Author Topic: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:  (Read 22492 times)

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« on: February 22, 2013, 09:50:37 AM »
Hey guys,
So I am a guy engaged to a lovely woman who is finishing up her master's degree. Here's the financial rundown:

Me:
house: at ~20% equity, just refinanced to 2.875% with no pmi, 145k principal left, monthly payment $1275 includes taxes & insurance (not paying extra right now in order to pump more into her student debt principal)
car: 1991 model needing the occasional repair 190k miles, fiance says her child (figuratively speaking; we don't have one yet) will NOT ride in it, so replacing it eventually; insurance is about $550/year; taxes $26/year
monthly income after taxes, 401k contribution (maxed): $6200
no student debt

Her:
condo: maybe 10% equity, arm at maybe 4.875% (not sure of her exact terms) ~75k principal left, currently renting it out for slightly less than her monthly payment of ~700
car: volvo maybe 10 years old, reliable, don't know what she pays/year for insurance, no other payments
income: none right now or for the past two years, but in July she starts in same field as me, will be at ~ $5300/month after 401k & taxes
120k student debt (a good chunk of which is at ~8%)

We are definitely getting married (you know ceremony, reception, all that) the question we (mostly me, but she is humoring me so far) have been puzzling over is whether or not to get Legally married. I have been reading a lot about taxes and benefits relating to the legal status of marriage and I am so far falling out on the side of not getting married legally. We are in a lucky enough situation where we will both make nice incomes, and that puts us in the "marriage penalty" territory. Here are some sources that I have read for information on law revolving around marriage:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R
http://www.gao.gov/products/OGC-97-16
http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-96-175

What I am afraid of is if there is some huge benefit that I am missing, so I wanted feedback from you guys on my current understanding of some of these factors and anything I leave out. Here's the main points of my understanding:

My tentative plan tax-wise is to stay unmarried and file seperately, which will save us around $900/year right now (that alone would not be enough to warrant this question though). The main factor is that we plan on having kids and once that happens, I will file as HOH and write off daycare costs etc. which runs into a few thousand in savings each year.

We will plan on getting legal documents to establish power of attorney (hospital visitation and medical decisions), wills, make each other beneficiaries for retirement and other accounts, umbrella policies, and life insurance policies. Speaking of insurance, we would both have health plans available to us through our place of employment, which also extends insurance to "partner" if in any event one of us stopped working.

We will pay off her loans aggressively, I gave her 13k at the end of last year and will again this year and next as "gifts" (spouses can transfer unlimited amounts of money, technically if I gave her more than 13k, she would have to report the amount over it as income)

Social security benefits don't seem to be a big factor, the benefit of receiving a spouse's social security benefit instead of your own seems predicated on the fact that one spouse had significantly higher contributions to social security over their career, which will not be the case for us. We will both have similar social security benefits. In any case, neither of us will rely on social security in any way to fund our retirement. I'm not very knowledgeable on social security, is it correct to say that there are no means testing to receive it? Like, do well-off people still get social security checks when they hit the age where they can receive it?

Estate taxes are another potentially big factor. Currently, the federal exclusion is up to $5,000,000 that any person can leave for any other person (some states have their own estate taxes, the state I'm in has an exclusion that also goes up to 5 million). Spouses can transfer unlimited assets after death tax-free.  My take on this is that we have nowhere near 5 million in assets so this is not a factor in the near future. Hopefully someday, we will approach these numbers and at that point, for estate taxes alone, legal marriage would be a good idea in order to preserve assets for ourselves and our kids. My source: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i706/ch01.html

There are a lot of smaller categories that affect legal marriage status, but most don't apply to us (being able to offset capital gains with the capital losses of your spouse, payments to spouse after on the job death/injury of railroad workers, SSI)

The other thing is that at any point we decide to go get married, it is pretty easy, we don't have to do it the same day as our ceremony. I would like to be fully informed of the legal aspects of marriage, I don't want to do it just because thats the way everyone else does it. We are not in the middle of the bell curve for income, so I see our situation as fairly unique.

Also, we have spoken to a financial advisor, lawyer, and accountant about this very issue, and are pending reports from the accountant and financial advisor. But after having spoken with them, I was surprised that none seemed to have much experience with the financial/legal aspects of unmarried couples when compared to married couples. We may need to find people that deal with same-sex couples on a regular basis (even though we are heterosexual) and are more familiar with these types of questions.

What do you guys think?

[Edit] wanted to post a couple resources I found today for anyone who stumbles on this topic:
http://www.unmarried.org - a website that lists resources dealing with this issue
http://www.nolo.com/products/living-together-ltk.html - this book seems to be very thorough and well put-together, just started reading it
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 12:07:04 PM by FockerCRNA »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 10:59:31 AM »
It sounds to me that you've already put a ton of thought into this. I don't really have anything to add in terms of potential pitfalls or benefits, I just wanted to say that it sounds like you'd be going to a decent amount of trouble trying to establish the legal benefits that automatically accompany marriage. Just make sure it's worth it.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 11:14:06 AM »
Great question!

It's evident to me you have done your research, and I think you have a very good grasp of the benefits (or lack of) regarding legal marriage. You did miss one huge one though! *** see below

I went through much of the same research when I remarried, and discovered that beyond the societal aspects, there really are few legal advantages. Most of the differences can already be achieved through other instruments as you've laid out (for example, estate plans, powers of attorney, etc.).

Some of the the bigger things that cannot be achieved through your own private legal agreements that I'm not sure you completely addressed are:

- Constitutional privileges (for example, not being able to compel testimony from one spouse against another)

- Death benefits (for example, social security survivor benefits). This could be a big deal if a spouse dies "prematurely"

- Pension survivor benefits, if any

- Property ownership privileges (for example, only spouses can utilize "Tenants By The Entirety" ownership in most states I've ever heard of)

- Tax filing (for cases when it is advantageous to file jointly). In our case, we went ahead with legal marriage, and we definitely pay wayyyyy more in taxes by losing certain exemptions we could get on our single incomes (like being able to deduct rental property "losses" that are phased out at higher incomes)

- Social acceptance

So, I can see where it can be a tough call for now. But if you do decide not to marry now, I would definitely say to certainly go ahead and get legally married later in life, when some of those issues above might be looming larger (i.e., death). I ultimately reached the conclusion that legally marrying outweighed the perceived drawbacks, but YMMV.

