 07, 2019, 09:18:21 AM
IMO, huge financial disparities in a relationship are basically always going to be contentious. Period. Someone will either be resentful, or someone will feel like they are providing charity.
I really cannot agree with this.
I know many, many, many very happy couples with one major bread winner where there is no resentment and no sense of charity.
Certainly, there are people who can't be happy with that kind of arrangement, and that's okay too. People are allowed to want whatever they want in a partner. There's no law saying you have to marry anyone.
However, that doesn't mean that there aren't countless people out there who are perfectly happy as sole breadwinners or as stay at home parents and I think to generalize otherwise is a bit crazy considering that's such a common marital arrangement.
If I had stayed in my ultra high paying job and if I had decided to have kids, I would have DEFINITELY prioritized marrying a man who was okay with being a stay at home dad. I would never ever marry another high-stress professional, kids or no kids.
What is toxic is when two people have differing financial values, not necessarily different incomes.
Two people who make the exact same amount can be a financial nightmare if their values don't align.
This is not even a relevant point of view. It is one thing to have a stay at home spouse WHILE you make the money, it is completely another thing AFTER you have already made all the money and you meet someone. In the first case, the SAHS actually has contributed to FIRE. The second case (as in OP) the significant other had zero contribution to getting there, just shows up after all the hard work is done.
Post by: caracarn on January 07, 2019, 09:53:33 AM
All of you who are preaching for merging finances in an equal partnership are doing so through the lens of starting from scratch together early in life, setting up a joint goal and going on a mission to FIRE together. My case is different. I'm already FI for the most part. I have no interest in starting a new journey all over again.Gerardc, not sure if this will be helpful or not, but I do see some parallels so figured I'd share. I will say my view of a relationship and yours are very different and I do think that plays into how finances are viewed.
I was divorced and have gotten remarried. I was not FI, but I had a lot of savings and my GF at the time had nothing, in fact she has filed bankruptcy because of her divorce costs, so it has a parallel to your situation in that I was much further ahead than her, having done a lot of my journey, so to speak. I also was making a lot more than she was at the time and still do.
It never entered my mind to keep or finances separate. To me that causes too many issues. I also do not like the aspect of planning for a safety net in case the relationship does not work out. That would tell me this is a bad relationship. We spent a lot of effort (it did not take a lot of time because we were both older (30s and 40s) and therefore had a lot of life experience to delve into things very deeply and factually in our discussions of life together. Finances were a huge portion of our discussion and I understood this would delay my financial plan (was not thinking of FI at the time, that was something we discovered together, but again the parallel is there with the financial picture), but to me the choice was did I want to do life alone or with someone. That seems to be a difference in how we perceive relationships. I am in a team in a relationship. My problems are hers and hers are mine. We have six kids, three each. I think it is important that you look at having kids with someone as a lifelong commitment. Just because you do not marry, that does not change things. You have a kid with someone, you are in a relationship with them for the rest of your life (unless you choose to walk away, but that is a different thread). Kids are the ultimate chaos theory brought to life. You have no idea what will happen, what trouble they will get into, what things will interest them that will cost you a lot of money (gymnastics or figure skating some to mind, but there are many, many expensive interests that you can suppress I suppose), and until that little human is here you have no idea what those will be, and even then they can change a lot. I could not imagine being FIRE at this point with the kids still around. Too much of an unknown with the spending. Now maybe if we had started earlier with this target we could have planned for it better like MMM did, but now that MMM is divorced I will be curious what might happen. He has said they in relationships, but not if there are step kids in a potential second marriage. If that happens will MMM still be FIRE (he likely will be because of the massive cash flow from this site and other things he did)? I worked with a guy who did not want kids. Then his wife got pregnant and they had twins. We just met him and his wife for lunch now ten years in and when he related the story to my wife (who I was not married to when I worked with him), and he still related the story, "and then that evil ultrasound lady told me we were having TWO!" What happens if you have twins or triplets when you want to have one? Did I mention ultimate chaos theory brought to life? You say you are comfortable to have a child with her. What happens if there is more than a child? Are you still comfortable?
This is just a taste of why I cannot even fathom doing this as independent finances. It leads to way to many potential arguments. As someone said, do you just cover half the diapers? If your SO cannot cover the other half, who cleans up the poop from the days the baby is diaperless? Is that automatically the non-diaper purchasing spouse? Does that still apply when the baby poops and your SO is not there, meaning you just leave the baby to crawl around and make a bigger mess, for them to do what you all agreed to? I raise an admittedly absurd example to show the "simple" things that can turn into ridiculous discussions just because you choose to try to handle this separately.
I'd vote for working longer until you both can FIRE.
Post by: Assetup on January 07, 2019, 10:46:56 AM
Post by: nessness on January 07, 2019, 11:17:40 AM
Although, the comment about not giving her your hard-earned money just to change a few diapers was pretty gross and shows a real lack of understanding of what raising a child entails, so my actual advice would be to rethink having kids at all, and maybe being in a relationship as well.
Post by: Apple_Tango on January 07, 2019, 11:32:25 AM
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 07, 2019, 11:45:57 AM
IMO, huge financial disparities in a relationship are basically always going to be contentious. Period. Someone will either be resentful, or someone will feel like they are providing charity.
I really cannot agree with this.
I know many, many, many very happy couples with one major bread winner where there is no resentment and no sense of charity.
Certainly, there are people who can't be happy with that kind of arrangement, and that's okay too. People are allowed to want whatever they want in a partner. There's no law saying you have to marry anyone.
However, that doesn't mean that there aren't countless people out there who are perfectly happy as sole breadwinners or as stay at home parents and I think to generalize otherwise is a bit crazy considering that's such a common marital arrangement.
If I had stayed in my ultra high paying job and if I had decided to have kids, I would have DEFINITELY prioritized marrying a man who was okay with being a stay at home dad. I would never ever marry another high-stress professional, kids or no kids.
What is toxic is when two people have differing financial values, not necessarily different incomes.
Two people who make the exact same amount can be a financial nightmare if their values don't align.
This is not even a relevant point of view. It is one thing to have a stay at home spouse WHILE you make the money, it is completely another thing AFTER you have already made all the money and you meet someone. In the first case, the SAHS actually has contributed to FIRE. The second case (as in OP) the significant other had zero contribution to getting there, just shows up after all the hard work is done.
I was responding to the comment that I quoted, which appears to be a generalized comment about financial disparity and not a specific comment about wealth earned previous to the onset of a relationship.
Even with your particular scenario of wealth accumulated beforehand, I've seen plenty cases of wealthy retirees marrying far less wealthy people and being perfectly happy.
Yes because those people were okay with it obviously. I don't think not being okay with it makes the poster a bad person. Besides he is 35 and she is younger so I am guessing upper 20s at best and she has a masters. I think he is doing her a favor because it has only been 1 year and what if it doesn't work out? Then what? He certainly shouldn't have to split his life's savings with her. The best approach would be for him to work a couple more years and see where the relationship goes before making a decision.
Post by: partgypsy on January 07, 2019, 01:46:46 PM
I went through a divorce this past year. I went through the paperwork. When you get married, assets accrued BEFORE marriage are NOT included in division of assets. So this bugbear of this guy and this young woman getting married, they split, she gets half his shit, is not something that happens. So please stop repeating this chestnut.
