Benefits of Marriage

[Elisabeth]

When I was single, I thought people who were married had it so much easier because of their economies of scale.

When I got married, I realized that differences in money values can erode those benefits. So can a higher tax bracket, lifestyle inflation, and children.

I thought this was pretty interesting, especially the recommendations for encouraging marriage (higher child tax credit, etc).

http://www.aei.org/publication/for-richer-for-poorer-how-family-structures-economic-success-in-america/

I am always curious about the choices people make that keep them poor (I've made my own, too). Does anyone else wonder why so many people set up their lives like families but without the benefits that marriage could offer them? Especially at low income levels, it seems sad that so many people could realize a higher standard of living, for their children, too.

[Jon_Snow]

IF you find the right spouse I am convinced that marriage cannot be beaten in terms of maximizing happiness and success. But it seems that many people settle for less than ideal matches in their marriages, and the results are such that remaining single would probably be a more prudent course of action.

I consider myself extremely fortunate to have met and married my wife - before meeting her, there was a string of very subpar relationships - if any of those had developed into a marriage situation (one was close) my life would be so much different today, it makes me shudder a bit.

[tracylayton]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

[Kansas Beachbum]

I'm going to echo what Jon_Snow says...and agree with both of your observations Elisabeth.  IF you are married to someone who has a compatible view of the world in terms of finances, it IS much easier for a married couple to build assets than it is for a single person...two people can't live as cheaply as one, but they can live together a lot more cheaply than they do apart.  That said, if your partner has financial views and habits that are contrary to your mustachian ones it will be very difficult for you.  It has been said that finances break up more marriages than adultery, I believe that. 

Like Jon, I am also extremely fortunate in that the Mrs. KBB views the world in very much the same way I do...in terms of finances and pretty much everything else.  When it works out like that, it's wonderful.  When it doesn't...well, you all know. 

[hybrid]

I think it can be quite the mixed bag financially. Mustachian Buddy, who is single and has a roommate, and I (married almost 29 years) have talked extensively about this. If you are single and don't have kids you have the enormous benefit of making every financial decision unilaterally. This assumes of course one makes good financial decisions. Couples have to come to some sort of agreement, and I think it is pretty common for one of the two to be significantly more spendy than the other, especially if the concepts in this blog are fairly new. An old friend of mine is struggling mightily with this today. He is naturally frugal and his wife is spendy. They ultimately compromise somewhere in the barely sustainable middle, and those compromises have been less than ideal financially.

In my mind the only tangible benefits of being a couple from a financial perspective is shared living expenses and pooled assets for major purchases. Those should not be discounted lightly (especially when it comes time to purchase a home), but the single person with a decent income and a roommate gets the benefit of the former without the complications of having to find common ground. With a decent income, the single person can purchase a home as well. So in this area I think it is often better to be single (if kids are not in the equation) if FIRE is the goal.

As for the benefits of having two people rather than one to raise children, those are fairly obvious. We've raised a few kids, and for most people the more hands the better.

[MrFancypants]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

I think suggesting that they're trying to "work the system" might be a little much.  If anything the argument can be made that the system isn't working right if you lose your poverty safety net and the only difference is that you got married.

[AJ]

In my mind the only tangible benefits of being a couple from a financial perspective is shared living expenses and pooled assets for major purchases.

How about:

• Having dual incomes means we need less of a cash cushion (emergency fund), freeing up money to be invested at higher/riskier rates
• Lower car insurance rates (for males, at least)
• Each major purchase is subject to the scrutiny of two sets of eyes
• When one person is too busy/tired to cook, the other can pick up the slack rather than paying to eat out
• Cheap evening entertainment ;)

Plus just in general, we go out less than we would if we were single - there is always a companion around. To say nothing of the major non-financial benefits...

[NoraLenderbee]

There's a nice tax saving from married filing jointly, if one of you makes significantly less than the other.

A lot of legal status changes happen automatically with marriage--you become next of kin for each other, your spouse can be added to your insurance easily, etc. If you're not married, you have to do contracts and stuff for all these things. My friends who have an "outlaw marriage" (committed partnership, not legally married) found this to be something of a PITA.

[hdatontodo]

I married again later in life and, after the fact, found out my Mrs has a decent  401K balance. My prior Mrs had none, so even if I had to pay out $30K to end the last marriage, I came  in over 10X ahead.

We don't agree on anything regarding our 6 year old, but neither one of us blows money.

[Primm]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

I think suggesting that they're trying to "work the system" might be a little much.  If anything the argument can be made that the system isn't working right if you lose your poverty safety net and the only difference is that you got married.

The difference is that they got married and had to declare the income that the second parent in the house earned, which reduced their benefits.

Are you saying it's fair for a sole parent to survive on the same benefits that the people who game the system do? So the ones in relationships have an extra income (and we know two people living together are cheaper than two people living separately) as well as all the extra bits from the government?

It's welfare fraud, pure and simple.

[MrFancypants]

It's welfare fraud, pure and simple.

It's welfare fraud to be drawing public assistance while having a significant other you are not married to?  lolwut?

Having MARRIED a person who was on this type of assistance I can tell you straight up that it's possible for that the loss of those benefits can potentially wreck you. Those income levels are so low that at the bottom end it doesn't even come close to replacing those benefits.