*** Final Note On What I Did Not See In Your Post: Sign a prenuptial agreement! No if, ands, or buts about it. No one in their right mind should marry without one, as I learned the hard way. Do not repeat my mistake and others like me. I would have been FIRE 7-8 years ago (age 38) if I had signed a prenuptial agreement on Marriage #1. Instead it will be this year at age 46.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 11:49:55 AM »
Final Note On What I Did Not See In Your Post: Sign a prenuptial agreement! No if, ands, or buts about it. No one in their right mind should marry without one, as I learned the hard way. Do not repeat my mistake and others like me. I would have been FIRE 7-8 years ago (age 38) if I had signed a prenuptial agreement on Marriage #1. Instead it will be this year at age 46.

For a different opinion . . .

Asking for a prenup is a question loaded with problems.  No-one in a relationship that is prepared for marriage should need one.  It indicates a lack of trust in your partner and faith that the relationship will not be a lasting one.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 01:32:09 PM by GuitarStv »

Mrs MM

  • Administrator
  • Bristles
  • *****
  • Posts: 367
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 11:57:49 AM »
Wow!  That's a lot of research!  For us (perhaps for me), it was more emotional.  We decided it made sense to get married as soon as we decided to have kids.  Before that, the legal part of marriage wasn't important to us.

Why get married when it was time to have kids?  Not sure... that was emotional as well (for me).  We were together 10 years before we got married, so nothing really changed when we decided to do it.  I think for me, it was important to have more of a sense of security for the sake of our future child.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 12:09:00 PM »
Don't forget to adopt your kids so you're recognized as a full legal guardian.

unplugged

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 12:11:04 PM »
FockerCRNA, I could not do what your doing, however I get what your doing and see the benefits of it. I know a couple that divorced, just on paper, due to some medical issues, and medical debt. I don't know the exact details but this was back when divorces were announced in the paper.

Also, on the moral end, I am aware of some extremely religious people who are no longer marrying legally. They don't feel the government has any place in their relationship. They also are offended with some other modern marriage ideas that go against their faith. Maybe this is the future of marriage?!

Dave Ramsey talked a lot once though about how being married is actually smarter but his angle was for when the couple needs to divorce. Apparently that's when things can go wrong if there was no legal marriage.

TN_Steve

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • Age: 64
  • Location: fly-over country
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 12:14:26 PM »
I generally agree with DoubleDown on prenups, although maybe not as stridently!  A prenup can indeed be loaded with problems, but to not do one in this situation is dangerous.  Although I don't do any work in the area (and do not want to), I can't imagine that a family law expert wouldn't counsel strongly for such a document in your situation.  (For example:  A friend just had her relationship with her long-time wife disintegrate.  They each had a kid via same donor, raised them to their tweens and now are doing the  full nasty over them, the house, the pets, etc.  Even worse, we are not in the most friendly state to resolve such issues.) 

Final Note On What I Did Not See In Your Post: Sign a prenuptial agreement! No if, ands, or buts about it. No one in their right mind should marry without one, as I learned the hard way. Do not repeat my mistake and others like me. I would have been FIRE 7-8 years ago (age 38) if I had signed a prenuptial agreement on Marriage #1. Instead it will be this year at age 46.

For a different opinion . . .

Asking for a prenup is a question loaded with problems.  No-one in a relationship that is prepared for marriage should need one.  It indicates a lack of trust in your partner and faith that the relationship will be a lasting one.

Turning to the main question, I took a long hard look at divorce and continuing our marriage in exactly the same manner in the early 90's and it looked attractive; wife vetoed if very firmly, even though she makes the bucks.  :-/

Assuming that you get the documentation together, including some type of prenup, I see only three legal/tax issues if you get your fiance to agree to this, both of which are long-term..

First, mention was made of the estate tax laws.  5 million is a lot when you are starting out.  (hell, it is a lot for most people ever)  But if you both continue in your fields, it is not out of the question that you could each amass more than 2.5 million.  Then the unified credit becomes important.  (One spouse dies, leaving 3 mill to the other tax free.  Second spouse dies with estate of 6 mill total, including the 3 from Spouse 1; kids owe not taxes, as spouse one's exemption lives on.  Only legally married people can do this.  NOTE that this is a gross simplification of complex law!)

Second, if you guys decide after kids to have one of you cut way back on income/hours to tend to the home fires full or part time, your tax situation changes.

Third, depending upon the state in which you reside, there will be differences in the titling of real property (aka, condo/house) that provide favorable treatment to married people.  Here, for example, if I were to become obligated individually for a ton of money and someone tried to collect by grabbing our house, they couldn't do so.   You can play with trusts and LLCs to come close to this result, but I don't think you can achieve it.  Plus, it is expensive to try those workarounds.

Finally, I agree with Mrs. MM, there are a host of subjective reasons/comfort coming into play here, and they are also important.  Given her post, maybe my points just weigh in favor of reevaluating as life goes by.


kt

  • Guest
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 12:25:20 PM »
We are definitely getting married (you know ceremony, reception, all that) the question we (mostly me, but she is humoring me so far) have been puzzling over is whether or not to get Legally married.

am i right in understanding like you want to have a 'wedding' day but not actually get legally married on that day?
i attended a 'wedding' and later found out the couple were not legally married (also for financial reasons; it was in Austria where you need to have a ceremony at a registry office and they were only 'married' in church). i found this really, really odd and was almost offended afterwards. this made me do a lot of thinking about why i was upset by this. it felt like deception to me. perhaps this is illogical but still, it is worth considering if i have understood the quote above correctly.

feistygg

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Location: Vancouver, WA
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 12:37:03 PM »
Wow, I had no idea that getting married could have so many tax implications (I'm obvs, far from that state!). Great article, really got me thinking for someday....