What are the exceptions? a) mingling assets. Say if you have retirement accounts accrued before marriage, put in separate account, you then get married, don't continue to contribute to that account. b) marital residence. Married couple living in a residence. Even if only 1 person on deed, one person paying mortgage, traditionally marital residences are considered a joint asset. c) child support. This does not have to do with marriage, but bring a child into the world, there are consequences. If parents split up, both parents are considered to be responsible for childrearing costs and ideally for child rearing. 50/50 is the default nowadays. Most states have a straightforward formula for child support. d) Alimony. This is somewhat going the way of the dodo. Many cases, no alimony. Other cases, ex-spouse is given 1-5 years of limited financial assistance, in order to give him/her time, training in order to get up to speed to support themselves independently. How this is determined appears subjective and is based the judge, jurisdiction, attorneys involved.
Post by: ol1970 on January 07, 2019, 01:50:18 PM
1) I'm very wealthy by most standards (way, way more than the OP for reference), she is a single mom who is not at all wealthy essentially net worth of zero.
2) She's been married once, I've never been married. Both in our 40's.
3) We met after I already retired at 43.
4) We are both crazy off the charts in love, I literally told my best friend of 20+ years the day I met her that I finally met the "one", and I've never said that before. Two years later we are engaged and will be married later this year.
5) She is reasonably responsible with money, but the concept of early retirement had never even occurred to her. Single moms making $50-60k/year don't usually have that on their radar believe it or not.
6) We have lived together for a year, she has sold her house and moved into mine since its much nicer and paid for. She pocketed $100k on the sale of her home at the top of this past housing cycle which jump started her savings.
7) I pay for all housing expenses because its my house. She immediately fired my cleaning people and started cleaning the place herself. She is a keeper!
8) We have a shared checking account that we use for all general expenses that we incur together. Groceries, travel, fun, etc. Each of us have our own accounts as well, once the joint account goes below $1,000 we each add $2,000.
9) We discussed finances early on. I explained my situation, and when things got really serious and prior to engagement we discussed our finances, how we plan to live the rest of our lives budget wise, will she still work, pre-nuptial agreements (what we are bringing in stays separate), what would happen to my estate if I were to pass away unexpectedly...essentially we laid out everything like an open book.
10) Once we are married, everything we "earn together" as a couple is 50/50. My part time consulting side gig has the opportunity to make us multi-millionaires over again. The lack of money will not be an issue, but not being on the same page could absolutely be if you don't talk about it again.
11) We agreed that she cut her hours back to essentially whatever she feels comfortable doing. Her job is ridiculously amazing, and being in the airline industry it allows a couple that is "FIRED" to take some epic trips. On New Year's Eve we added up that if we were to have paid for all of the flights we took this year alone the bill would have been $96,000. So she definitely contributes to our lifestyle even if she doesn't have a huge 401K balance.
My opinion though, is if you have an inkling of doubt if she is the one or not...she is not. I was a confirmed bachelor, life was beyond good, but it pales in comparison to how amazing it is since she came into my life. I am beyond lucky. Don't settle for anything less than spectacular.
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 07, 2019, 02:38:02 PM
Geesh, this keeps coming up. "He certainly shouldn't have to split his life's savings with her."
I went through a divorce this past year. I went through the paperwork. When you get married, assets accrued BEFORE marriage are NOT included in division of assets. So this bugbear of this guy and this young woman getting married, they split, she gets half his shit, is not something that happens. So please stop repeating this chestnut.
What are the exceptions? a) mingling assets. Say if you have retirement accounts accrued before marriage, put in separate account, you then get married, don't continue to contribute to that account. b) marital residence. Married couple living in a residence. Even if only 1 person on deed, one person paying mortgage, traditionally marital residences are considered a joint asset. c) child support. This does not have to do with marriage, but bring a child into the world, there are consequences. If parents split up, both parents are considered to be responsible for childrearing costs and ideally for child rearing. 50/50 is the default nowadays. Most states have a straightforward formula for child support. d) Alimony. This is somewhat going the way of the dodo. Many cases, no alimony. Other cases, ex-spouse is given 1-5 years of limited financial assistance, in order to give him/her time, training in order to get up to speed to support themselves independently. How this is determined appears subjective and is based the judge, jurisdiction, attorneys involved.
You are very correct, it doesn't happen and that is exactly why he is doing her a favor by having her keep the job and accumulate her own wealth. I think you misunderstood my point.
Post by: partgypsy on January 07, 2019, 03:24:53 PM
[/quote]
You are very correct, it doesn't happen and that is exactly why he is doing her a favor by having her keep the job and accumulate her own wealth. I think you misunderstood my point.
[/quote]
That's why I think this thread is confusing to me. There is actually a lot more downside for her, than for him entering in what he is offering. He automatically has his assets protected. He already seems like a flight risk from his view of long term relationships. Youth, otoh is fleeting. Childbearing is "high cost"; Your body is permanently changed from bearing children. There is a small risk of disability, even death. It seems that if the op gets his way, there is not much room for her views or preferences. So yes it "protects" her financially for her to continue to return to work after giving birth. But would there be resentment on the Mom's part, working a full time job for say 30K, and in the first year being sleep-deprived, staying up to nurse as well as pumping at work, simply because of Dad's view of financial "fairness?" Seeing Dad by default be the stay at home parent simply because he accrued more financial assets at that time point? Hmm, I don't know. And what would happen if after she goes through pregnancy and childbirth, decides to stay home longer? Is that grounds for breaking up? Because that kind of thing happens. Op, find someone who is financially in the same place as you, because this does seem like something that bothers you, and your off the bat "solutions" seem not based on realism or real rubber hits the road situations.
For example OP says they have talked in length. "I have been talking with my GF openly about finances and life plans since the beginning and we're pretty well aligned." Yes, you have been talking. But these comments keep rattling around in my brain.
"The only contentious point, really, is the degree at which I'll be generous, but this is really for me to decide, so there's not much to talk about."
"I guess the issue is I'm trying to maintain separate finances and obligations, so that she doesn't get a free ticket, and keeps working for her own goals (we haven't been together for that long, she's younger than me, and I don't know how she will react)."
"If we have kids in the next few years (as she seems to want), I agree this changes the game and puts us more in an equal partnership. If one of us stays at home to care for the kids, they should be compensated…. However, I don't really want her to do that. By then I should be mostly free to take care of the kids half the time or slightly more, and I'd rather she keeps working for 5-10 years for her independence (reasons I mentioned above)."
"and I know that she wants to keep working because she has to."
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 07, 2019, 04:12:40 PM
Post by: FrugalSaver on January 07, 2019, 06:41:31 PM
I'm wondering what you would do in my situation. In short, I am soon reaching FI with roughly $1M net worth (this allows me to cover my own expenses). I am still working and earning 8-10X what my GF does. We've been together almost 1 year. She's working full-time and frugal as well, but her low income prevented her so far from saving more than few thousand $. We're at the stage where we're thinking of moving in together, and maybe eventually have kids.