I was able to absorb the loss of income on her end because I make good money. But if I only made just enough to disqualify her we literally wouldn't have been able to afford to get married. That isn't fraud, that's a system that makes it financially impossible for some to get married.

[Primm]

It's welfare fraud, pure and simple.

It's welfare fraud to be drawing public assistance while having a significant other you are not married to?  lolwut?

Sure is, in some parts of the world that are not the US (i.e. where I live). Common law / de facto partnership has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as on-paper marriage. In fact, this is how it is for most of the world. Except the US.

[MrFancypants]

Sure is, in some parts of the world that are not the US (i.e. where I live). Common law / de facto partnership has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as on-paper marriage. In fact, this is how it is for most of the world. Except the US.

"Some parts" doesn't mean much here. In the US what you are expressing is untrue, and you just said so.

Primm, you get a pass because you're from Australia and you probably aren't terribly well educated on the state of the US welfare system.  Here, we do not have very many programs that are tiered in such a way that you lose benefits with marriage.  The big ones typically come from the Social Security Administration and it's less a handout and more an insurance program that you paid into.  However, some people, like my wife, were considered disabled at a young age and were not able to actually pay enough into the system to get one of the decent programs.  The one she ended up in was structured in such a way that it was impossible to live with a roof over your head without committing fraud.  It barely provided enough to feed her, and certainly not enough to pay to get her to her doctors for the specialized care she needed, but was never provided because Medicaid is next to useless.

Most people on that particular program are homeless, because there's no other way.  Then they become an even greater drag on society because, surprise, homeless people who are constantly exposed to the elements get sick a lot and spend a lot of time in the ER....  that's assuming they don't commit petty crimes and tie up the police so they can sleep in a heated jail cell for the night.

Maybe in Australia you have solid programs that make sense.  I can tell you that here in the United States, these programs suck.

I'm sorry for the off topic post, and I will attempt to resist further temptation to post this subject in this topic again, but this is an issue that is close enough to me that I usually feel compelled to be involved in.

[Baron235]

Sure is, in some parts of the world that are not the US (i.e. where I live). Common law / de facto partnership has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as on-paper marriage. In fact, this is how it is for most of the world. Except the US.

"Some parts" doesn't mean much here. In the US what you are expressing is untrue, and you just said so.

Primm, you get a pass because you're from Australia and you probably aren't terribly well educated on the state of the US welfare system.  Here, we do not have very many programs that are tiered in such a way that you lose benefits with marriage.  The big ones typically come from the Social Security Administration and it's less a handout and more an insurance program that you paid into.  However, some people, like my wife, were considered disabled at a young age and were not able to actually pay enough into the system to get one of the decent programs.  The one she ended up in was structured in such a way that it was impossible to live with a roof over your head without committing fraud.  It barely provided enough to feed her, and certainly not enough to pay to get her to her doctors for the specialized care she needed, but was never provided because Medicaid is next to useless.

Most people on that particular program are homeless, because there's no other way.  Then they become an even greater drag on society because, surprise, homeless people who are constantly exposed to the elements get sick a lot and spend a lot of time in the ER....  that's assuming they don't commit petty crimes and tie up the police so they can sleep in a heated jail cell for the night.

Maybe in Australia you have solid programs that make sense.  I can tell you that here in the United States, these programs suck.

I'm sorry for the off topic post, and I will attempt to resist further temptation to post this subject in this topic again, but this is an issue that is close enough to me that I usually feel compelled to be involved in.

It is fraud pain and simple.  If she is receiving support from this person she should declare it. The only reason marriage would lower her benefits would be due to her partner having more money to help support the her and the child.

People do this all the time.  I know many people who have saving accounts in friends names so they can keep their section 8 while they are paying for satellite TV and the newest iphone. 



 

[Overseas Stache]

Really it is just about marrying the right person for you. Agreeing on finances is a big part of having a successful relationship. I read somewhere that money problems are the number one cause of divorce in the USA.

That being said, there are some things I would never give up even if it meant that I would never achieve financial freedom. My wife and children are on that list. They are just so so much more important than any amount of money I can save for retirement. But I probably feel this way about my wife because of our great relationship and our mutual frugalness.

[Overseas Stache]

So true but finding that "right person" is pretty hard when you're single and already ERed and FI at a fairly young age. Lots of different issues arise in even a great relationship that could sour it over time because of finances or spending or lifestyle differences that may be OK in already established marriages.

I completely agree 100% that it is harder to find the right person later on in life. I can not believe how incredibly blessed I am to have met my wife my freshmen year in High School. We didn't start dating until sophomore year in college, but by then I knew she was the one and we would get married (4 years later). It really is hard for me to even think about how I would go about finding a wife at this point in my life , especially when I think of all the time I took getting to know her even before we started dating.

[Elisabeth]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

Yes, we have all seen and heard these stories. I think what troubles me most is the long-term effects on the children: According to this study, children from two-parent households are more likely to achieve higher levels of education, and be able to take care of themselves financially. When I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters, it was obvious that all the negatives of single parenting were palpable for the children on a daily basis. Homework was SUCH a struggle for children who are actually very bright, because they'd never done it; mom worked 10+ hours a day and never supervised the [8] kids she had at home - and mom didn't see any value in education.