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9923
  • Registered member
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 12:40:26 PM »
It's enough of a toss-up that I wouldn't pursue it unless your fiance is 100% on board.

If you plan to work as high-dual income until 65 or later, the savings may be worth it.  If you plan to FIRE, however, they seem small compared to the cost of establishing equivalent legal arrangements.   I agree that you can always get married in the future (e.g., right before SS).

As for prenups, I think it highly depends on the state you are in and a large number of circumstances -- there may be good reasons to have one, there may not.

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2013, 12:46:22 PM »
Other legal implications you may not have thought of:

-medical next-of-kin: if you are not married you can be barred from visiting your partner in the hospital, you will not be able to make life-or-death decisions for them, and will not be notified of their status in some states.  This is perhaps the only reason I want to get married - I don't trust my family to make these decisions for me. 

These are the kind of loop holes that don't matter until it is too late.  Marriage is mentioned hundreds and thousands of times in the legal code.  You can replicate most of them through what you have mentioned, but it would be hard or impossible to catch every legal benefit.

Just food for thought. 


tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2013, 12:46:56 PM »
All I have to say is are you kidding me - this is way too much brain damage and you likely missing a bunch of issues that could arise - and you may have all the paperwork in the world but when it comes to those legal situations when you can say and easily prove you are the legal spouse it is far easier than the alternative. There will also be increased accounting/lawyer fees and who nos what else. 

Even if you have it spot on and can't imagine this saving so much to offset the complexity -  ever here of KISS. 

Separately it won't matter if you are in a common law state as once you co-habitat as a couple for certain amount of time you will automatically be considered a legal marriage.


TN_Steve

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
  • Age: 64
  • Location: fly-over country
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 12:57:24 PM »
Upon further consideration,

+ 1 tooqk4u22

KISS


Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 01:06:42 PM »
I've mentioned this in another thread, but I think it bears repeating/rewording:

It sounds like you have a firm grasp on finances and a good plan for your future. 

I am sort of reading between the lines here, which is full of room for mistakes and misunderstandings, but I am sort of getting the idea of "I have a financial plan on what to do with MY money, but I want to keep things separate because I'm not sure what she's going to do with HER money." 

If I am wrong here... brush me off.   I'm ok with it.

If not, there's trouble afoot.

If you're not both on board with how the household's money gets spent, there are almost assuredly going to be issues.  "On board" can mean "we absolutely agree and we're working towards ER" or it can be "we've reached a middle ground where we both can feel comfortable".  But if you try the whole "that's yours/this is mine" tactic... you're likely to have issues down the road. 

Your mileage may vary... but I went down that path ... and while that wasn't *THE* reason things failed, that was certainly a big part.

When I tried again, I let go of that idea.  (Fortunately, we both really absolutely agree on monetary issues and she's awesome with investing.)


tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2013, 01:15:29 PM »

If not, there's trouble afoot.

If you're not both on board with how the household's money gets spent, there are almost assuredly going to be issues. 

I said it elsewher but it still applies - "If you don't row together, you don't grow together."

tmac

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2013, 01:22:36 PM »

-medical next-of-kin: if you are not married you can be barred from visiting your partner in the hospital, you will not be able to make life-or-death decisions for them, and will not be notified of their status in some states.  This is perhaps the only reason I want to get married - I don't trust my family to make these decisions for me. 


This is the thought that jumped out for me. Some of it will be addressed through powers of attorney, but not all.

Catbert

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3298
  • Location: Southern California
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2013, 01:27:20 PM »
Speaking as a member of your parents' generation, if you don't get legally married then you shouldn't have a fake ceremony, reception and expect wedding presents.  (I give a pass on this admittedly harsh judgment to gay couples who can't get married and clearly call it a commitment ceremony.)


anastrophe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Location: New England
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2013, 01:29:26 PM »
What you are proposing (pun intended;) is essentially the situation that most same-sex couples are in, except involuntarily. There are guides out there aimed at their situation which might be helpful for you, but please also read some of the horror stories of long-time couples who were denied hospital visitations, child custody, social security survivorship benefits, etc--they are heartbreaking stories that go way beyond tax implications. Not that you shouldn't do it, and you're unlikely to face some of the more personal discrimination if you are in a heterosexual relationship, but carefully weigh the benefits that you can't replicate with POA.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 01:30:59 PM by anastrophe »

anastrophe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Location: New England
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2013, 01:35:21 PM »
Final Note On What I Did Not See In Your Post: Sign a prenuptial agreement! No if, ands, or buts about it. No one in their right mind should marry without one, as I learned the hard way. Do not repeat my mistake and others like me. I would have been FIRE 7-8 years ago (age 38) if I had signed a prenuptial agreement on Marriage #1. Instead it will be this year at age 46.

For a different opinion . . .

Asking for a prenup is a question loaded with problems.  No-one in a relationship that is prepared for marriage should need one.  It indicates a lack of trust in your partner and faith that the relationship will be a lasting one.

I disagree strongly. Marriage is both an emotional and legal state, and not having a prenup simply assumes that you are OK with what your federal and state government has imposed on your legal marriage. IMO, having one doesn't indicate a lack of trust, it just means you want to amend your legal requirements--it is no more emotional than designating your partner as your beneficiary or any other administrative task related to marriage.

momo

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2013, 02:06:38 PM »
Final Note On What I Did Not See In Your Post: Sign a prenuptial agreement! No if, ands, or buts about it. No one in their right mind should marry without one, as I learned the hard way. Do not repeat my mistake and others like me. I would have been FIRE 7-8 years ago (age 38) if I had signed a prenuptial agreement on Marriage #1. Instead it will be this year at age 46.

For a different opinion . . .

Asking for a prenup is a question loaded with problems.  No-one in a relationship that is prepared for marriage should need one.  It indicates a lack of trust in your partner and faith that the relationship will be a lasting one.