The problem is I could quit work and FIRE by myself, but I would need to keep working a few years if I wanted to cover her share of expenses (and maybe better provide for kids). Is it fair and realistic to FIRE myself and cover my share of expenses while she works (probably for a long while)?
I noticed that most couples here who reach FIRE do so together, after many years of joint planning and execution. It feels that my situation, getting into a relationship after reaching FI, is a different scenario, and I'm not sure how to approach this.
I'm obviously wary of being taken advantage of, so I'd try to protect myself financially, but I'm also trying to make the relationship work somehow. Is it doomed to fail?
I’m in the same situation. Do a post nup
Post by: gerardc on January 07, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
It sounds like Gerardc is trying to help his girlfriend. I think it is a valid to point to be concerned about what will happen to her if they break up and she has quit working due to being in a relationship (married or otherwise). As a single woman, I do not want to 100% depend on a partner financially. I think that if there is such an imbalance of power (with Gerard feeling like he has to “give” her an allowance or something, instead of sharing 50/50) that marriage does not sound wise. If I met a super rich man and he said “we’re in this together, let’s combine everything and be equals” and I loved him then I would be down. Not to take advantage in ANY way, though. But if I met a super rich man who said “you can quit work and i can take care of you and give you an allowance of what I think is appropriate, or you can continue to work so we can be financial equals that way” then I would continue to work. I don’t want to be a kept woman in a relationship where I had no financial power. Some women choose that option and I think it’s a huge mistake, for both parties. I commend Gerard for not wanting to go down that road. However since Gerard is not willing to become 50/50 partners, then the only solution in my mind is for the girlfriend to keep working. And also not get married. I wouldn’t get married or have kids until a 50/50 equal financial partnership can be obtained. Ether via math, or via a change in the relationship dynamic.
Exactly this. I think if I offered full unconditional support, she might prefer to be a SAHM, or maybe downshift to PT to get her adult human interaction needs met. But she knows we're not at this stage yet, so it is only wise for her to hedge her bets and keep working.
Me making those choices actually comes from a place of concern for her. My stash is pretty well protected already, and she is the more vulnerable one. I don't want to hurt her, but knowing my history of past relationships, this is a real possibility. I am sure she would move on fast, but combining heartbreak with very little savings, time-off from her career, AND many of her best child-rearing years lost by my fault, would be more than I want to be responsible for. Although she knows the risk, she is still willing to take it, which baffles me.
I like the option of putting aside my stash (acquired before the relationship), and her keeping working for the first few years to earn her own FI, while I help by paying for most expenses, either working intermittently or more intensely if needed, so she could basically pocket her whole salary, and I could even pad my nest egg. This strategy would be roughly equivalent to merging finances, as many have proposed, but only assets newly acquired from that point forward. Of course the longer we wait before we start merging, the more I keep for myself (just as an FYI). In 5-10 years of work for her, and 1-3 years for me, we'd be both FI, and that ratio seems fair and satisfying for both of us.
Be careful that you don't push away your chance at happiness by distancing yourself from her as you label her a possible ungrateful child.
I don't see her as an ungrateful child, at all. The reason the trust-fund baby comparison was brought up was not in case she tries to "take" from me, or become entitled, but to highlight the harmful psychological consequences that getting something too easily has on human development and autonomy. It just seems obvious to me that FIRE without the journey makes for a boring life.
I realize it's a touchy conversation to have. For example, I have told her in the past that she should expect to pay for most of her share of housing costs in the short term. While my intentions were simply to encourage her to stay independent and not expect to stop working (she fully agreed it was the right thing to do), saying that just doesn't sound very nice, and can be misinterpreted as me not wanting any responsibility if something happens to her, or that her problems are not my problems, etc. So I went back and made sure she knew that she didn't have to worry too much about money and that I'd be there to help her if necessary (money can be tight for her and it stresses her out). That's all it took, and even though she already knew that, it made her happy to hear it.
If I had stayed in my ultra high paying job and if I had decided to have kids, I would have DEFINITELY prioritized marrying a man who was okay with being a stay at home dad. I would never ever marry another high-stress professional, kids or no kids.
I definitely noticed the same. High-stress professionals may earn more, but work takes a toll on their personality, mood, and relationships. My GF is the opposite -- very pleasant to be with, and this is pretty important for our relationship to work at all in the first place. You can't buy this, but it's worth a lot to me.
Post by: aGracefulStomp on January 08, 2019, 02:38:49 AM
Only you and your girlfriend can come to an arrangement that you're happy with, even though it may not work for other people. Asking people what they think is fair/workable can be useful for some ideas, but ultimately you're the one that needs to be totally comfortable.
I strongly suggest that you are totally honest, as well as explain your reasoning/emotions behind it. For example, it's clear to me that you will resent your girlfriend if she benefits from your FI stash and you don't feel like she's had to work for it. Tell her this, and explain where those emotions come from. Perhaps you can both talk about what would you see as "work" and different ways that you could feel comfortable to eventually share your resources with her like a partnership - you guys could come up with something that doesn't involve her working for all those years? Alternatively she may successfully challenge your view ... or you both might disagree with each other but understand where you are coming from and find a compromise.
I emphasise the honesty part for you in particular, because if I was her and heard you talking about me like you have been in these posts, I would run a mile. I hope for your sake she doesn't have the same response ... but I think its only fair for her to make the decision to move in with you only after she is aware of how you see her in relation to your money and how you see her in the relationship.
My final two cents is that I would be very ... cautious on assuming what is good for your girlfriend or what is the best way to FI for her. If I won the lottery and received my FI sum without having to work for it, it wouldn't impact my enjoyment of the FI amount or make me a less developed person. This is different for you and your development and enjoyment of the money, which is 100% fine, but it doesn't mean that it's the right way and your girlfriend may not be the same as you.
Post by: dignam on January 08, 2019, 06:42:13 AM
But I do agree there are perfectly happy couples with income disparities. I make more than 2x what my live in GF does; we have our financial duties hashed out (we literally wrote down who would pay for what before she moved in two years ago). It's roughly income based; for example I pay about 2/3 of the mortgage and all the utilities. It's been wonderful; I think because neither of us are petty so we don't mind treating each other to stuff occasionally, and are both good savers. With us there is no question about whether she should work.
I will reiterate that being very clear and transparent is really really important if taking the next step, OP.
Post by: caracarn on January 08, 2019, 07:13:14 AM
I think you both need to sit down with a very big cup of tea and have a very honest but kind and open-minded discussion on money in the relationship. It might be a good idea to let her know that this has been worrying you so you want to discuss it with her, and you want her to come to the chat with some ideas of her own.For the OP, I think this is all great information and why I quoted it in my response.
Only you and your girlfriend can come to an arrangement that you're happy with, even though it may not work for other people. Asking people what they think is fair/workable can be useful for some ideas, but ultimately you're the one that needs to be totally comfortable.
I strongly suggest that you are totally honest, as well as explain your reasoning/emotions behind it. For example, it's clear to me that you will resent your girlfriend if she benefits from your FI stash and you don't feel like she's had to work for it. Tell her this, and explain where those emotions come from. Perhaps you can both talk about what would you see as "work" and different ways that you could feel comfortable to eventually share your resources with her like a partnership - you guys could come up with something that doesn't involve her working for all those years? Alternatively she may successfully challenge your view ... or you both might disagree with each other but understand where you are coming from and find a compromise.