I also wonder if people "working the system" would actually be better off in marriages than receiving these benefits. Even if one spouse does not work, you have the benefit of that spouse's labor at home - child care, meals, cleaning... all things that many of us outsource in order to work.

I do feel a lot of compassion for people in the middle of this cycle who do not know how to get out of it - same as the folks "renting a couch." (Side note: Whatever happened to grandma's stories about sitting on the floor with no furniture to afford mortgage payments? We all want it now, today, regardless of the consequences.) But I think the proposals in the study that would make marriage more attractive should really be pursued. And I'm not just saying that for selfish reasons :)

I think that once the stigma of being a single (never-married) parent disappeared, people stopped worrying about being married before kids. So maybe initiatives like Colorado's long-term birth control efforts should go hand-in-hand with better incentives to be married. If you are never married, you never go through an expensive divorce...

I guess the discussion could also be about birth rates out of marriage, but that's a can of worms.

[BPA]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

I think suggesting that they're trying to "work the system" might be a little much.  If anything the argument can be made that the system isn't working right if you lose your poverty safety net and the only difference is that you got married.

+1

Where I live it made financial sense not to be married.  When we split, I didn't have to pay him out half the value of my pension.  Even if we had stayed together, there is no way I'd be as close to FIRE now.  Not only that, I saved a ton of money not needing to get divorced.  We worked out a custody agreement cheaply.  We also avoided the cost of a wedding. 

My current boyfriend and I don't plan to get married of live together.  I am more frugal than he is but we never fight about money.

Some of my expenses are shared with my brother who is my roommate.

I think I do okay for someone who has never been married and has kids.

[VirginiaBob]

Free Sex!  LOL!

In my situation, from a financial perspective, the tax benefits/health insurance/future extra 50% SS payments is key since my wife does not work much.  We considered her working full time for $35K per year, but we would actually decrease our income after child care, increased taxes, work clothes purchases, extra vehicle purchase, gas, maintenance, car insurance, etc. 

It is as if she is getting a free salary but not having to work much (outside of her home based business), and not outsourcing the raising of our kids.  This would not work if either of us were single and had the same number of kids.

For those of you that are subsidizing us through your taxes, we offer you our warm thanks!

[BPA]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

Yes, we have all seen and heard these stories. I think what troubles me most is the long-term effects on the children: According to this study, children from two-parent households are more likely to achieve higher levels of education, and be able to take care of themselves financially. When I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters, it was obvious that all the negatives of single parenting were palpable for the children on a daily basis. Homework was SUCH a struggle for children who are actually very bright, because they'd never done it; mom worked 10+ hours a day and never supervised the [8] kids she had at home - and mom didn't see any value in education.

I also wonder if people "working the system" would actually be better off in marriages than receiving these benefits. Even if one spouse does not work, you have the benefit of that spouse's labor at home - child care, meals, cleaning... all things that many of us outsource in order to work.

I do feel a lot of compassion for people in the middle of this cycle who do not know how to get out of it - same as the folks "renting a couch." (Side note: Whatever happened to grandma's stories about sitting on the floor with no furniture to afford mortgage payments? We all want it now, today, regardless of the consequences.) But I think the proposals in the study that would make marriage more attractive should really be pursued. And I'm not just saying that for selfish reasons :)

I think that once the stigma of being a single (never-married) parent disappeared, people stopped worrying about being married before kids. So maybe initiatives like Colorado's long-term birth control efforts should go hand-in-hand with better incentives to be married. If you are never married, you never go through an expensive divorce...

I guess the discussion could also be about birth rates out of marriage, but that's a can of worms.

Your whole mindset is a judgmental can of worms where your lifestyle choice is the right one and thus you are superior and can tell others how they should live.

Yes.  Let's bring back the stigma of single parenthood.  What a great solution.  After all, children of divorce are doomed. 

I'm getting images of Dana Carvey as the Church Lady at this point.

[VirginiaBob]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

Yes, we have all seen and heard these stories. I think what troubles me most is the long-term effects on the children: According to this study, children from two-parent households are more likely to achieve higher levels of education, and be able to take care of themselves financially. When I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters, it was obvious that all the negatives of single parenting were palpable for the children on a daily basis. Homework was SUCH a struggle for children who are actually very bright, because they'd never done it; mom worked 10+ hours a day and never supervised the [8] kids she had at home - and mom didn't see any value in education.

I also wonder if people "working the system" would actually be better off in marriages than receiving these benefits. Even if one spouse does not work, you have the benefit of that spouse's labor at home - child care, meals, cleaning... all things that many of us outsource in order to work.

I do feel a lot of compassion for people in the middle of this cycle who do not know how to get out of it - same as the folks "renting a couch." (Side note: Whatever happened to grandma's stories about sitting on the floor with no furniture to afford mortgage payments? We all want it now, today, regardless of the consequences.) But I think the proposals in the study that would make marriage more attractive should really be pursued. And I'm not just saying that for selfish reasons :)

I think that once the stigma of being a single (never-married) parent disappeared, people stopped worrying about being married before kids. So maybe initiatives like Colorado's long-term birth control efforts should go hand-in-hand with better incentives to be married. If you are never married, you never go through an expensive divorce...