With respect this lack of trust is a complete misconception. A pre-nup commonly gets a bad reputation because of how the media portrays the misuse; what you do not read about however, is when pre-nups perform as intended and protect both parties amicably.

If you did not trust your partner would you want to or take the time to honestly reveal your most intimate/embarrassing financial debts and mistakes? Probably not. The very construction of a pre-nup requires each party to fully disclose all assets and debts prior to the union. So if one person has something to "hide" such as offshore accounts or credit card debts they cannot, doing so invalidates the construction of the pre-nup. A pre-nup also requires both parties to have separate attorneys whom they will work with to craft the conditions in the contract. This cannot be done under duress, as in days before the wedding. Also, at worst the pre-nup is just a signed piece of paper that can be phased out after a mutually agreed upon time period such as after 30 years. An unused pre-nup then just serves like insurance, something most of us purchase but never intend to use. As such these are not ironclad or for life. At best a pre-nup will protect both parties from avoidable disagreements over the distribution of assets, particularly whatever assets were separately brought into the union and what was purchased together afterwards. In a divorce the separation and asset distribution using a pre-nup is generally conducted with a much more civil and pleasant tone than without.

While this may not seem important to some people, the reality is no one cares about your finances more than YOU. And there are many situations where a pre-nup should be legitimately considered. Here is a small sampling: One, you have a child from a previous relationship who depends on you. Two, you have elderly parents whom you need to provide for. Three you act as a trustee to an estate. Four, your parents or relatives intend to engage in succession planning and will leave a business and/or inheritance to you and they want it to remain with you, not your spouse.

What better time is there to discuss "how" to divide up assets and how you both plan to live your life together, than the moments in your life when you both genuinely love one another and want what's best for each other even if you aren't together? To me discussing potentially sensitive topics is most successfully done when people are happy. Also by avoiding the pre-nup topic it is akin to avoiding discussing estate planning and the reality that it is possible your partner may pass before you. You might not be able to grow old together as you both hoped. Should that unplanned event happen prematurity, wouldn't you feel better knowing you both discussed and came to an agreement in advance? Creating pre-nups takes time and if nothing else as a couple just by talking about it, you will have more honest and meaningful personal discussions about what is really important to both of you.

Your mileage may vary FockerCRNA but it bears consideration. Best of luck!

Cheers!
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 03:22:36 PM by Stashtastic Momo »

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2013, 02:07:15 PM »
I'd agree with anastrophe....   If

a) the couple is entering the marriage with approximately equal assets/debt - a prenup is not only unnecessary, but makes you somewhat of a cleaning instrument for the female anatomy.
b) the couple has a wide disparity of assets/debt - a prenup seems appropriate so that (worst case) the couple parts with what they arrived with.

This sounds like (b).  Prenup seems appropriate.  (But if she gets mad and storms off, blame anastrophe, not me.)

anastrophe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Location: New England
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2013, 02:37:25 PM »
I'd agree with anastrophe....   If

a) the couple is entering the marriage with approximately equal assets/debt - a prenup is not only unnecessary, but makes you somewhat of a cleaning instrument for the female anatomy.
b) the couple has a wide disparity of assets/debt - a prenup seems appropriate so that (worst case) the couple parts with what they arrived with.

This sounds like (b).  Prenup seems appropriate.  (But if she gets mad and storms off, blame anastrophe, not me.)

" not only unnecessary, but makes you somewhat of a cleaning instrument for the female anatomy." ? What does this mean? One should not use any kind of cleaning instrument on female-specific anatomy, it messes up the pH. And certainly not legal documents, I expect they'd get soggy.

But otherwise, yes, if your situation is A or B (as mine is B) then I think they are a handy legal resource. And you can blame me if you like.


FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2013, 03:32:07 PM »
Great question!

...

So, I can see where it can be a tough call for now. But if you do decide not to marry now, I would definitely say to certainly go ahead and get legally married later in life, when some of those issues above might be looming larger (i.e., death). I ultimately reached the conclusion that legally marrying outweighed the perceived drawbacks, but YMMV.

*** Final Note On What I Did Not See In Your Post: Sign a prenuptial agreement! No if, ands, or buts about it. No one in their right mind should marry without one, as I learned the hard way. Do not repeat my mistake and others like me. I would have been FIRE 7-8 years ago (age 38) if I had signed a prenuptial agreement on Marriage #1. Instead it will be this year at age 46.

This is exactly the kind of input I was looking for, informed and balanced. We have talked about a prenup. We both understand that its not to give one of us an advantage, but to avoid undue cost and headache of divorce should it ever happen. We havn't fully explored a prenup, its a possibilty, we've certainly heard of the nightmares that can come from divorce. It's pretty clear that noone plans on divorce when they get married, but it happens nearly 50% of the time, so its a reality that has to be addressed.

I am going to research the social security survivor benefits more thoroughly. I'll try to find more constitutional benefits like you mentioned, but my initial reaction was "how likely is that to happen?", and even if some scenario like that does come up, couldn't you just go get married then?

Don't forget to adopt your kids so you're recognized as a full legal guardian.

I would be the biological father of any kids we have, I was under the impression I didn't need much beyond that. I will look into this though, thank you.

We are definitely getting married (you know ceremony, reception, all that) the question we (mostly me, but she is humoring me so far) have been puzzling over is whether or not to get Legally married.

am i right in understanding like you want to have a 'wedding' day but not actually get legally married on that day?
i attended a 'wedding' and later found out the couple were not legally married (also for financial reasons; it was in Austria where you need to have a ceremony at a registry office and they were only 'married' in church). i found this really, really odd and was almost offended afterwards. this made me do a lot of thinking about why i was upset by this. it felt like deception to me. perhaps this is illogical but still, it is worth considering if i have understood the quote above correctly.

This may be one of the more important implications. I don't really care what the general public or even friends think about this, but her side of the family is more conservative and I don't want to cause any rifts there. I think that to avoid this, it basically needs to be all out in the open, so to speak. We all talked about it over dinner with my parents, and they didn't seem too phased by it, I'm not sure how hers would react to it. My general thoughts on awkward conversations is that they are imperative to healthy relationships, so I would not avoid this conversation.