I emphasise the honesty part for you in particular, because if I was her and heard you talking about me like you have been in these posts, I would run a mile. I hope for your sake she doesn't have the same response ... but I think its only fair for her to make the decision to move in with you only after she is aware of how you see her in relation to your money and how you see her in the relationship.
My final two cents is that I would be very ... cautious on assuming what is good for your girlfriend or what is the best way to FI for her. If I won the lottery and received my FI sum without having to work for it, it wouldn't impact my enjoyment of the FI amount or make me a less developed person. This is different for you and your development and enjoyment of the money, which is 100% fine, but it doesn't mean that it's the right way and your girlfriend may not be the same as you.
Your last response was that if given the choice she would probably stay at home makes this all the more crucial. It does not sound like you have had anywhere neat the depth of conversation, you've just had a lot of conversation. This is typical in any relationship. It is very, very hard. When I had relayed my information above about how my wife and I talked while we figured out if we wanted to get married, what I had not shared was my best friends feedback. He said we had covered more and understood each other better in three months than he and his wife had in twenty years. Just because you have "talked a lot" over a year does not mean you have "talked", if you understand what I mean.
Both parties need to let their guard down and be honest and open. It sounds like a lot of you telling her what you think would be good and her somewhat agreeing. Not saying that is the actual dynamic of the physical conversation but it is the pattern your writing seems to indicate. Even though you say you are not thinking of her as a child it seems very much as if you are the elder statesman pontificating from a point of power. It is OK to be proud of the hard work you put in to get where you are, but it is also hard work to remove that from a loving conversation, because otherwise, like aGracedulStomp said, it encourages someone to run away.
You've got to be comfortable with the level of vulnerability you put yourself in and we all have different expectations in a serious relationship. It just seems like you want to have a hedge and even in your post your a very self deprecating about how surprised you are she wants to be with you (you used the phrase "baffles me") and also having a very negative view of your ability to function in a relationship based on your past relationships. This sounds like the stuff you need to actually get through, and some have suggested a counselor to help which I think is wonderful advice. I'd never think about moving in with someone in the headspace you are in as you seem far from ready to be successful there. I think this then manifests itself here with your trepidation on the finances. To me your reservations about all the what ifs are all the indicator you need to say you are moving too fast for your own comfort, but obviously only you know how you feel.
Post by: EnjoyIt on January 08, 2019, 07:30:55 AM
On every finance forum I have ever participated when someone brings up alternate views of marriage and how finances should be held, they get heated and often times locked because it leads to too much animosity. It is like arguing which religion is better.
Post by: PhilB on January 08, 2019, 07:34:35 AM
It is like arguing which religion is better.Pastafarian of course.
Post by: partgypsy on January 08, 2019, 07:41:28 AM
Too many judgmental comments who have a very blinded and biased view on marriage who can't possibly perceive life and decisions different from their own. Gerardo, don't take those comments to heart as they simply can't fathom anything different from their own world or experiences.
On every finance forum I have ever participated when someone brings up alternate views of marriage and how finances should be held, they get heated and often times locked because it leads to too much animosity. It is like arguing which religion is better.
There are many ways to have a successful serious relationships, as well as dividing finances. But they all share mutual respect, and consideration of the other. He is telling us what HE thinks is best for her. I did like in his last post, he mentioned something about what he appreciates about her (easy going personality). People bring different things to a relationship. He is trying to make her a mini-me.
I also agree that there is no one right way to have a relationship. But the two people involved need to whole heartedly agree and be enthusiastic about that joint plan.
Post by: Kay-Ell on January 08, 2019, 08:10:14 AM
I’m divorced. My ex husband and I had very different spending and saving priorities and created a system of separate finances that worked for us. We shared 2 joint accounts. One for monthly shared expenses and one for short term savings goals that we mostly used for travel and as an emergency fund. We put agreed upon amounts into these accounts out of each paycheck via direct deposit and the rest of our money was ours individually to spend or save as we chose.
In your situation, the two areas that I agree upon are that without children or a long term commitment your nest egg should be yours and that her quitting her job to live off of your stash would be a bad idea. My suggestion would be for you both to continue working and evaluating the relationship until you are fully on board with either sharing a life or deciding to go your separate ways. In that time it would be great if you could use your high earning potential to help her save. Perhaps you could keep the apartment in your name and cover 100% of housing and utility costs, while looking for other ways to shave off her expenses without increasing your own. Maybe you reduce to one car and combine insurance or combine cell phone plans, and let her take the savings while your costs remain static. Do all of this with the agreed upon goal that she kick her savings up to the highest levels. Then watch and see what happens. If she’s saving 50% of her income it should increase her independence while simultaneously showing you how she is with extra money. In a few years, if you’re ready to become a full partnership and start a family then you’ll have a much larger combined nest egg. If you breakup, her saving rate will decrease as she takes on the burden of housing etc, but she’ll be closer to her own FI. And there should be no hard financial feelings between either of you.
I would not advise that you FIRE years in advance of her unless it’s to be a SAHD. I would not advise you have children unless or until you’re comfortable fully blending your lives and finances. And there’s no shame in opting out of this relationship if you’re not all in. By the way that you talk it sounds like you are a very guarded person who doesn’t really want or need a family, but is considering creating one, and therefore feels a much stronger than average need to protect himself and his independence. If that’s true, consider not moving in with or having children with someone. It’s fine to be of that opinion. But it’s not really fine to be emotionally unavailable and on the fence while also building a life and a family with someone who wants a real partnership. If you’re not relationship material, that’s fine, and just stick to something casual.
Post by: scantee on January 08, 2019, 08:13:50 AM
Too many judgmental comments who have a very blinded and biased view on marriage who can't possibly perceive life and decisions different from their own. Gerardo, don't take those comments to heart as they simply can't fathom anything different from their own world or experiences.
On every finance forum I have ever participated when someone brings up alternate views of marriage and how finances should be held, they get heated and often times locked because it leads to too much animosity. It is like arguing which religion is better.
What is the value of posing a relationship question if you’re not willing to hear opposing views?
I am in an untraditional marriage. I certainly believe that people can make just about any arrangement work. Do I think this untraditional arrangement will work? No, not at this point in time at least. There are too many unknowns, the relationship is still so new, the people involved don’t (seem) to have a clear sense of what they want...
I’m surprised by the negative reaction to the suggestion of therapy. It’s 2019, there shouldn’t be a stigma to getting professional support to be a better and happier person, alone or in relationships. I want my tool chest for dealing with life’s challenges to include a wide range of tools, therapy included. It’s not always the right tool, but is sure as hell is the best one in certain circumstances.
Gerard, if you are unwilling to go to therapy, I would suggest reading the book “How to be an Adult in Relationships.” Super helpful, not at all from a traditional framework of relationships, and will help you and your girlfriend think through and talk about these issues. Might be helpful for you both to read it.