I guess the discussion could also be about birth rates out of marriage, but that's a can of worms.

Your whole mindset is a judgmental can of worms where your lifestyle choice is the right one and thus you are superior and can tell others how they should live.

Yes.  Let's bring back the stigma of single parenthood.  What a great solution.  After all, children of divorce are doomed. 

I'm getting images of Dana Carvey as the Church Lady at this point.

I have sympathy for those that are single parents because of thier spouse dying, completely abandoning them where they don't see them for years, or if thier spouse physically abused them or thier children to the point of danger.  For the rest, I have no sympathy.  If you can't work out your marriage and decide to divorce due to irreconciable differences, that is when I have a problem with it.  Ok, that is my judgmental piece for the day. 

[Apples]

Newly married, and there are certainly some financial benefits (shared housing/utilities/meals cost-shopping groceries for a single person sucks!). But as my new husband and I work out our desired spending level and what we each want vs. need, we end up getting both the date night at the brewery for him and a few new kitting supplies for me, instead of paring down a bit.  A good example is I would spend on a big trip once a year and hobby supplies, while he likes to check out new places every few weeks and some hobby supplies, so now we get the hobby supplies and the cool small visits every few weeks and the yearly vacation, so we both get what we value.  Which overall ends up costing more.  And he now has more spending money than he did when he was single and working just above the poverty line (slightly higher paying job for him, and my job) so wants to go out and get a few things now that the checking account can "afford" it.

We actually stick to budget fairly well, we're just working out the kinks. And I'm still getting over the mental hurdle of when my friend asks me out to dinner and we both go, the dinner will cost $40, not $20 like it did previously.  For some reason that is tough to get over.

[dude]

I have sympathy for those that are single parents because of thier spouse dying, completely abandoning them where they don't see them for years, or if thier spouse physically abused them or thier children to the point of danger.  For the rest, I have no sympathy.  If you can't work out your marriage and decide to divorce due to irreconciable differences, that is when I have a problem with it.  Ok, that is my judgmental piece for the day.

Wow, that's some antiquated, Bible-thumping, Promise Keepers-type bullshit there.  I'll bet you're a Michelle Bachman supporter, aren't you?  Funny thing about human beings is they're unpredictable, and very oftentimes irrational, and because they are human they can grow apart despite having been madly in love at one point in their lives.  But you would keep them shackled together so they can both be miserable the rest of their lives, eh?  I'll bet that's called "compassionate conservatism" in the circles you run in, eh?

If you want to hedge your bets on marriage, don't have kids and marry someone earning about the same amount of money.  That way if it doesn't work out, no harm, no foul.

[MOD NOTE: This is an example of not good or productive arguing. Thanks to subsequent posters and this poster for working it out.]

[VirginiaBob]

I have sympathy for those that are single parents because of thier spouse dying, completely abandoning them where they don't see them for years, or if thier spouse physically abused them or thier children to the point of danger.  For the rest, I have no sympathy.  If you can't work out your marriage and decide to divorce due to irreconciable differences, that is when I have a problem with it.  Ok, that is my judgmental piece for the day.

Wow, that's some antiquated, Bible-thumping, Promise Keepers-type bullshit there.  I'll bet you're a Michelle Bachman supporter, aren't you?  Funny thing about human beings is they're unpredictable, and very oftentimes irrational, and because they are human they can grow apart despite having been madly in love at one point in their lives.  But you would keep them shackled together so they can both be miserable the rest of their lives, eh?  I'll bet that's called "compassionate conservatism" in the circles you run in, eh?

If you want to hedge your bets on marriage, don't have kids and marry someone earning about the same amount of money.  That way if it doesn't work out, no harm, no foul.

LOL!  I did caveat it with saying that I was intending to be judgemental.  So if you took it that way, you took it that way correctly - good on you!  But in terms of your questions, I am Christian (I hope that is ok - if not feel free to judge, haha!), but I don't really even know anything about the Promise keepers or know too much about Michelle Bachman - just never been into politics or big organized religion at all.  No I wouldn't shackle couples together, but I'd hope they would make the choice to stay together on thier own - not interested in legislating it if that was what you were asking (or maybe you weren't, I can't tell).  Don't run in either conservative or liberal circles - I can't stand them both, haha!  But yes, I did intend to be judgemental on this topic, so I am not sorry that your were offended, since that was my very intent.  Bask in my judgement!

[Elisabeth]

I think the study is more about the effects on finances. It is not a comment about how people choose to live their lives, but rather the financial effects of those choices for individuals, families, and communities. There are always situations that stand out for being different. I see a lot of articles lately about the "wealth gap" and not marrying seems to contribute greatly. Page 10 provides a table depicting the change in median income for families with children, varied by marital status of the head of household. Married heads of households are at the top. ("Happily married" isn't one of the categories.)  Creating tax incentives that help families achieve greater financial gains doesn't seem like a bad plan; in fact, it could significantly lower the need for other programs as were mentioned above.

When I lived abroad, tax incentives were provided for having children, not for being married. Being married was mostly irrelevant, and so most of the people I knew who had children were not married. I think as long as our tax system provides more tax benefits for marriage, it makes sense to make those incentives worth the trip to the courthouse. Not that people have children for money, but 1000 for a kid on your tax return doesn't help.