Other legal implications you may not have thought of:

-medical next-of-kin: if you are not married you can be barred from visiting your partner in the hospital, you will not be able to make life-or-death decisions for them, and will not be notified of their status in some states.  This is perhaps the only reason I want to get married - I don't trust my family to make these decisions for me. 

These are the kind of loop holes that don't matter until it is too late.  Marriage is mentioned hundreds and thousands of times in the legal code.  You can replicate most of them through what you have mentioned, but it would be hard or impossible to catch every legal benefit.

Just food for thought. 

The "medical next-of-kin" that you mention would be addressed by the power of attorney, whereby we would each have legal authority to make those types of decisions for each other. We are both medical professionals, and like you, my fiance is the person I would most trust to make those decisions for me if it came to that.

These loop holes are the exact reason for this post, I'm not denying that there are advantages/disadvantages to marriage, I just want to know of sources that discuss them and how likely they are to affect our situation. You mention the "thousands" of instances in the legal code where marriage is a factor, specifically, it is 1,138 (as of 2004). Most of those will never have any meaning for us. For example, 256 only apply to federal civilian employees and military service. If one of us ever decides to work at a VA hospital, we would need to reevaluate.

All I have to say is are you kidding me - this is way too much brain damage and you likely missing a bunch of issues that could arise - and you may have all the paperwork in the world but when it comes to those legal situations when you can say and easily prove you are the legal spouse it is far easier than the alternative. There will also be increased accounting/lawyer fees and who nos what else. 

Even if you have it spot on and can't imagine this saving so much to offset the complexity -  ever here of KISS. 

Separately it won't matter if you are in a common law state as once you co-habitat as a couple for certain amount of time you will automatically be considered a legal marriage.

There are a few things wrong here, you are saying that because it is too complicated, I should not research this and just do what everyone else does? Doesn't that kind of contradict the whole point of this blog?

Lawyer/accounting fees could easily be covered by the savings, we wouldn't have to draw up the same legal documents every year, only when significant changes occur.

Your last point about cohabitating becoming a legal marriage is just wrong. So far the only place that I have seen cohabitation (or "holding yourself out to the community as married") mentioned is in law regarding supplemental security income, which is essentially for the poor or disabled. Cite a source for your statement if you insist on its veracity.


I am sort of reading between the lines here, which is full of room for mistakes and misunderstandings, but I am sort of getting the idea of "I have a financial plan on what to do with MY money, but I want to keep things separate because I'm not sure what she's going to do with HER money." 

If I am wrong here... brush me off.   I'm ok with it.

I understand how you could come to that conclusion, but its not the case. We are of like mind when it comes to finances and as I mentioned, a lot of what I plan to do with my money is to pay off her school debt so that we can both work toward financial independence. She has also read through this entire thread along with me.

mcneally

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2013, 03:56:39 PM »
If you have kids, you'll probably want to get married before for certain protections and benefits in the event one of you dies. (Penn Jillette says the only reason he got married was that if his wife died, it's possible her parents could win custody of the kids if they tried). Until you have kids, I don't see any reason other medical insurance or tax considerations as to why anyone would get married. Your love and commitment is no more or less real because the government acknowledges it. To paraphrase Doug Stanhope "If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? 'Baby, this thing we've got is so good, we can't just share this commitment between us! We gotta get judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby, it's hot!'"
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 04:19:49 PM by mcneally »

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2013, 04:11:09 PM »
Your last point about cohabitating becoming a legal marriage is just wrong. So far the only place that I have seen cohabitation (or "holding yourself out to the community as married") mentioned is in law regarding supplemental security income, which is essentially for the poor or disabled. Cite a source for your statement if you insist on its veracity.
I suspect this varies significantly by state and ... it sounds like you've talked to a lawyer.  I'd believe the lawyer.  That said, the way I read the law in Texas, the whole ceremony thing might make the whole thing murky.  ...but I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.  Lawyer trumps all of us.

I understand how you could come to that conclusion, but its not the case. We are of like mind when it comes to finances and as I mentioned, a lot of what I plan to do with my money is to pay off her school debt so that we can both work toward financial independence. She has also read through this entire thread along with me.

Excellent.  I am more than happy to be wrong there.  I wish the both of you good luck!

My own theories on marriage is that it's a bit odd -- that it is either the government or some deity giving a couple permission to have sex.  But... for me it is a nice legal package that makes it easy to have a business partnership with someone I sleep with.  The legal package works for me.

NumberJohnny5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2013, 04:14:05 PM »
Speaking as a member of your parents' generation, if you don't get legally married then you shouldn't have a fake ceremony, reception and expect wedding presents.  (I give a pass on this admittedly harsh judgment to gay couples who can't get married and clearly call it a commitment ceremony.)

The confusing thing is there are two different types of marriages, but we use one single term to define both (and generally expect people to be "married" in both senses of the word). There's the religious marriage (you don't actually have to be religious for this type of marriage...but if I say "emotional marriage" that'll just confuse people), you're making a commitment to each other for a certain period of your life (generally, "till death do us part"). Then there's the legal marriage, which is not much more than a legal contract (except you don't get the actual terms of the contract when you sign...it'd take a LONG time to compile every single thing that this legal contract covers, and it's ever changing).

This is also why so many people are opposed to gay marriage in the legal sense, because they feel it encroaches on their religious marriage. The two are completely separate, but use the same term.

I propose we change the legal term to "civil union" or some other term that's not "marriage".  If someone gets married, but doesn't sign the legal documents, no one (should) get too offended. Same goes if you're invited to a civil ceremony, don't get offended when you realize the bride and groom are atheists.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2013, 04:22:21 PM »

I propose we change the legal term to "civil union" or some other term that's not "marriage".  If someone gets married, but doesn't sign the legal documents, no one (should) get too offended. Same goes if you're invited to a civil ceremony, don't get offended when you realize the bride and groom are atheists.