Post by: EnjoyIt on January 08, 2019, 08:30:20 AM
Too many judgmental comments who have a very blinded and biased view on marriage who can't possibly perceive life and decisions different from their own. Gerardo, don't take those comments to heart as they simply can't fathom anything different from their own world or experiences.
On every finance forum I have ever participated when someone brings up alternate views of marriage and how finances should be held, they get heated and often times locked because it leads to too much animosity. It is like arguing which religion is better.
What is the value of posing a relationship question if you’re not willing to hear opposing views?
I am in an untraditional marriage. I certainly believe that people can make just about any arrangement work. Do I think this untraditional arrangement will work? No, not at this point in time at least. There are too many unknowns, the relationship is still so new, the people involved don’t (seem) to have a clear sense of what they want...
I’m surprised by the negative reaction to the suggestion of therapy. It’s 2019, there shouldn’t be a stigma to getting professional support to be a better and happier person, alone or in relationships. I want my tool chest for dealing with life’s challenges to include a wide range of tools, therapy included. It’s not always the right tool, but is sure as hell is the best one in certain circumstances.
Gerard, if you are unwilling to go to therapy, I would suggest reading the book “How to be an Adult in Relationships.” Super helpful, not at all from a traditional framework of relationships, and will help you and your girlfriend think through and talk about these issues. Might be helpful for you both to read it.
There is advice and there there are comments "your relationship will fail." The later is judgmental, unhelpful and what I am commenting on. In posts like these as soon as someone says they have a prenup, those same judgmental folks will gladly tell them their relationship is doomed. What naive bullshit that is.
As for therapy, I don't see why that is necessary unless the couple needs outside help to communicate for which therapy would be great. Therapy can be a wasteful expense or real benefit. Since we do not know all the details, only OP can decide if that assistance is necessary or not. Personally I think OP has been thinking through all this logically instead of emotionally which I commend. Next is to discuss and agree on everything with their loved on and make sure they are on the same page.
Post by: skp on January 08, 2019, 09:17:42 AM
Too many judgmental comments who have a very blinded and biased view on marriage who can't possibly perceive life and decisions different from their own. Gerardo, don't take those comments to heart as they simply can't fathom anything different from their own world or experiences.
On every finance forum I have ever participated when someone brings up alternate views of marriage and how finances should be held, they get heated and often times locked because it leads to too much animosity. It is like arguing which religion is better.
What is the value of posing a relationship question if you’re not willing to hear opposing views?
I am in an untraditional marriage. I certainly believe that people can make just about any arrangement work. Do I think this untraditional arrangement will work? No, not at this point in time at least. There are too many unknowns, the relationship is still so new, the people involved don’t (seem) to have a clear sense of what they want...
I’m surprised by the negative reaction to the suggestion of therapy. It’s 2019, there shouldn’t be a stigma to getting professional support to be a better and happier person, alone or in relationships. I want my tool chest for dealing with life’s challenges to include a wide range of tools, therapy included. It’s not always the right tool, but is sure as hell is the best one in certain circumstances.
Gerard, if you are unwilling to go to therapy, I would suggest reading the book “How to be an Adult in Relationships.” Super helpful, not at all from a traditional framework of relationships, and will help you and your girlfriend think through and talk about these issues. Might be helpful for you both to read it.
There is advice and there there are comments "your relationship will fail." The later is judgmental, unhelpful and what I am commenting on. In posts like these as soon as someone says they have a prenup, those same judgmental folks will gladly tell them their relationship is doomed. What naive bullshit that is.
As for therapy, I don't see why that is necessary unless the couple needs outside help to communicate for which therapy would be great. Therapy can be a wasteful expense or real benefit. Since we do not know all the details, only OP can decide if that assistance is necessary or not. Personally I think OP has been thinking through all this logically instead of emotionally which I commend. Next is to discuss and agree on everything with their loved on and make sure they are on the same page.
I think the therapy advise was to help the OP sort out what exactly he wants. I don't think it was to prove that he is wrong or to even help him communicate. He sounds conflicted to me. I don't think people here are saying that what he wants is necessarily wrong. Just that he needs to figure out what it is that he wants, communicate it, and let the SO decide what is "fair".
But, My opinion is that he needs to figure out what he wants sooner rather than later. Taking a year to figure out if your feelings are going to change?. Would it really take a year to figure out that you would never be comfortable sharing your finances with another person? As Kay=El says, there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. Figure it out soon. Because based on his posts I don't think OP is going to change his mind about this. I just think she needs to know exactly what the relationship would look like long term so that she doesn't waste her time thinking the OP is going to change his mind.
I loved Kay'Els advice on how to split the expenses if they move in together.
Post by: dignam on January 09, 2019, 01:05:36 PM
Post by: begood on January 09, 2019, 03:06:40 PM
You are focusing on tangibles, but a lot about relationships is intangible and can't be quantified in dollars. "Mine mine mine" is not a good mantra for a long-term relationship with someone who's talking about wanting children.
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 09, 2019, 03:46:19 PM
When my husband and I got married, we both had master's degrees, we were 23 and 24, and we were both making $24000 per year. Five years later, I was making 5% of what he made. Why? We decided as a couple that we were willing to move so he could hike up the corporate ladder, and we ended up moving 5 times in 17 years. Did I ever at any point feel that because I didn't make as much as he did that I wasn't a full partner in the relationship? Never. Not once. Still don't, after thirty years of marriage!
You are focusing on tangibles, but a lot about relationships is intangible and can't be quantified in dollars. "Mine mine mine" is not a good mantra for a long-term relationship with someone who's talking about wanting children.
You realize your situation is completely dufferent than OPs, right? She literally had no contribution in his wealth.
Post by: Smokystache on January 09, 2019, 08:08:44 PM
Okay...
Let me try to approach this from a different direction.
People here are reacting the way they are for a very legitimate reason, they're just framing it in a way that isn't resonating with you.
I want you to reflect on a simple and inarguable fact for a moment: there is no "right" way to handle finances in a relationship.
Period.
Pointe finale.
The end.
Let that sink in, because it is truly the most important framework to grasp before trying to make a financial strategy with a partner.
Okay, so now a second fundamental point needs to be established: what seems "fair" is not necessarily what it best in a marriage. An extension of that is that life is complicated and the factors that make an arrangement seem "fair" can change on a dime.
A true partnership involves constant self reflection, a dedication to the other's well being, a focus on the health of the couple/family as a unit, and a fundamental trust that the other person is never trying to take from you, but always working to collectively thrive.
So what does that mean for your particular financial arrangement with your potential future wife/mother of your children?
Who fucking knows? There isn't a right answer, there's only the arrangements that the two of you decide TOGETHER from a place of tremendous mutual trust and respect.
Now, from the way you have spoken of your relationship, you guys aren't there yet. You are still speaking from a place of self preservation and THAT'S OKAY.
It's okay as long as you realize that that is a signal that you are not even close to the level of connection and commitment needed to navigate the financial dynamics of partnering.
That's okay for now. You two may be going in a direction that gets there or you may not. You may never be comfortable fully partnering with someone who can't independently financially contribute enough. That's okay too.
It's only been a year. That's long enough to know that you *want* things to work with someone but not long enough to know if they will work.
Talk to her. Talk to her daily.