Apples - I am sure there are tons of categories where married people spend more - especially compromising on entertainment. I guess you could assign a monetary value to each decision, and compare it to your formerly single life, but I'm going to guess that the benefits of not doing that outweigh everything else!

[hybrid]

I have sympathy for those that are single parents because of thier spouse dying, completely abandoning them where they don't see them for years, or if thier spouse physically abused them or thier children to the point of danger.  For the rest, I have no sympathy.  If you can't work out your marriage and decide to divorce due to irreconciable differences, that is when I have a problem with it.  Ok, that is my judgmental piece for the day.

Wow, that's some antiquated, Bible-thumping, Promise Keepers-type bullshit there.  I'll bet you're a Michelle Bachman supporter, aren't you?  Funny thing about human beings is they're unpredictable, and very oftentimes irrational, and because they are human they can grow apart despite having been madly in love at one point in their lives.  But you would keep them shackled together so they can both be miserable the rest of their lives, eh?  I'll bet that's called "compassionate conservatism" in the circles you run in, eh?

If you want to hedge your bets on marriage, don't have kids and marry someone earning about the same amount of money.  That way if it doesn't work out, no harm, no foul.

Over the line Dude. The man is entitled to his opinion, and you are not entitled hurl insults simply because you disagree.

[dude]

I have sympathy for those that are single parents because of thier spouse dying, completely abandoning them where they don't see them for years, or if thier spouse physically abused them or thier children to the point of danger.  For the rest, I have no sympathy.  If you can't work out your marriage and decide to divorce due to irreconciable differences, that is when I have a problem with it.  Ok, that is my judgmental piece for the day.

Wow, that's some antiquated, Bible-thumping, Promise Keepers-type bullshit there.  I'll bet you're a Michelle Bachman supporter, aren't you?  Funny thing about human beings is they're unpredictable, and very oftentimes irrational, and because they are human they can grow apart despite having been madly in love at one point in their lives.  But you would keep them shackled together so they can both be miserable the rest of their lives, eh?  I'll bet that's called "compassionate conservatism" in the circles you run in, eh?

If you want to hedge your bets on marriage, don't have kids and marry someone earning about the same amount of money.  That way if it doesn't work out, no harm, no foul.

LOL!  I did caveat it with saying that I was intending to be judgemental.  So if you took it that way, you took it that way correctly - good on you!  But in terms of your questions, I am Christian (I hope that is ok - if not feel free to judge, haha!), but I don't really even know anything about the Promise keepers or know too much about Michelle Bachman - just never been into politics or big organized religion at all.  No I wouldn't shackle couples together, but I'd hope they would make the choice to stay together on thier own - not interested in legislating it if that was what you were asking (or maybe you weren't, I can't tell).  Don't run in either conservative or liberal circles - I can't stand them both, haha!  But yes, I did intend to be judgemental on this topic, so I am not sorry that your were offended, since that was my very intent.  Bask in my judgement!

<pulls hook out of mouth>  Nicely done, sir.

[dude]

Over the line Dude. The man is entitled to his opinion, and you are not entitled hurl insults simply because you disagree.

Of course I am!  That's the American Way -- don't you watch Fox News?

Okay, I was a little harsh, but that kind of thing is kryptonite to me -- I'm powerless not to respond!  I'm sorry, VirginiaBob, guess I was responding to a judgemental post with a judgemental post.

[VirginiaBob]

Over the line Dude. The man is entitled to his opinion, and you are not entitled hurl insults simply because you disagree.

Of course I am!  That's the American Way -- don't you watch Fox News?

Okay, I was a little harsh, but that kind of thing is kryptonite to me -- I'm powerless not to respond!  I'm sorry, VirginiaBob, guess I was responding to a judgemental post with a judgemental post.

No problem dude! All in good fun.

[dude]

Over the line Dude. The man is entitled to his opinion, and you are not entitled hurl insults simply because you disagree.

Of course I am!  That's the American Way -- don't you watch Fox News?

Okay, I was a little harsh, but that kind of thing is kryptonite to me -- I'm powerless not to respond!  I'm sorry, VirginiaBob, guess I was responding to a judgemental post with a judgemental post.

No problem dude! All in good fun.

:-)

[hybrid]

Over the line Dude. The man is entitled to his opinion, and you are not entitled hurl insults simply because you disagree.

Of course I am!  That's the American Way -- don't you watch Fox News?

Okay, I was a little harsh, but that kind of thing is kryptonite to me -- I'm powerless not to respond!  I'm sorry, VirginiaBob, guess I was responding to a judgemental post with a judgemental post.

Funny thing is, as far as the actual argument goes I agree with Dude....

[jka468]

I know of some young, single moms who haven't gotten married because they would lose to many benefits...medicaid for their kid, help with daycare, food stamps, earned income credit, etc. They live with their baby daddy, but won't get married because they wouldn't qualify for as much as they currently get. It is sad, but many of them know how to work the system.

Yes, we have all seen and heard these stories. I think what troubles me most is the long-term effects on the children: According to this study, children from two-parent households are more likely to achieve higher levels of education, and be able to take care of themselves financially. When I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters, it was obvious that all the negatives of single parenting were palpable for the children on a daily basis. Homework was SUCH a struggle for children who are actually very bright, because they'd never done it; mom worked 10+ hours a day and never supervised the [8] kids she had at home - and mom didn't see any value in education.