Spork: king of thread derailing.   

I think I agree with you conceptually... but be careful.  Historically "civil union" has legally had less rights than "marriage".  This is why gay folk are keen to be married instead.  It's not that they're really wanting to edit the dictionary so much... just they're looking for "same thing." 

James

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Rice Lake, WI
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2013, 05:29:48 PM »
My two cents...


You are going to spend a lot of time, effort, and brain power to make this work.  You are going to take some (small?) risks in comfort level with relatives, unknown risks simply due to the fact you are doing things "differently", and in the end it's impossible to figure out all the variables that could change along the way.  As you make decisions in the future and your situation changes, you will need to consider the implications of your non-marriage marriage each step along the way.  The question is, is this who you are?  Are you someone who enjoys the challenge of figuring this stuff out to save a pretty small amount in the big picture?  More importantly, are you both that sort of person?  If so, it just becomes a matter of determining the finances and doing the math, I don't have a problem with that.  But if you both aren't interested in being that alternative couple figuring these things out over time despite both being in busy careers, raising children, etc., then just get married and don't look back.  You will make plenty of money, and the government can use the dough...  :)


As Tooq said, KISS.

Sylly

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2013, 05:42:51 PM »
This same idea has actually crossed my mind, though it's clear to me that you've investigated it a lot further. I think that for me, the emotional/irrational need of both myself and family members is going to outweigh the financials. Still, the prospect of hitting the 'marriage penalty' in the foreseeable future leaves a bitter taste, both from the principle of it and the financial hit.

I am learning quite a bit from the discussion in this thread, so FockerCRNA, thank you for raising this question.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2013, 06:14:45 PM »
I have a dumb question:  does "married filing separately" fix this issue?

I'm married and have blindly trusted tax software to "do the right thing" ... but I've never even really thought about this situation.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2013, 06:53:45 PM »
There are a few things wrong here, you are saying that because it is too complicated, I should not research this and just do what everyone else does? Doesn't that kind of contradict the whole point of this blog?

Fair point and it was not my intention to dismiss the effort, my point was that for the effort and potential gain it would not be a sufficient return when thinking about the tangible (money) and intangible (emotions, rights, potential complications) - maybe you see it differently. As I said - KISS - I think there is immense intangible value that is derived from this - i.e. keeping up with the various legalities of it could possibly result in you being distracted from other more profitable endeavors/investments.


Your last point about cohabitating becoming a legal marriage is just wrong. So far the only place that I have seen cohabitation (or "holding yourself out to the community as married") mentioned is in law regarding supplemental security income, which is essentially for the poor or disabled. Cite a source for your statement if you insist on its veracity.

Do a search for common law marriage - some states still recognize this. Also, some that don't could still rule in a similar manner.

I have a dumb question:  does "married filing separately" fix this issue?

I'm married and have blindly trusted tax software to "do the right thing" ... but I've never even really thought about this situation.

No - in fact there are very few situations where married filing separately is a better choice, it is usually more penalizing

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2013, 08:00:36 AM »

Your last point about cohabitating becoming a legal marriage is just wrong. So far the only place that I have seen cohabitation (or "holding yourself out to the community as married") mentioned is in law regarding supplemental security income, which is essentially for the poor or disabled. Cite a source for your statement if you insist on its veracity.

Do a search for common law marriage - some states still recognize this. Also, some that don't could still rule in a similar manner.

I think we are both kind of right, I was thinking more along the lines of federal laws while you are talking about the state level. There aren't very many states that recognize common law marriage (maybe 16? or so) and my state isn't one of them. I also get your point about KISS, there is value in just not having to worry about a lot of this stuff. Though, when married, you don't have much of a choice, they make divorce kind of difficult and drawn out, so anytime they change the laws you're just stuck with it. Being not married, should something change, I kind of see it like you have a one time get out of jail free card, you can pretty easily go get legally married one afternoon at the courthouse. I am still weighing the options. As far as the continual reevaluation, I'm not sure it would be as burdensome once the initial legal papers are drawn up, but its a possibility.


I have a dumb question:  does "married filing separately" fix this issue?

I'm married and have blindly trusted tax software to "do the right thing" ... but I've never even really thought about this situation.

No - in fact there are very few situations where married filing separately is a better choice, it is usually more penalizing

Completely agree, if you look at statistics, something like 98% of married couples file jointly. Filing seperately retains the same bracket structure (i.e. compared to single tax brackets, married income ranges for brackets don't double after the first two) while taking away some benefits.

Nancy

  • Guest
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2013, 08:37:04 AM »
Have you considered a written agreement about alimony like support? This might be important if you have children and one of you stops working. At least for peace of mind?

I wonder why go through the expense of the wedding? If you know that you're committed for life and are independent thinkers, then why buy into weddings? (Disclaimer: I find no value in weddings and can't find a logical reason to have one, so I'd be interested in your reasons since you seem quite logical.)
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 08:39:49 AM by Nancy »

Matt K

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Location: Canada
    • Krull Photography
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2013, 08:57:17 AM »
There's a lot of information in this thread, so please forgive me if I've missed this point, but: Married couples (with proper marriage certificates) are offered rights that non-married couples (even common law) are not. You've got the US stuff pretty sussed out from what I can see (although don't underestimate just how screwed your partner could be for something like pension benefits without a proper marriage certificate), but what about travel? Many foreign countries do not recognize common law status, which means difficulties when applying for a visa (both travel and working) or if trouble arises when in country.

If trouble does arise when traveling outside of the US, don't expect to be able to get into a hospital that strongly enforces the 'family only' policy. And do expect to not be able to make decisions on behalf of your partner, the hospital will try to contact next of kin back in the US first.

I bring this up because my sister had a very hard time getting her visa to live and study in Taiwan (where her husband worked). Common law status in Canada was not sufficient for them.