I know you've said that you've talked to her about your goals, but it's clear you two don't actually talk the way partners need to because you wouldn't be asking the kinds of questions here that you are asking.
You don't yet truly understand how each of your attitudes, hopes, goals, fears, and insecurities play into the dynamic.
What is your biggest fear moving forward, what is hers? Have you graduated yet to a point where you two can be open and feel safe exposing your deepest insecurities?
Your financial situation is more complicated to emotionally navigate than most at this early stage, but honestly, it's not at all unusual within a marriage. People deal with one spouse earning much more all the time, and that dynamic can often change. This is marriage 101 level stuff to deal with, just wait until the real challenges show up.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Take this opportunity to deep dive into your relationship now before committing. The solution to your financial dynamic will naturally reveal itself once you understand each other enough. You will also have established a solid basis of communication for your future partnership.
Either that or you will discover that no solution will work for the two of you and you will know that marriage is a bad idea.
Remember, there's nothing wrong with wanting to protect yourself and be careful with your resources. This is why you should be incredibly selective about who you partner with. Just be aware that once you are truly someone's partner, all of the self protection shit goes out the window.
If it matters, I am a psychologist. And I couldn't have written anything better than this.
And +1 to the posts about counseling/therapy being opportunities to explore topics - it isn't to have someone else to tell you exactly the correct answer for your life (that's what forums are for!!).
Post by: talltexan on January 10, 2019, 08:45:29 AM
The OP's posts suggest to me that he should remain single or marry up or completely change his point of view on the subject (impossible?). I don't see this ever ending well for the variety of reasons already listed.
source: married 10 years.
Agreed
Source: married 12 years.
I would also add that OP seems to think of this as a business transaction. It is more complicated than that whether you want it to be or not.
She is never going to be happy long term with what you are suggesting.
If you honestly don't want to budge on any of your points, I would suggest you stay dating for much longer. Do not move in together, and don't even think about marriage...
Getting married is the ultimate business transaction.
Post by: dude on January 10, 2019, 09:14:46 AM
Post by: partgypsy on January 10, 2019, 11:32:13 AM
I'd be super fucking reluctant to commit financially to someone you've only known for 1 year. Personally, I'd string that shit out for a while -- i.e., don't get married. FIRE as planned and see how it goes from there. Once you sign on that dotted line, pre-nup or no, shit gets real and it will cost you to unwind it if the need arises.
How exactly is he "financially committing" to this person after a year. Everything he is saying, suggests the opposite, including saying he is probably not getting married.
Not that they are planning to do this any time soon, I know I'd be super fucking reluctant to have a baby with someone without some kind of commitment. And I'm sure this woman has other options if she wants to have a family and OP doesn't want to commit.
Post by: SKL-HOU on January 10, 2019, 11:59:19 AM
I'd be super fucking reluctant to commit financially to someone you've only known for 1 year. Personally, I'd string that shit out for a while -- i.e., don't get married. FIRE as planned and see how it goes from there. Once you sign on that dotted line, pre-nup or no, shit gets real and it will cost you to unwind it if the need arises.
How exactly is he "financially committing" to this person after a year. Everything he is saying, suggests the opposite, including saying he is probably not getting married.
Not that they are planning to do this any time soon, I know I'd be super fucking reluctant to have a baby with someone without some kind of commitment. And I'm sure this woman has other options if she wants to have a family and OP doesn't want to commit.
I believe what he is saying is you all area suggesting he financially commits to her and he shouldn't after a year. From the OP's posts, my understanding is that she is the one wanting the baby and he sounds not sure...
Post by: partgypsy on January 10, 2019, 01:19:20 PM
I'd be super fucking reluctant to commit financially to someone you've only known for 1 year. Personally, I'd string that shit out for a while -- i.e., don't get married. FIRE as planned and see how it goes from there. Once you sign on that dotted line, pre-nup or no, shit gets real and it will cost you to unwind it if the need arises.
How exactly is he "financially committing" to this person after a year. Everything he is saying, suggests the opposite, including saying he is probably not getting married.
Not that they are planning to do this any time soon, I know I'd be super fucking reluctant to have a baby with someone without some kind of commitment. And I'm sure this woman has other options if she wants to have a family and OP doesn't want to commit.
I believe what he is saying is you all area suggesting he financially commits to her and he shouldn't after a year. From the OP's posts, my understanding is that she is the one wanting the baby and he sounds not sure...
No one is saying that. People are saying they need to have deeper and possibly more honest discussions about their values, goals, financial plans BEFORE they move in together.
Post by: Joel on January 10, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
Post by: talltexan on January 11, 2019, 06:57:20 AM
1. childcare, and
2. implied earnings penalties for women
If OP is really able to get down with the parenting activities, these will not be so large. Unfortunately, this is entirely a personality thing.
Post by: Cassie on January 11, 2019, 12:46:55 PM
Post by: elaine amj on January 11, 2019, 10:45:33 PM
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
Post by: Goldielocks on January 12, 2019, 01:49:06 AM
1) Save enough to be FIRED (living apart from her). e.g., let's say it is $1.25 Million
2) Convert this savings into long term income generating fund, for retirement income -- of $50k/yr
3) Move in together, but pay into household expenses your proportional share, based on your "trust fund" income, of $50k/yr
By not moving in first, you avoid the unfairness issues of differing income / savings priorities, and may find yourself moving into a place (locked in) that you don't want to afford after you are FIRED anyway.
4) Propose marriage, based on your guaranteed, but modest $50k income.
5) if yes, get a pre nup (as you are very concerned about "your" money)
6) After marriage, co mingle everything. What is yours is hers and vice versa. The only time it is not is if you separate.
6.1) you can set up separate spending allowance accounts with equal personal spending, if you thing you would argue about the other person's choices, that really helps. But housing, food, utilities, etc should be from a common financial position even if you notationally keep track of it separately.
Co-mingling is really the only way it (and marriage) works for very different incomes when you have kids, or someone gets sick, or whatever..
Split chores and argue over them like normal married people do.
Post by: gerardc on January 12, 2019, 10:35:59 AM
AND many FIREes have discovered that they really didn't enjoy being stay at home parents to toddlers as much as they thought they would. Babies and toddlers are a LOT of work and I know many people who discover they prefer earning an income to pay for daycare rather than staying home 24/7. It really is a personality thing. So I'd suggest to pad your stash some more to make sure u have enough to care for any kids (consider bumping up the number to include daycare) you may want to have - whether whether with your GF or someone else.
Where I'm from (Canada) and other countries I would retire in, child care, health care and education are all heavily subsidized and mostly free. So the only child expenses I'm considering are a bigger place to live, kids activities and clothes/equipment, which are also relatively cheap in a LCOL. So I might not need to budget a ton for kids, even if I don't stay at home. I should definitely include those expenses in my stash though.
By not moving in first, you avoid the unfairness issues of differing income / savings priorities, and may find yourself moving into a place (locked in) that you don't want to afford after you are FIRED anyway.
Yeah, that part annoys me a bit. I would be careful to move in an affordable place, but the fact that I would stop working shortly after we are settled could create problems, i.e. why am I so selfish not to help her and causing hardships? Whereas if I am already retired, she not only knows what she is getting into but she sees it and realizes as well.