I also wonder if people "working the system" would actually be better off in marriages than receiving these benefits. Even if one spouse does not work, you have the benefit of that spouse's labor at home - child care, meals, cleaning... all things that many of us outsource in order to work.

I do feel a lot of compassion for people in the middle of this cycle who do not know how to get out of it - same as the folks "renting a couch." (Side note: Whatever happened to grandma's stories about sitting on the floor with no furniture to afford mortgage payments? We all want it now, today, regardless of the consequences.) But I think the proposals in the study that would make marriage more attractive should really be pursued. And I'm not just saying that for selfish reasons :)

I think that once the stigma of being a single (never-married) parent disappeared, people stopped worrying about being married before kids. So maybe initiatives like Colorado's long-term birth control efforts should go hand-in-hand with better incentives to be married. If you are never married, you never go through an expensive divorce...

I guess the discussion could also be about birth rates out of marriage, but that's a can of worms.

Your whole mindset is a judgmental can of worms where your lifestyle choice is the right one and thus you are superior and can tell others how they should live.

Yes.  Let's bring back the stigma of single parenthood.  What a great solution.  After all, children of divorce are doomed. 

I'm getting images of Dana Carvey as the Church Lady at this point.

I have sympathy for those that are single parents because of thier spouse dying, completely abandoning them where they don't see them for years, or if thier spouse physically abused them or thier children to the point of danger.  For the rest, I have no sympathy.  If you can't work out your marriage and decide to divorce due to irreconciable differences, that is when I have a problem with it.  Ok, that is my judgmental piece for the day.

I completely agree, but there is no point on these boards. Remember, you can't judge anyone, for anything, unless you are judging someone who doesn't agree with a "all life choices are equally valid and good" mindset.

[Sid Hoffman]

Pooling of income also means you can pool the retirement savings.  Suppose you have the common scenario of two workers, one at $50k/year the other at $25k/year.  Suppose they each work for an employer who matches 401k at half a percent of the first 6 percent.  Well the $50k/year guy might be contributing 12% but he only gets help on the first 6, and the person at $25k/year is contributing 0% because they're barely scraping by.

As a married couple, they pool their money and can more easily agree to something like 9% of the guy at $50k/year and 6% for the one at $25k/year.  The math works out:

Scenario 1:
12% of $50k with 3% matching: $7500 on a contribution of $6000

Scenario 2:
9% of $50k with 3% matching: $6000 on a contribution of $4500
6% of $25k with 3% matching: $2250 on a contribution of $1500

Totals:
Scenario 1: Costs them $6000, gets $7500 in 401k
Scenario 2: Costs them $6000, gets $8250 in 401k (10% more saved for retirement)

The married couple, while contributing the exact same amount of money is able to get more in their account by making sure they each max out their employer matching.  For couples with only 1 income earner, there's still advantages, such as being able to fill up both Roth accounts.  You do not need to earn an income of your own to contribute to a Roth IRA as long as you are married, filing as married jointly, and the earner makes more than the sum of the Roth IRA contributions.  So a couple with a single income earner at $60k/year could still fund two separate $5500 Roth IRAs; one for each of them.

Still, I would not get married for financial reasons.  I say this as someone who lived single for 10 years, was married for 7, then divorced again.  There's nothing that marriage fixes if the relationship itself is not right for the both of them.

[hybrid]

In my mind the only tangible benefits of being a couple from a financial perspective is shared living expenses and pooled assets for major purchases.

How about:

• Having dual incomes means we need less of a cash cushion (emergency fund), freeing up money to be invested at higher/riskier rates
• Lower car insurance rates (for males, at least)
• Each major purchase is subject to the scrutiny of two sets of eyes
• When one person is too busy/tired to cook, the other can pick up the slack rather than paying to eat out
• Cheap evening entertainment ;)

Plus just in general, we go out less than we would if we were single - there is always a companion around. To say nothing of the major non-financial benefits...

Interesting points. Was not aware there was a difference in car insurance rates, for someone who works in the field how large is that?

As for the major purchases, I've seen the opposite end up being the case. Spouse A wants to spend X on a major purchase, while Spouse B wants to spend X+Y on a purchase. The actual number usually ends up being a lot closer to X + Y because Spouse A wants to make Spouse B happy more than they want to be frugal. The "some things just aren't worth fighting about" argument. I saw this happen recently with a kitchen remodel. Spendy Spouse got the (60K!!!) kitchen she wanted, Not As Spendy Spouse shrugged and said "Happy wife, happy life".

Same for going out. Spouse A wants to stay in, Spouse B wants to go out to eat. The couple eats out a lot more than the more frugal spouse wants to because keeping Spendy Spouse content is more important. Fess up MMM crowd, who has been in this boat more than once?

I do agree on the cooking part, but with a roommate that could cancel out. But maybe not. I'll ask Mustachian Buddy about that one.

Still contemplating the cash cushion. While I agree with you on the surface, aren't the odds of a couple finding themselves unemployed now double? I've seen a number of couples where that has in fact happened, and only rarely was the other income sufficiently large to absorb the financial shock.