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2013, 09:01:44 AM »
- Death benefits (for example, social security survivor benefits). This could be a big deal if a spouse dies "prematurely"

So, from this site http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

Quote
While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach your full retirement age. After you reach full retirement age we recalculate your benefit amount to leave out the months when we reduced or withheld benefits due to your excess earnings.

We use a formula to determine how much your benefit must be reduced:

If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit.

For 2013, that limit is $15,120.

So the way I read it, if I die early, and my wife continues to work, if she makes about 45k or more, there is no social security benefit. I don't honestly find that surprising, since social security is designed as a safety net.

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2013, 10:03:17 AM »
I wonder why go through the expense of the wedding? If you know that you're committed for life and are independent thinkers, then why buy into weddings? (Disclaimer: I find no value in weddings and can't find a logical reason to have one, so I'd be interested in your reasons since you seem quite logical.)

I agree with you, I don't see any need to have the government or church sanction our relationship. I can enjoy a good party though. If I had my choice, we'd have a small wedding with maybe 20 people in a nice tranquil setting, but things got rolling pretty quickly once I proposed and believe it or not, they didn't consult me very much. When fighting societal norms, I think you have to pick your battles, for example, I didn't get a diamond, but I still got an engagement ring. This may be callous, but I have had to rationalize that a big wedding will approximately make up what we spend from gifts we receive (pretty close anyway since her parents are paying for a big chunk of the reception, and mine are funding the rehearsal dinner). People may also find it cheap of me to let them pay for it, but there's no way in hell I would drop that kind of money and noone asked me to in the first place. We will probably spend 7-8k on the miscellaneous stuff like photog, music, flowers, etc. We are in a good financial situation where we can afford a parentally subsidized wedding without putting ourselves in debt, but I'm right with you. I think it is bass akwards to say "yay lets start our life together by going into debt 30k for a one-day party" (20k-30k is the astonishing average cost of american weddings, considering average income is somewhere near 50k I think that is absolutely insane). Some people will point out that this sounds like my fiance and I want different things from the wedding and they'd be right, this is one aspect where we probably don't see eye to eye, but women grow up bombarded with ideas of fantasy weddings and us guys aren't subjected to it, so we just figure it out as we go along.

tl;dr they didn't ask me to pay for (all of) it

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8955
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2013, 10:33:49 AM »
Personally, I think the correct answer is "She should not marry YOU."

She should look for someone who cares more about her than about a dollar bill.

When you learn to care about a person more than money, you might be someone fit to marry.

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2013, 01:10:10 PM »
edited because i couldn't resist the urge to post again
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 02:43:36 PM by FockerCRNA »

anastrophe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Location: New England
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2013, 01:39:11 PM »
Personally, I think the correct answer is "She should not marry YOU."

She should look for someone who cares more about her than about a dollar bill.

When you learn to care about a person more than money, you might be someone fit to marry.

Not too surprised my last response garnered this type of emotion, rereading it, it does seem cold. In any case, it was pretty off topic. Although this is a poor ending to an interesting thread, I think I'll let it die down now before it devolves any further. Thank you everyone for your input, I really appreciate the ideas and feedback, there were a lot of good points on both sides. I'll try and come back later to update how everything goes.

Good luck, and I suggest looking into some of the posts on apracticalwedding.com (as well as the book of the same title). They cover a lot of relationship topics from a variety of perspectives, with a focus on "real life dilemmas" and a strong slant to frugality. On the subject of prenups, this post might be helpful: http://apracticalwedding.com/2012/08/the-why-of-prenups-from-an-attorneys-perspective/ but they have many others on various topics that I've appreciated as I've been planning my wedding.

Also, in internet-wedding-lingo, I think what you're thinking about is "getting weddinged"(though this is often used for people who have the wedding after the legal marriage, sometimes long after) if you need another search term.

Do let us know how it goes:)

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2013, 05:40:58 PM »
It seems like an awful lot of work to save $900 a year.  I mean, as time goes on, maybe you'll save  more . I don't know.  We are pretty high income, many of the deductions (if not most) have been phased out for us.  But because we've been married almost 17 years since the starving grad student days, I really have no idea if we'd be better off tax wise without marriage.

Yes, you can deduct child care expenses, but that phases out also.  I found that the deductions weren't all that more of a savings than an employer sponsored child care FSA.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8955
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2013, 06:53:31 PM »
Personally, I think the correct answer is "She should not marry YOU."

She should look for someone who cares more about her than about a dollar bill.

When you learn to care about a person more than money, you might be someone fit to marry.

Not too surprised my last response garnered this type of emotion, rereading it, it does seem cold. In any case, it was pretty off topic. Although this is a poor ending to an interesting thread, I think I'll let it die down now before it devolves any further. Thank you everyone for your input, I really appreciate the ideas and feedback, there were a lot of good points on both sides. I'll try and come back later to update how everything goes.

For the record, that was my response to your original post.

My wife's first husband was a cheap bastard.   He would count up the cost of Christmas presents given and calculate the value of Christmas presents received to see if he made a profit.   I thank God every day that he was a cheap bastard because she left him.

You don't have to shower money or expensive gifts or weddings on a great woman to woo or keep her, that's not what I'm saying.  We got married on $50 (a huge sum to us at the time), friends brought food to the reception and gave us wedding rings to use.  We celebrate 30 years of marriage this spring.

I'm just saying that if you don't watch out, you'll be living alone in a dozen years counting your money and she'll be with someone who values her more than all the money in the world.   

Best of luck to you both.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2013, 11:12:41 AM »
You know, one more advantage I can see here is if one partner suddenly has a big liability for something, they couldn't touch the others assets.  I'm wondering specifically about medical emergencies, there would be the advantage that only one stash would get wiped out, rather than two. 

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2013, 02:41:47 PM »

For the record, that was my response to your original post.

My wife's first husband was a cheap bastard.   He would count up the cost of Christmas presents given and calculate the value of Christmas presents received to see if he made a profit.   I thank God every day that he was a cheap bastard because she left him.