The law sees it similarly. If I make $400k while having kids and decide to FIRE shortly after, courts could impute income when calculating child support, i.e. classify me as a deadbeat dad trying to evade child support if I voluntarily make anything less than the full $400k. I think that's ridiculous, since high-paying jobs often have nefarious lifestyle or health side-effects (as often seen on this forum), and taking one is often just a temporary measure to make some money (e.g. big law, or working in a remote coal mine), not a lifetime committment to provide a luxurious lifestyle to spoiled kids. I don't think imputed income should ever be more than the middle-class median household income. It is possible to specify this understanding for alimony in a prenup (see The Enslaved High Income Earner here (https://www.themoneyhabit.org/normal-people-need-prenups-write-dead-simple-one/)), but you can't say anything about child support, because apparently judges are making decisions for the "benefits of the children", not only forcing you to provide for them ($40k/year) but forcing you to spoil them as well ($400k/year imputed income). Anyway, just one more reason not to retire in America.
One other thing I wanted to add for the OP is that I personally felt very uncomfortable being FIREd when in a serious relationship with a working guy. It just didn't suit my temperament at all. I realize in hind-site that I was somewhat naive to think that being with a working SO or one who was in heavy debt, spendy or had dependent kids or parents wouldn't affect me (emotionally, free time wise, or financially) when in those kind of relationships but it did...a lot. While that probably isn't the case for most people, it sounds like it could be an issue for the OP. So just a heads up that what often sounds good and equitable during lifestyle discussions about the future may end up affecting you differently once living in that situation.
That explains why I am on the fence so much. On one side, it does not make logical sense to move in with her, due to our differing finances, freedom, and even desired lifestyle (she is mostly the one who wants to settle at one place and have kids, I am attracted to the idea somewhat but I am not sure I would enjoy it for many years). On the other side, she is pretty special to me and I don't have the heart to let her go, and that is coming from someone who ordinarily has no qualms about breaking up and who is not afraid of being alone (I enjoy being single). If I can explain my feelings, it is a mix of having my single life plans disrupted, being sold something I didn't really want by someone who is very convincing, but also falling back to a life more similar to what I had growing up and enjoying it quite a bit. If I want to ever settle down, she is probably the right person to do it, but the timing feels wrong a bit -- I'd rather be doing that in my 40s and 50s, although that sounds awful for the children.
Post by: elaine amj on January 12, 2019, 10:48:10 AM
AND many FIREes have discovered that they really didn't enjoy being stay at home parents to toddlers as much as they thought they would. Babies and toddlers are a LOT of work and I know many people who discover they prefer earning an income to pay for daycare rather than staying home 24/7. It really is a personality thing. So I'd suggest to pad your stash some more to make sure u have enough to care for any kids (consider bumping up the number to include daycare) you may want to have - whether whether with your GF or someone else.
Where I'm from (Canada) and other countries I would retire in, child care, health care and education are all heavily subsidized and mostly free.
I live in Canada amd was a SAHM while my kids were little. I agree about healthcare and education (in Ontario, even university tuition is free if under a certain income level) but not so sure about childcare.
I understand it is subsidized a bit if u are working, but certainly never heard of any subsidized/free childcare for nonworking parents. I would certainly have appreciated a few kid-free hours in my day! Especially in the really difficult baby/toddler years. Maybe research that more if you are counting on that for FIRE plans?
In my case, I had little relief even when my son was 3 and old enough to go to the free kids care at my gym. He was the child who cried inconsolably with anyone else other than DH and I. Of course, I am sure that is attributed to my parenting skills (although I also had a DD who had no issues being left with caring strangers).
That said, my kids are teens now so things likely have changed a lot since they were little.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
Post by: Goldielocks on January 13, 2019, 03:06:36 AM
Quote
Whereas if I am already retired, she not only knows what she is getting into but she sees it and realizes as well.
This. Yep. This is one of the truest, relavent things to your situation that you have posted, in my opinion. Exceptionally fair to everyone.
I would not worry about divorce and child support and whatnot issues as yet. Time enough to worry about that if you start to have relationship issues. For now, just a co-habitation agreement and then a pre-nup is more than sufficient.
Life changes. If you split, you might find that you actually like the way the law / judges decisions are made because your life is so different from what you imagine now.
Post by: LilyFleur on January 14, 2019, 02:09:53 PM
Words matter. Be honest with yourself if you are blaming her for "being sold" something you didn't want. You are independent and you can "buy" or "not buy." It is rather interesting that you use transactional financial terms to describe the pull of this relationship and I think that it would be good to think about this. Look at the words some of the other posters use to describe their relationships. I am making no judgement, but you may be able to learn what is most important to you and what will make you happy by looking at your words.
It would be wise to tell her this, using the words quoted above. Anything less does not help her make a good decision. She has youth and a womb and wants to be in a committed relationship with children, three things that are definitely part of the equation. You need to put those onto your mental spreadsheet. Those three things are worth money (this is why judges award alimony and child support), and you seem to want to let her give those things to her (although you are clearly ambivalent) while completely protecting your own financial assets. You simply cannot have it all. It seems to me that you look at your previous life (saving your money, earning your money, and not experiencing a loving lifetime relationship) as a life that you really like. That is totally OK; we are not all meant to be in committed relationships with children.
I do understand your position, although I did spend my youth in a committed marriage with children. Now that I am on the other end of life, FIRED and single for 9 years, I find myself reluctant to want to remarry. Disentangling assets is so very costly and disruptive and... unhappy. Even not being married, sorting out possessions and living situations after a breakup is pretty horrible.
On the other hand, I was ambivalent about marriage, decades ago. Even though I am no longer married, I have two wonderful children. The value of that relationship is incalculable. I cannot imagine my life without them.
There are some folks on here who seem insulted on your behalf when some of the posters suggested therapy. Take that with a grain of salt. Some people do not value therapy, and it would not do them much good. For other people, it is a very good investment of time and money and clarifies their goals and relationships. I make no judgement either way.
And, the relationship issues are inextricably tied to the financial issues. That is why so many marriages break up over money. Both are really important, and I think the posters who address both are answering your questions in a relevant way that shows concern for you as a whole person.
Post by: Victor on January 15, 2019, 07:37:00 AM
I don’t really understand how couples aren’t “teams.”
I’m 30 and my wife is 25. We’ve been together about 7 years. If she worked now, I would still make about 10x what she would be capable of. Because of this, I don’t really see value in her working.
In turn, she is a machine while I’m at work. All the cooking, grocery shopping, errands, etc. in turn, 100% of my time not working is doing things we enjoy together. Gym, hiking, movies etc. She gets everything done while I’m at work. We both love our situation.
You are asking some questions which I could even really fathom considering. If she is doing things that make you feel wary of being taken advantage of, that’s pretty alarming. You should absolutely not feel that way.
It sounds like you guys aren’t ready to take the relationship to the next step or move in together.
In my opinion, if you were in a perfectly happy position and convinced you wanted to spend you life together, here is how I would work it. I would move in together and offer for her to stop working. Compared to your income, here is barely worthwhile unless she feels she “needs” to work. Ideally, I would have her take care of all the things around the house while you continue to work. It’d make your working life a million times easier. You working 3 more years would be comparable to her working 24 years. That’s just my opinion for sure.