I guess where I am going with this is that with the majority of the couples I have met, they err on the side of collectively overspending rather than underspending. The desire to keep your spouse happy is a strong one, so spending money in pursuit of that happiness can be a natural by-product of those good intentions.

[Bob W]

Probably the greatest reason to forego marriage is the corresponding cessation of oral sex.

Did I just say that out loud?!  Sorry, I'm in a happy funny mood today. 

[NeighborGuy]

Well, I'm convinced. If you'll all excuse me, I'll be off to the Wife Store to get me a like-minded spouse with whom I can co-exist in perfect hive-minded choreography. Hopefully they still have that no-hassle return policy if things don't work out after I legally shackle myself to her.

[cpa cat]

Does anyone else wonder why so many people set up their lives like families but without the benefits that marriage could offer them? Especially at low income levels, it seems sad that so many people could realize a higher standard of living, for their children, too.

When I got married, my husband and I started trying to maximize our joint potential (emotional/financial). Happily, we were pretty good influences on each other. Both frugal, both loving, etc. Having financial security/wealth is a key part of happiness for both of us - which motivates us to do well.

But I know plenty of married couples who never get ahead financially. They can be pretty bad influences on each other. Usually they're both immediate gratification people. Or one spouse avoids confrontation. Getting married didn't cure them of that.

As for people who choose not to be married in order to maximize benefits - they're just doing what my husband and I do. They're maximizing their joint economic potential. As far as they are concerned, they're realizing the highest standard of living possible for their family by not legally getting married.

I've known a few people in this situation and it usually turns out one of two ways: 1) They break up. Economics was a convenient excuse to not get married, but in truth, they generally weren't ready to commit and their children were not planned. 2) They eventually get on their feet financially and choose to get married. For these couples, it was a rational financial decision, and people who make rational financial decisions don't usually stay poor.

In either case, the decision not to marry makes rational sense.

[VirginiaBob]

Well, I'm convinced. If you'll all excuse me, I'll be off to the Wife Store to get me a like-minded spouse with whom I can co-exist in perfect hive-minded choreography. Hopefully they still have that no-hassle return policy if things don't work out after I legally shackle myself to her.

May I recommend the mail order variety ;)

[MrsPete]

It's welfare fraud, pure and simple.

It's welfare fraud to be drawing public assistance while having a significant other you are not married to?

Yes, it's welfare fraud.  Why?  Because when asked, the "system workers" say that their children's father doesn't help them financially, leaving them free to collect more benefits -- even if, in reality, he's living in the house with them and is bringing in a paycheck.  If they're married, it's hard to claim that they aren't working together financially. 

Source:  A good friend who's a social worker. 

Is everyone doing this?  Of course not, but remaining single is one of the cornerstones of the system workers. 

[MrsPete]

I completely agree, but there is no point on these boards. Remember, you can't judge anyone, for anything, unless you are judging someone who doesn't agree with a "all life choices are equally valid and good" mindset.

All life choices are equally valid . . . unless, of course, the life choice in question is Conservative Christian.  In that one instance, people feel free to throw all the stones they want. 

Plenty of evidence shows that kids are better off in a married household with two parents:  That the kids are likely to achieve more education, that the kids are less likely to be in trouble with the law, that girls are less likely to be teen moms, etc.  Plenty of evidence shows that people who are married tend to be happier and to accumulate more wealth.  Old-fashioned values were better in a lot of ways. 

[MrsPete]

Interesting points. Was not aware there was a difference in car insurance rates, for someone who works in the field how large is that?

As for the major purchases, I've seen the opposite end up being the case. Spouse A wants to spend X on a major purchase, while Spouse B wants to spend X+Y on a purchase. The actual number usually ends up being a lot closer to X + Y because Spouse A wants to make Spouse B happy more than they want to be frugal. The "some things just aren't worth fighting about" argument. I saw this happen recently with a kitchen remodel. Spendy Spouse got the (60K!!!) kitchen she wanted, Not As Spendy Spouse shrugged and said "Happy wife, happy life".

Same for going out. Spouse A wants to stay in, Spouse B wants to go out to eat. The couple eats out a lot more than the more frugal spouse wants to because keeping Spendy Spouse content is more important. Fess up MMM crowd, who has been in this boat more than once?

I do agree on the cooking part, but with a roommate that could cancel out. But maybe not. I'll ask Mustachian Buddy about that one.

Still contemplating the cash cushion. While I agree with you on the surface, aren't the odds of a couple finding themselves unemployed now double? I've seen a number of couples where that has in fact happened, and only rarely was the other income sufficiently large to absorb the financial shock.

I guess where I am going with this is that with the majority of the couples I have met, they err on the side of collectively overspending rather than underspending. The desire to keep your spouse happy is a strong one, so spending money in pursuit of that happiness can be a natural by-product of those good intentions.

At a glance, I'd say that if one relatively frugal person could live comfortably for X . . . that person and a like-minded spouse could live for X + 1/4 X.  A frugal couple can definitely live more cheaply than two separate, single frugal people. 