You don't have to shower money or expensive gifts or weddings on a great woman to woo or keep her, that's not what I'm saying.  We got married on $50 (a huge sum to us at the time), friends brought food to the reception and gave us wedding rings to use.  We celebrate 30 years of marriage this spring.

I'm just saying that if you don't watch out, you'll be living alone in a dozen years counting your money and she'll be with someone who values her more than all the money in the world.   

Best of luck to you both.

For the record, try not to throw your emotional baggage about cheapskates into an intelligent discussion in an internet forum specifically tailoring itself to people trying to save money. Thanks for your backhanded well-wishes.

You know, one more advantage I can see here is if one partner suddenly has a big liability for something, they couldn't touch the others assets.  I'm wondering specifically about medical emergencies, there would be the advantage that only one stash would get wiped out, rather than two. 

I think further up in the thread, someone mentioned they knew a couple that divorced to protect some of their assets from medical bills. The way I understand it, there are some scenarios where being married can protect assets like a house and others where it can be a detriment, these are the situations I want more information on.

FockerCRNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2013, 02:53:05 PM »
It seems like an awful lot of work to save $900 a year.  I mean, as time goes on, maybe you'll save  more . I don't know.  We are pretty high income, many of the deductions (if not most) have been phased out for us.  But because we've been married almost 17 years since the starving grad student days, I really have no idea if we'd be better off tax wise without marriage.

Yes, you can deduct child care expenses, but that phases out also.  I found that the deductions weren't all that more of a savings than an employer sponsored child care FSA.

You're right, $900 isn't that much, but thats without kids (or in tax lingo, dependents). After kids, you are looking at a few thousand a year, if filing as HOH. Still arguably meager in the big picture, but if you don't lose any important protections, which is what I'm trying to find out, why not? With current laws, estate tax isn't an issue until assets exceed 5 million, social security survivorship isn't relevant (for us) because that benefit is phased out beginning at 15K income and disappears after 45k income, power of attorney obviates healthcare visitation/decision issues, wills avoid probate, the list goes on... All I want is for someone to poke holes in this approach and I havn't verified any big holes yet.

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2013, 03:03:12 PM »
Power of attorney will let you make medical decisions for your significant other, but I would check with a lawyer to see if that includes visitation and notification rights.  It strikes me as odd that a hospital would allow the power of attorney to visit regardless of the circumstances (same sex couples find this one the biggest hurdle, and I feel like power of attorney isn't enough).

Done by Forty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
    • Done by Forty
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2013, 04:57:04 PM »
Personally, I think the correct answer is "She should not marry YOU."

She should look for someone who cares more about her than about a dollar bill.

When you learn to care about a person more than money, you might be someone fit to marry.

That's over the line.

Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2013, 06:16:52 PM »
I wonder why go through the expense of the wedding? If you know that you're committed for life and are independent thinkers, then why buy into weddings? (Disclaimer: I find no value in weddings and can't find a logical reason to have one, so I'd be interested in your reasons since you seem quite logical.)

I agree with you, I don't see any need to have the government or church sanction our relationship. I can enjoy a good party though. If I had my choice, we'd have a small wedding with maybe 20 people in a nice tranquil setting, but things got rolling pretty quickly once I proposed and believe it or not, they didn't consult me very much. When fighting societal norms, I think you have to pick your battles, for example, I didn't get a diamond, but I still got an engagement ring. This may be callous, but I have had to rationalize that a big wedding will approximately make up what we spend from gifts we receive (pretty close anyway since her parents are paying for a big chunk of the reception, and mine are funding the rehearsal dinner). People may also find it cheap of me to let them pay for it, but there's no way in hell I would drop that kind of money and noone asked me to in the first place. We will probably spend 7-8k on the miscellaneous stuff like photog, music, flowers, etc. We are in a good financial situation where we can afford a parentally subsidized wedding without putting ourselves in debt, but I'm right with you. I think it is bass akwards to say "yay lets start our life together by going into debt 30k for a one-day party" (20k-30k is the astonishing average cost of american weddings, considering average income is somewhere near 50k I think that is absolutely insane). Some people will point out that this sounds like my fiance and I want different things from the wedding and they'd be right, this is one aspect where we probably don't see eye to eye, but women grow up bombarded with ideas of fantasy weddings and us guys aren't subjected to it, so we just figure it out as we go along.

tl;dr they didn't ask me to pay for (all of) it

I think it's pretty questionable to accept 20-30 THOUSAND DOLLARS of outlay from others to celebrate a union that isn't legally happening. I don't care that they didn't consult you very much on the planning -- they're happy to part with brass because they believe a real marriage will be kicking off on your wedding date.

I think you need to inform those who are bankrolling the party immediately of your intentions.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #48 on: February 24, 2013, 06:35:16 PM »
Course11 is spot on. You're already having a hard time convincing a forum full of Mustachians. Do you think you can sell it to both your families? We obviously don't know your relatives and you are the best person to judge how, erm, 'progressive' they are, but I'm willing to bet that when word does get out, you are going to alienate quite a few people. Or you're one hell of a salesman.

nolajo

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • Location: New Orleans, LA
Re: To Marry, or not to Marry, that is the question:
« Reply #49 on: February 24, 2013, 09:11:15 PM »
Course11 is spot on. You're already having a hard time convincing a forum full of Mustachians. Do you think you can sell it to both your families? We obviously don't know your relatives and you are the best person to judge how, erm, 'progressive' they are, but I'm willing to bet that when word does get out, you are going to alienate quite a few people. Or you're one hell of a salesman.

He actually said above that his parents are on board. Hers need to be addressed, but might be satisfied. Personally, I probably wouldn't go this route myself, but he's put a lot of thought into questioning whether the normal way of doing things is correct for him. That's kind of the essence of the movement, no?

And if, given all that, their parents want to have a blow-out party, while recognizing that the couple will only be half-way married, well, they're grown ups and that's ok. Sometimes people give generous gifts, and if this is a gift they want to make, terrific. Now if FockerCRNA comes back in 5 years when it makes financial sense to legally wed his wife and wants to throw another party, then we'll need to talk.