I just couldn’t imagine FIRE without my spouse. She’s my best friend and everything I want to do in FIRE is with her, and I couldn’t imagine doing all those things alone while she continued to work, just because I made more. It’d be like us both working and I retire at 35 and she retires at 55. That’s ridiculous lol.
Exactly what this guy said. Married couples (especially those with kids...) need to be rock solid teams. If you don't love them to include all of their faults and they feel the same way, then you probably shouldn't be looking to get married. Perhaps a local marriage counselor would be the place to start.
Post by: Candace on January 15, 2019, 07:58:07 AM
I don’t really understand how couples aren’t “teams.”
I’m 30 and my wife is 25. We’ve been together about 7 years. If she worked now, I would still make about 10x what she would be capable of. Because of this, I don’t really see value in her working.
In turn, she is a machine while I’m at work. All the cooking, grocery shopping, errands, etc. in turn, 100% of my time not working is doing things we enjoy together. Gym, hiking, movies etc. She gets everything done while I’m at work. We both love our situation.
You are asking some questions which I could even really fathom considering. If she is doing things that make you feel wary of being taken advantage of, that’s pretty alarming. You should absolutely not feel that way.
It sounds like you guys aren’t ready to take the relationship to the next step or move in together.
In my opinion, if you were in a perfectly happy position and convinced you wanted to spend you life together, here is how I would work it. I would move in together and offer for her to stop working. Compared to your income, here is barely worthwhile unless she feels she “needs” to work. Ideally, I would have her take care of all the things around the house while you continue to work. It’d make your working life a million times easier. You working 3 more years would be comparable to her working 24 years. That’s just my opinion for sure.
I just couldn’t imagine FIRE without my spouse. She’s my best friend and everything I want to do in FIRE is with her, and I couldn’t imagine doing all those things alone while she continued to work, just because I made more. It’d be like us both working and I retire at 35 and she retires at 55. That’s ridiculous lol.
Exactly what this guy said. Married couples (especially those with kids...) need to be rock solid teams. If you don't love them to include all of their faults and they feel the same way, then you probably shouldn't be looking to get married. Perhaps a local marriage counselor would be the place to start.
Being a team is of paramount importance. Having said that, two people have to have the same objectives, at least mostly, to truly be on the same team.
Sometimes, what makes the most sense financially is not what makes the most sense for one member of the team. That member is usually the young woman who interrupts her career to raise a family, which is usually unpaid work. For many women, or men who are stay at home parents, the pull toward a career and accomplishments outside the home is strong. Putting their own ambitions and goals aside to spend all one's energy on family and home simply doesn't work for some people, even if their income is a lot lower than their partner's. Two of the main risks for that person -- usually a woman, but not always -- are 1) unfulfilled ambitions, which can make people quite depressed and bitter, and 2) the possibility of relative poverty later in life if the marriage breaks up and they have to try and support themselves after making themselves much less employable at the level they would have been if they'd kept working.
The OP, while conflicted and possibly not fully committed, at least expressed concern that his female partner might make a choice that wouldn't serve her down the line.
It's really easy to say couples should work as teams when the objectives of both line up with what works best to get the couple financially ahead. But it's not always the best choice for both members, when other life goals may not line up with what works best financially.
It's a tricky situation and the best answer won't be the same for all couples.
Post by: The_Rooster on January 18, 2019, 09:23:28 PM
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like you’ve got a weird complex going on with someone you’re wanting to marry as an equal. It’s not like a rich kid spoiling their kids, because, you know, she’s not your kid. She’d be your partner- an equal.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Very strange complex going on here.
I won’t give any financial advice, because my financials are crap, but I am plentiful in my relationship and I couldn’t imagine having a partner that I viewed as a “child”, or wouldn’t want to spend my resources with. What kind of “partner” is that?
Post by: PhilB on January 19, 2019, 04:54:04 AM
Post by: pudding on February 08, 2019, 11:14:20 PM
Also it brings up some very real questions about just what should you give up so as you can be with someone... I think about these things too as I'm in a similar situation.
If you imagine that the deal was that you can enter into a committed relationship with this person, and the deal is that if it goes wrong and you break up and divorce you are going to have to work say an extra 10 to 15 years of your life to make up for the money that was yours but is now your ex's due to the divorce.
It would be fair to ask "well, what are the chances of that happening" and the answer is about 50/50, or higher if it's not your first marriage.
Post by: Mmm_Donuts on February 10, 2019, 08:06:35 AM
Your situation is different as your'e not building your savings together at the same time, but if you are thinking of marriage and life partnerships then I would suggest a similar solution. If she's interested in FI then you can allow for a position where she can save most of her paycheque, and speed up her savings capabilities so she can join you in FIRE. This way she will be achieving independence herself (albeit with your help, as you're paying expenses.) You may need to work a little longer to cover 100% of the household expenses, but that could be a fair tradeoff. If you're both frugal then this shouldn't extend your working life by that much.
Though, I'm Canadian and this is a common way of income splitting here. I understand US tax laws are different so YMMV.
Post by: talltexan on February 11, 2019, 08:55:45 AM
When you have kids, there are constant trade-offs between work goals for one spouse, and family goals. My wife is considering a job change right now, and--yes--I would like the increased income, but I've also thought about the extra stress she will bear from work and what that might mean for our household. I will have to leave work early more times than I do now. I will have to watch the kids more on weekends when she may need to do work stuff.
There are always a set of shared goals that are moved earlier or later depending on how you negotiate with your spouse.
Post by: FI-King_Awesome on February 12, 2019, 08:53:59 AM
I’ve found myself earning more than my partner, and when it comes to savings, I’m FI and she’s looking at a standard path to retirement. That said, I’m happy to use my savings for us to have a great life together - she adds more to it than money can buy.
Our situation is different in that I’ve known her for a longer time. However, what I found helpful was to sit down and write down what we want to do in retirement (travel, exercise, open a small art studio, move around, etc) and then create a budget. You can learn a lot about a person when going through this simple exercise. Their true desires, as well as their thought process on spending someone else’s money. If your views don’t align here, don’t expect it to get better after retiring.
What makes me happy is that she doesn’t expect/demand anything, and while she appreciates what we have, she’ll never be in a position of dependence (nobody wants a SA who’s trapped in the relationship). I know full well that she doesn’t care about the money, which makes it even more exciting to share it with her and give her a dream life.
Now, I have a serious OMY situation going on instead, but that’s a different story...
My suggestion; sit down and talk about dreams. Put a simple monthly budget together on the back of a napkin. If this goes well, come to the realization that it’ll take you a year to actually retire and uproot from your current location. During this time, cover the basic expenses (house, electricity, water, gas), and while she pays for her own stuff (car, gas, other), let her start saving whatever she saves on housing. You can afford a larger home, and offering her to stay rent-free at your place isn’t going to break you, but instead give you a chance to see if this works (for both of you!)
Who knows, it may turn into love.
Post by: talltexan on February 13, 2019, 01:06:42 PM