-  You mentioned insurance and food. 
-  A one-bedroom apartment can house a couple, but probably not roommates.
-  Heating /cooling costs the same no matter how many people share the house, though hot water would increase with each person. 
-  A couple might work out how to share a car; a set of roommates probably won't.
-  A couple tends to stay home more often, whereas two single roommates may feel more pressure to go out (and spend).
-  Two people bring in two sets of frugal skills.  For example, my husband is much more handy around the house than I am, but I'm better at spending less at the grocery store.

[senecando]

Well, I had no idea I was in an "outlaw marriage". I like the phrase.

[MoneyCat]

Marriage has been very good for me financially because my wife also works full-time and she is equally financially literate as me.  We split all joints bills in half, which has greatly reduced my housing expenses.  I guess it all comes down to having the same financial values.  Neither one of us is materialistic and we both don't like to waste money when we don't need to.  There is also probably a lower risk of divorce (aka the financial apocalypse) for us than most couples because we are both deeply religious and our faith forbids divorce so if we run into problems we will work them out instead of cutting and running.

[sheepstache]

As for the major purchases, I've seen the opposite end up being the case. Spouse A wants to spend X on a major purchase, while Spouse B wants to spend X+Y on a purchase. The actual number usually ends up being a lot closer to X + Y because Spouse A wants to make Spouse B happy more than they want to be frugal. The "some things just aren't worth fighting about" argument. I saw this happen recently with a kitchen remodel. Spendy Spouse got the (60K!!!) kitchen she wanted, Not As Spendy Spouse shrugged and said "Happy wife, happy life".

Same for going out. Spouse A wants to stay in, Spouse B wants to go out to eat. The couple eats out a lot more than the more frugal spouse wants to because keeping Spendy Spouse content is more important. Fess up MMM crowd, who has been in this boat more than once?

This absolutely happens with me! My SO likes to eat out a lot. He might eat out a bit less because I cook, but my eating out budget is certainly higher than on my own. I like to take vacations. On his own SO, wouldn't bother, so his vacation budget is higher than it would be. In fact, my vacation budget is higher than it would be because we have to compromise because SO insists on higher quality accommodation and food than I would get on my own. In a relationship, it doesn't make sense for just one person to eat out or to go on vacations on their own.

Still contemplating the cash cushion. While I agree with you on the surface, aren't the odds of a couple finding themselves unemployed now double? I've seen a number of couples where that has in fact happened, and only rarely was the other income sufficiently large to absorb the financial shock.

Very true, but let's assume the question was asked in a mustachian context, in which case if you're living on only 1 of the incomes, it provides a benefit.

[Oldsmobile]

"Garth.  Marriage is punishment for shoplifting in some countries."

[Melody]

The best financial decsion one can make is to marry the right person, the worst is to marry the wrong person ;-)

[wepner]

I completely agree, but there is no point on these boards. Remember, you can't judge anyone, for anything, unless you are judging someone who doesn't agree with a "all life choices are equally valid and good" mindset.

All life choices are equally valid . . . unless, of course, the life choice in question is Conservative Christian.  In that one instance, people feel free to throw all the stones they want. 

Plenty of evidence shows that kids are better off in a married household with two parents:  That the kids are likely to achieve more education, that the kids are less likely to be in trouble with the law, that girls are less likely to be teen moms, etc.  Plenty of evidence shows that people who are married tend to be happier and to accumulate more wealth.  Old-fashioned values were better in a lot of ways.

You made these points separate paragraphs so I am not 100% sure, but it seems like you are implying that somehow people that aren't conservative Christians don't support marriage or don't have "old-fashioned" values.

I strongly disagree, but if that wasn't your intention then I guess we should just go on our separate ways lol.

[teen persuasion]

.

Plenty of evidence shows that kids are better off in a married household with two parents:  That the kids are likely to achieve more education, that the kids are less likely to be in trouble with the law, that girls are less likely to be teen moms, etc.  Plenty of evidence shows that people who are married tend to be happier and to accumulate more wealth.  Old-fashioned values were better in a lot of ways.

But is this causation or correlation?  Are people happier because they are married, or stay married because they are happy?  Are their kids less troubled simply because their parent are married, or because they are being raised in a happy family with two parents to share the load?

We live a more comfortable life as a married couple than we would as two singles, especially since I was SAHM to our five kids for nearly 20 years.  I'm working now, but there is no way I could support myself on that part-time no benefits job.  DH's job providing benefits, esp medical, for the entire family is key.

My employment situation is a hidden benefit of marriage, to the larger society.  I work in a small public library.  The pay is low, there are no benefits, but we do it largely for our community.  We can "afford" to take jobs like this because our spouses' jobs provide benefits for their families (us).  If these positions had to provide a more realistic salary and benefits, the library's budget, and the community's taxes, would greatly increase.

[MrsPete]

You made these points separate paragraphs so I am not 100% sure, but it seems like you are implying that somehow people that aren't conservative Christians don't support marriage or don't have "old-fashioned" values.

I strongly disagree, but if that wasn't your intention then I guess we should just go on our separate ways lol.

You're stretching the point beyond its original intention, reading more into it than was intended. 

But is this causation or correlation? 

I'd say -- just like nature and nurture -- some of both. 

[smalllife]

I thought this article was relevant:

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/16/354625221/for-more-millennials-its-kids-first-marriage-maybe